To everyone that says it's the photographer not the camera

I don't think the bokeh is all that bad in the D3 shot. but the OP was taling about DR and if you look at the lost details under the bushes in the background compared to the retained detail in the dugouts on the "G" shots Also in some of these shots there are smoother trasitions between the shading on the "G" shots than on the D3 could be the angle of the light I suppose. Were lucky we have these baseball shots because the lighting is similar to the D3 shot. But you see the voids where one horse casts shadow on the other. the baseball shots are all pretty basic colour wise to it's a little harder to judge colour

--
F717 (Legendary)
A700 (what a fantastic machine)
A200 (Almost as fantastic)

I tend to agree with tomslot. The baseball shots are great but certainly not better except for the bokeh maybe.
--
Sony DSC-H50 P&S
Olympus E-510 w/ dual kit lenses (28-84mm/80-300mm equiv. 35mm)
Sony A350

To the OP:

I definitely have to agree with Your statement. Camera matters. Period. However, I am wondering about Your proof. First, as far as I remember the DR of Your monitor (unless You have a really expensive one) cannot match the DR of Your camera. Therefore I do not think Your observation is valid about DR. Moreover, the test on DPR showed that the A700 has better DR than the D3. Again, I agree with Your original statement but I have to say that the picture looks great because of the careful post processing not because of the camera.

G.

--
Zeiss is the Rodenstock of lenses.

Many of these conversations are confusing image quality with artistic quality. That D3 horse pic is more pleasing to me than the baseball pics but they are all very nice and the colors involved are so different it's hard to judge one against the other. I think blurred backgrounds are a personal preference, I find my eye distracted by the blur in the baseball shots but drawn to the horse in the D3 pics, but that is likely because the image of the horse fills the scene so you're not distracted by the blur. But there again personal preference enters in because I like running horses and animal pics better than baseball.

Check out how clear this little white dog is in these pics click "more" for others.
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sony/sal_70_300_45_56_g

mike_2008 said:

What I am simply saying is a remarkable tool allows you to do
remarkable things, this example shows to me at least that the D3 is
capable of capturing a certain quality of photo that I have rarely
seen; I hope that the A900 will be able to do the same.

Click to expand...

Maybe a difference in terms. A better tool doesn't enable to you do anything. It is just more difficult to achieve the amzing image with an unremarkable tool.

mike_2008 said:

While a technically flawed photo can be beautiful, it requires much
more skill from the photographer. A camera that has the capacity to
produce an exceptionally high technical quality increases the
possibility that good fortune rewards even the untalented with
something remarkable. Let's be honest here, there's probably a bit of
luck in even the greatest of images.

Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree with this more. There is so much more that goes into getting the shot than just the camera settings. There is the ability to anticipate the image the moment before cature, the knowelde about where to set up so that you can get the shot, knowing how the lighting will work in that location.

Thewn there is what happens after the shoot. I am not talking about post-processing, I am talking about image selection. People getting their first camera (usually APS-c cameras) tend to not have honed their skills enough to pick "the shot" from the garbage. It is all about being able to see the differences in the shots so that the best can be picked out, and be able to tell if there is ANY that are worth showing. A camera operator relying on "luck" can't tell the difference. An artist can.

When I provide C&C, I NEVER ask "why did you take that picture?" Hopefully, the answer will be "because I had a vision of what I wanted to capture> " I will ask "why did you pick that image."

--
Refusing to take pictures of my cats.

Chad, I hear you, i'm just saying you can have all the vision you want, but if the camera sucks your photo is probably going to suck too. On the contrary if you have a little bit of vision and a superb camera, you'll be overly rewarded, imo...

First off, I totally agree with you that the equipment has a huge effect. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the Canon lineup at sports events.

As far as individual photo examples, I'd need to know how much time was spent in post processing. Spend 6 hours on an image in Photoshop and you lose whatever truth existed about the image as it was.

So many of the "fabulous" photo I see displayed here, on Dyxum and in galleries all over the internet are a triumph of the skill at Photoshop and time available to the post processor.

I've seen some shots from posters here that have a 3-d quality that didn't come right out of the camera.

jimb100 said:

First off, I totally agree with you that the equipment has a huge
effect. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the Canon lineup at sports events.

As far as individual photo examples, I'd need to know how much time
was spent in post processing. Spend 6 hours on an image in Photoshop
and you lose whatever truth existed about the image as it was.

So many of the "fabulous" photo I see displayed here, on Dyxum and in
galleries all over the internet are a triumph of the skill at
Photoshop and time available to the post processor.

Click to expand...

Yet is this any different than what a skilled developer could have done in the darkroom? Have you ever studied how the great Ansel Adams produced his pictures? You may be surprised.

jimb100 said:

I've seen some shots from posters here that have a 3-d quality that
didn't come right out of the camera.

Click to expand...

This is right out of the camera:



These took maybe two minutes in PS:











Nothing spectacular but good images that do not require hours and hours in photoshop.

But really, if the end goal is the printed image, who cares how it was made?

One day I hope to be a photoshop master as I feel it will take my final image to the next level.

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!

jimb100 said:

First off, I totally agree with you that the equipment has a huge
effect. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the Canon lineup at sports events.

Click to expand...

This has a lot more to do with fps than IQ and even more to do with the ability to rent equipment and have support available wherever you are. It's that factor that maters most to a Pro who has to get the image or his family doesn't eat.

The bulk of those images taken at sport events by the Canon brigade will be reproduced at a low resolution in news papers and magazines not blown up in galleries where the IQ and artistic merit really count.

Yes, no depth at all.





A700, Tamron 90mm SP DI.

jimb100 said:

First off, I totally agree with you that the equipment has a huge
effect. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the Canon lineup at sports events.

Click to expand...

Don't discount the importance at Marketing.. Canon pays good money to be seen at many sporting events...also...

This is a nice image but I am not sure I buy the "only on a D3" concept.. I think lots of the cameras with good glass could also do this.. and again we don't know how much PP which would have a large effect on curves and colors.

jimb100 said:

As far as individual photo examples, I'd need to know how much time
was spent in post processing. Spend 6 hours on an image in Photoshop
and you lose whatever truth existed about the image as it was.

So many of the "fabulous" photo I see displayed here, on Dyxum and in
galleries all over the internet are a triumph of the skill at
Photoshop and time available to the post processor.

I've seen some shots from posters here that have a 3-d quality that
didn't come right out of the camera.

Click to expand...

--
Ken_ 5D
(Happy A700 owner who hasnt sold the 5D yet hmm?)
See my stuff at http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

I would love to say that gear makes no difference but I can't. However, I can't fully agree with the title of this thread either.

The truth is that a great photographer can fully use great gear to make extraordinary images on a consistent basis. A poor or mediocre photographer with great gear will get an extraordinary shot every once in a while but there will be nothing consistent about it.

I could go out and buy an 85/1.4 CZ today but that would not make my portraits look those of aarif overnight. I might get one every now and then in his league but my hit count would be way low in comparison to his.

These are just the facts.

Nor do I think that most people can consistently look at photographs and tell what gear was used to create the image. There is not a lot of the camera left in the frame unless one is using truly unique gear (like the 135 STF, for example). It is my opinion that standard gear renders photos that, once finished and printed, become largely indistinguishable in terms of the specific camera/lens combination used. Sure, you might be able to say "this was a medium format" or "that was likely shot on an APS-C sensor" but I don't believe there are many people in the world who could look at a printed photo and say "that was a Nikon D3 with a 70-200/2.8 VR lens".

Nor do I think it is important.

In short, gear can potentially keep a great photographer from getting the shot he wants/needs but it rarely elevates a poor photographer to the ranks of the great.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/bobfloyd

Ken_5D said:

jimb100 said:

First off, I totally agree with you that the equipment has a huge
effect. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the Canon lineup at sports events.

Click to expand...

Don't discount the importance at Marketing.. Canon pays good money to
be seen at many sporting events...also...

Click to expand...

I sure wish I could get some of that "good money", LOL!!

Ken_5D said:

This is a nice image but I am not sure I buy the "only on a D3"
concept.. I think lots of the cameras with good glass could also do
this.. and again we don't know how much PP which would have a large
effect on curves and colors.

Click to expand...

Exactly, this is more a characteristic of the glass than the camera I believe.

Ken_5D said:

Ken_5D said:

--

Click to expand...

Ken_ 5D
(Happy A700 owner who hasnt sold the 5D yet hmm?)
See my stuff at http://www.cascadephotoworks.com

Click to expand...

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!

jimb100 said:

First off, I totally agree with you that the equipment has a huge
effect. Otherwise, we wouldn't see the Canon lineup at sports events.

As far as individual photo examples, I'd need to know how much time
was spent in post processing. Spend 6 hours on an image in Photoshop
and you lose whatever truth existed about the image as it was.

So many of the "fabulous" photo I see displayed here, on Dyxum and in
galleries all over the internet are a triumph of the skill at
Photoshop and time available to the post processor.

I've seen some shots from posters here that have a 3-d quality that
didn't come right out of the camera.

Click to expand...

Five minutes.

That's my target time for post-processing low-light images. It's only that long because it takes a wee while to do noise reduction.

Occasionally I go over that target, if for example my work is commissioned and there are distracting objects in the background.
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

---

This was was taken with a Sony A100 ( not the best camera ) with the Minolta 500/f8 Mirror ( not the best bokeh ) and I still think the composition, DOF control, exposure and the capture moment made it a great shot!



... Lucas
--
You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix/root

Always having fun with photography ...

mike_2008 said:

Chad, I hear you, i'm just saying you can have all the vision you
want, but if the camera sucks your photo is probably going to suck
too. On the contrary if you have a little bit of vision and a superb
camera, you'll be overly rewarded, imo...

Click to expand...

Mike,

My problem with this statement is that today's camera's are undeniably superior in just about every way to cameras of just a decade ago and yet photographers like Edward Weston and Henri Cartier-Bresson where shooting great images with cameras that were little more than light tight boxes with a shutter and aperture 60 years ago.

If it were so much about the gear then we would all be shooting photos worthy of these two greats who had so little going for them in terms of equipment.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/bobfloyd

mike_2008 said:

Chad, I hear you, i'm just saying you can have all the vision you
want, but if the camera sucks your photo is probably going to suck
too. On the contrary if you have a little bit of vision and a superb
camera, you'll be overly rewarded, imo...

Click to expand...

I think the better photog can overcome sucky equipemnt often, but not always. I think the sucky photog can use great equipment and luck into a good shot sometimes, but will likely not know it. And, having lucked into the right place at the right time, the sucky photog will likely not have known what to do differently to make that good shot great.

I think we are on fairly different ends of this arguement and will each just have to live with it.

A general comment on life itself: those that wind up being great didn't let things like tools (regardless of the quality) prevent them from achieving greatness. Could you imagine Tiger blaming his clubs, or ACL, or stress fracture? could you imagine Michael Jordan blaming his team?

--
Refusing to take pictures of my cats.

Worldwide how many photos were collected in 1900? in 1950? in 1980? in 2007? I would imagine there has been a gradual increase and then an explosion in the last 10 years when digital cameras became available. Statistically many more people, some with talent, are taking more and more photos.

I worded what i said below quite carefully. I am not saying that if you pick up a D3 you become imbued with the spirit of Ansel Adams... I'm saying that someone with a little bit of talent can nowadays do things which were impossible just a few years ago. Great photos still need talent, but beauty can come in many forms, and a great camera certainly helps to achieve this, as it is the natural world which is usually the source of our aesthetic pleasure, and the better we capture it the more we enjoy it.

The D3 picture struck me as I have explained. Others have suggested, quite correctly, that perhaps the high quality of that shot is the product of PPing. I don't know. I just know that I have seen few pictures here that have struck me as the D3 one did.

bobfloyd said:

mike_2008 said:

Chad, I hear you, i'm just saying you can have all the vision you
want, but if the camera sucks your photo is probably going to suck
too. On the contrary if you have a little bit of vision and a superb
camera, you'll be overly rewarded, imo...

Click to expand...

Mike,

My problem with this statement is that today's camera's are
undeniably superior in just about every way to cameras of just a
decade ago and yet photographers like Edward Weston and Henri
Cartier-Bresson where shooting great images with cameras that were
little more than light tight boxes with a shutter and aperture 60
years ago.

If it were so much about the gear then we would all be shooting
photos worthy of these two greats who had so little going for them in
terms of equipment.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/bobfloyd

Click to expand...

Why couldn't the A700 or other Sony DSLRs' take this photo? Nice, but I don't see anything about it that makes me sit up and say, "Wow! Only possible with a Nikon D3!"

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

--
Jay Philip Williams Photographic Design
http://www.jpwphoto.com
http://travelsinlatinamerica.blogspot.com