Reading mode: Light Dark

Photographer or Camera?

Go to last post
Ok so is to say that the 1 of the 4 other shots wouldn't have been better? You'll never know :)
Evil4blue said:
What's that buy you; 4 other very siimilar shots. Great, why would
any one of those shots be better than the one he actually got.
Seriously, give me a valid argument. Higher FPS doesn't make your
antipation any better. If anything, a faster FPS makes Mediocre
sports photogs look better than they really are. The really good
photogs would get the shot either way, regardless of FPS; they've
been doing it for years.
Click to expand...
If that is true, then why don't pros still shoot manual focus bodies or slow lenses? It would be more econmical. A better camera will allow for better photography. It will allow a great photographer to get a little more out of his/her skills. The return/improvement the camera provides isn't linear; it will be different for each photographer, but to say that great photographers can get the shot they want with older outdated gear is a leap I just can't make.
Evil4blue said:
What your argument really is, will a better, faster camera help the
average photographer? Yes, I'll concede you that, but I don't
think it really helps the exceptional photographer. The
exceptional photographer will always find a way to get the shot
that he wants, regardless of their equiptment.

--
Evil4blue
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=13074
Click to expand...
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
 
I've read the books and I hear where he is coming from. Look at an F6. Too small for my taste, but it's a small machine gun :)
Ed_C said:
Read a bit about Galen Rowell. It's a safe bet he would PREFER and
FE2 to a D2X for the shots he's most famous for. In his books he
mentions time after time his preference for a smaller camera and
didn't rely on machine gun shutters and he didn't lug around a bag
full of lenses.

Great Photographer + acurate shutter speed + accurate aperture +
great glass + good light = great photo.

--
Ed C.
Click to expand...
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
 
I kept reading over and over the last two weeks about how the camera is only a tool and a tiny piece of the equation. To me if you are going to take that kind of hardline approach then you better sell your D2X, D2Hs, etc. because it isn't important.
Jeff Kohn said:
I guess what bothers me about the "It's the photographer" folks is
that some of tham have taken a truth and
exaggerated/over-simplified it into a trite cliche that pops up
every time someone thinks a "gear head" has or is lusting after
better equipment than their talent warrants.

--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn
Click to expand...
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
 
I'm with you there. I look at luck and the subject matter as being very important. I mean hey you can't take a great shot, even if you are a phenomenal photographer if you are in a close :)
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
 
I picked the D50 because it's the entry level camera. The D50 if it had CF support would be a great camera as a back up or walk around body for me. It's light, has great hi ISO support, etc. I was focusing more on price. I should have ellaborated on the fact my point was if it isnt the camera then why not just get a sub 1000 D50 instead of a 5000 D2X.
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my current gear.
 
Donald C said:
aw....comon....

I said 50% luck....not 100%.

I'm sure Ansel Adams cannot control the moon....the sun nor the
clouds, no matter how skilled you are or how good your equipment is.

Here's the breakdown according to your post:

Waking up earlier = photographer skill
Scoping out best angles = photographer skill
Lens and format of camera = equipment
Magic light = luck

Unfortunately, it is the "magic light" that makes or breaks the
image. That is why I weighted "luck" as 50%.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess to some extent I agree with you that there's an element of luck, but I also agree with those who say good photographers make their own luck. No, Ansel can't control the moon or the clouds. However, he can study charts to determine the moon's path across the sky, and he can check weather forecasts and familiarize himself with the weather patterns in an area. If the forecast calls for a stormfront to come in on a given afternoon, and he knows that by going to a certain location he will be able to compose a shot with the moon where he wants it and a good chance of dramatic cloud formations, is it really luck when everything comes together and he gets the shot?

--
Jeff Kohn
Houston, TX
http://www.pbase.com/jkohn
 
The photographer is what makes a good picture good.

However, I think you've taken this too far in your mind. No one is saying that ONLY the photographer matters--obviously for some specific shots the right camera equipment is necessary.

But if you hand a good photographer any camera, they will take interesting photos. They won't be the same photos from camera to camera though. Imagine a photographer at a football game...obviously they are going to take a different photo with a P&S than with a D2X with a 400m telephoto. BUT (and this is the point), while the two images will be very different, a good photographer can make them both interesting and good images within their own right. So for instance with the P&S they might make sideline character portraits, and with the D2X + 400m they might shoot tight, exciting action shots. Totally different types of images, but they can each be art in their own way.

So no one is saying that a good photographer can take any picture with any equipment. That's no more true than saying a good carpenter can build a beautiful cabinet with any tools. Obviously for specific tasks you will sometimes need specific tools.

But it is true that a skilled artist (of any kind) can make good art with the tools at their disposal.

And if someone is NOT a good photographer, they will make boring lame pictures no matter what you put in their hands. The artist's vision is the key to the art; the tools simply bring it into being.
 
...This was shot with a D100. Could the D2Hs have doen it better???



--
'I'd knock on wood for good luck, but it just gives me a headache!!!'
 
The better tool, usually gives you better results. Results vary of course.....some just like to think the camera does not matter...but I disagree. Sure you can compose a picture with any camera and use light with any camera, but the quality of the digital image produce is highly dependent on the camera or tool. I don't see why there are those that get so upset about this issue. If a person can afford the best, then I how fortunate for them! Just my rambling.
Ken
 
Adam Kmiec said:
Ok so is to say that the 1 of the 4 other shots wouldn't have been
better? You'll never know :)
Evil4blue wrote:
Click to expand...
Well of course one could be better, but the Orr shot proves that even without all the current techno-gadgets, people could still take a successful picture full manual.
Adam Kmiec said:
If that is true, then why don't pros still shoot manual focus
bodies or slow lenses? It would be more economical. A better
camera will allow for better photography. It will allow a great
photographer to get a little more out of his/her skills. The
return/improvement the camera provides isn't linear; it will be
different for each photographer, but to say that great
photographers can get the shot they want with older outdated gear
is a leap I just can't make.
Click to expand...
You're really starting to draw a line between types of photogs and what their output needs to be. For photojournalist and sports photographers, speed is the name of the game. If a camera can provide you with reasonable results in full auto, that helps these types out because they're looking for maximum output. Heck a lot of these guys shoot jpg just to reduce PP time.

Portrait and art photographers are more likely to shoot in manual (not saying they do) because it gives them full control of the way their end product looks. Does the new technology help these types, well sure, but I'd argue a lot less then the guy needing to pump out pictures to get to press.

I don't want to argue against technology, I love it and am always looking for the next big thing. But I get the feeling that you believe that the technology makes a photographer better, and that I don't necessarily agree with. I think it can help, but there's a lot more to photography than Autofocus and FPS.

--
Evil4blue
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=13074
 
Nikon hands out CoolPix like candy to their ultra-high profile pro shooters. In return, it asks them to shoot some with the camera and send favorites to Nikon. The Nikon calendar last year was all coolpix images, and every one of them was a total jaw dropper. In one of the images, the woman dialed up the ISO into ultra-noise territory, massively underexposed, then pulled the image up - on purpose, for the effect. Talk about a lesson in understanding a camera's strengths and weaknesses for expressing yourself.

The CoolPix catalogs also have astonishing shots done by the big name pros. My favorite was seeing a mountain biking race shot by one of the sports pros, using a Coolpix 5700, which was legendary among normal people for having horrible shutter lag and being the worst camera in the world for shooting action. Well, here was this portfolio of shots of mountain bikers in the air, with the bike laid over almost on its side in a sliding skid, etc. He didn't think there was any lag problem to speak of. Sigh.

There are days when I think I need different genes to be the photographer I want to be.

--

'Everything I know I learned from someone else. Life doesn't get much easier than that.'

http://www.onemountainphoto.com
 
Sounds to me as if you answered your own question. How cool is that?
 
I can only speak for myself, but I like the fact that I can crop more with the D200. I shoot a lot of birds, and they don't seem to want to sit still long enough for me to perfectly compose the picture. :) I also like the weather sealing on the D200, as the weather can get very extreme where I live. To an extend, it is true that it is mostly the photographer who creates a beautifull image. But..., having a better tool in the hands of a capable photographer, can help make the job a lot easier. Just my opinion.
kind regards,
Olivia
Adam Kmiec said:
I keep reading in this forum how a camera is just a tool and it's
the photographer that is responsabile for the final image. But
then again I also keep reading posts from all these D2X and D2Hs
owners and all these owners looking to upgrade from a D100 or a
D70s to the D200. So here is what I don't get, if the camera is a
tool then why would anyone even both buying a $5,000 D2X or a $3500
D2Hs or the $1700 D200?

Let me say that I own a D100 and a D2Hs, and I believe that the
camera matters just as much as the photographer using it. A good
camera with the right specs is invaluable. If the camera was only
a tool we'd all be shooting P&S digital cameras or D50s. I guess I
just don't get it; to me a great photographer with an inferior
camera will have difficulty producing great shots. Imagine a
sports photographer shooting an event with a D100. Take that same
sports photographer and give him a D2Hs and it's a different
scenario. The 8 FPS and 35+ buffer would make all the difference.
--
Patiently awaiting the first Nikon FF DSLR, while enjoying my
current gear.
Click to expand...
--
Olivia
http://www.pbase.com/soulsurfer/galleries
http://photos.yahoo.com/whispersfromspirit
http://public.fotki.com/NatureSpirits/
 
Funny how a group of people always seem to get so "lucky."

It isn't just a matter of the light being there. It is a matter of understanding when it is likely to happen, putting yourself into those situations and knowing how to capture it. Again ... no camera can do that for you.

If you are shooting nature trying to understand how nature acts will make you seem luckier. Adams didn't just happen to climb up mountains lugging 100 lbs. of large format equipment with him and only 8 or 10 exposure plates at the time the the weather was good and the moon was out. He planned it.

If you shoot sports, knowing tendencies of certain players and teams will make you seem luckier.

--
Ed C.
 
Donald C said:
aw....comon....

I said 50% luck....not 100%.

I'm sure Ansel Adams cannot control the moon....the sun nor the
clouds, no matter how skilled you are or how good your equipment is.
Click to expand...
He didn't control it. He studied the weather forcasts and knew when the moon was in a certain phase and when it would be up during the time he wanted to shoot. It isn't rocket science.
Donald C said:
Here's the breakdown according to your post:

Lens and format of camera = equipment
Click to expand...
It is equipment but it isn't luck. There are lots of camera and lens formats to choose from that will get the job. There are very very few shots that can't be captured by multiple different cameras from multiple manufacturers.
Donald C said:
Magic light = luck
Click to expand...
That is only true if you're the kind of person that doesn't plan. It isn't chance that the same guys get the light over and over and over. They know when it is likely to happen and they make sure they are ready for it. They also know how to expose a shot properly to take advantage of it.

Read more books by great phogotraphers and you will see over and over that they maximize their "luck" in a way that other people don't. I am willing to bet that if you ask any National Geographic photographer this type of question they aren't going to tell you that they are really lucky. Their employers obviously don't think so.

--
Ed C.
 
What a great series from Powertown! Touching, beautiful, fascinating and inspiring. Images like these are actually very powerful. You really should post them here as well.

Oh, I wish I'll be able to see South Africa some day. Too bad it's so god damn expensive. A two week trip from Sweden costs like a D2X, whereas a two week trip to Thailand (much further away) costs like half a D200. How do you explain that?
Regards
Lasse
 
I own a D2h is simple- it makes my job easier. I could definitely work around certain weaknesses in a slower camera, but why bother if a better tool is out there?

Big powerful cameras only make the job easier. They don't ensure better results, but the the likelihood of achieving them is much greater.

Heck, my D2h is in for repair for a month, and I now get a 10D with a 70-200 f/4. Do you think my shots are going to be any different? Not on your life.
--
Learning. Day by day. How exciting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top