Will a new camera really make you a better photographer?

Regarding the OP...

Probably not, but if a photographer knows his/her tools, a new fangled camera that has better specifications can certainly open up the opportunity for better photos (not necessarily a better photographer)

For example:

• You're shooting a picture in less than ideal light. With your old camera you have clean ISO200, with your new camera you have clean ISO400, all things else being equal, the newer camera will either give you a cleaner image, or allow you to use a faster shutter, allowing more subject freezing.

• You're doing sports shooting, you only have 3 AF points, only the center one is cross, you're trying to focus on players moving towards you, you're typical technique is to focus lock then recompose, obviously this wouldn't work well for subjects moving towards/away from you rapidly. Given a new camera with more bells and whistles such as numerous cross type focus points, you can place your focus poing right on the players body part you want in focus, and avoid the recompose step, increasing your in focus shots. Same photographer, but better photos

I could go on an on.

The photographer and his/her skills might not change, but the quality of the photos, and ability to shoot in more challenging situations will.

I don't buy all that garbage that it's all in the photographer, yes a good photographer could really make a cheaper camera sing... but there are situations where you can't take the same photos with a PnS that you could with a D700 + f/1.4 prime.

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Olympus e-510 L1
http://www.joesiv.com

IMO there's two parts to taking pictures: skill and gear. You need both. Now for me definately there's people out there who can take better pictures with my E-500 than I could ever dream of, but that doesn't mean that I won't be taking better pictures with an E-30.

I agree with you that we should be careful about blaming gear for a lack of skill, but there's some point where the gear does become a limiting factor and that should not be ignored either. It's not because others manage to work within the limitations of a certain camera that you need to bind yourself to these same limitations, especially considering that they may be doing a different kind of photography altogether.

In my case, for example, my E-500 will never take great high-iso shots no matter how good my skill becomes (but I can still get good landscape shots out of it).
--
Mithandir,
Eternal Amateur
http://www.wizardtrails.com/

yes - all great points. I used to roll my own film to get about 45 or so shots a roll and lower the cost. But when you had to buy the film you were much more circumspect on each shot than todays 'chimp and erase and try again' mindset.

And I can resonate with the zooms being lousy compared to primes. That's one of the things I love about SHG's. It's like having a bag full of primes.
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

you'll enjoy that! So you waited till the price drop.

It dropped about 5 weeks after I got mine
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

http://www.fototime.com/inv/407B931C53A9D9D

Gidday John

John Mason said:

you'll enjoy that! So you waited till the price drop.

Click to expand...

Thanks, mate. An even better deal than that ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction):
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

bbodine9 said:

Will a new camera really make you a better photographer?

Click to expand...

Not just new, but a more able camera,

If you already are a competent photographer - yes, absolutely
If you still do not know what to do with it - most likely not

http://pbase.com/sngreen

bbodine9 said:

I guess there is something in all of us that lets us perceive that a new camera with all the latest bells and whistles will let us create much better photos than ever before. However I know that for me the E-1 renders some beautiful photos in the hands of any really good photographer, John Isaac comes to mind, and that my skills are still needing devleopment to reach this level of proficiency. Does anyone else feel like this?

Click to expand...

The 2 points in your statement are not mutually exclusive. A new (and improved) camera WILL let you take much better photos inasmuch as your previous photos were hindered by the previous camera's limitations. If my mediocre pictures were also plagued with camera shake blur, and I buy a camera with image stabilization, my mediocre pictures will still be mediocre but at least they will be less blurry. So while I may have yet a lot to learn about composition, etc., I may still reap immediate benefits in photo quality by updating my equipment.

If your are moving from Film to Digital, maybe yes because you can take more photos and learn from your mistakes. Maybe no because you just blaze away and dont take any notice of the mistakes.

If you are moving from a P&S to a DSLR, it probably will. It will enable you to learn about the mechanics and capabilities of lenses and cameras to produce an image.

I have an entry level DSLR that understandably struggles in the uneven low light of community opera. I have learnt a lot trying to get good results and have become a 'better photographer'. I know that a D700 would make it a lot easier. I might not be a better photographer using a D700 but some people watching me or looking at the results might think I am.

Results are important if you area a photographer. I have said in other threads that my results in uneven low light have been satisfactory.



Fortunately or unfortunately, I have just bought a new monitor to replace my old Sony Trinitron. The daylight photos are stunning but my theatre shots show a level of graininess and noise that I thought I had controlled with exposure compensation, pp and Neat image. I am stunned.

I always knew that I had to wait for technology to develop so that I could be confident that high ISO and low light results would not be at risk because of the limitations of the sensor. I always planned to be patient. Doubts about the quality of the results were kept under control by the prints and my ability to control the screen output.

While the prints are good, the onscreen result with my new monitor is pretty much uncomfortably unacceptable.

Maybe I can fix it through reprocessing with the new monitor.

Maybe I need a new camera now so that I have the confidence to front up and do another theatre job because a 'better photographer' has to produce better results.

Aaaah!! - for me a new camera may make a better photographer.

--
Purpleray

Because nobody really believes that.

Good photographer or not, the better camera will tend to produce technically better images of the same scene, and it may even let you take a photograph under circumstances a less good camera just wouldn't at all.

If you want to talk about becoming a better photographer, compare photography courses and teachers, not cameras. Cameras are, in principle, for making the best out of however good a photographer's skills are.

Cheers,
Robert

A new camera won't make a bad photographer a good one but it will make a good one better. A new cameras is usually purchased because it has abilities that the old camera did not have , so in that aspect, I think yes, it would help make me a better photographer, besides, IT's FUN.

DonR
Please excuse my spelling.
http://donr.zenfolio.com/

These posts happen everywhere around DPReview!

Seems like some people misunderstand their nostalgy for the good old, blaming for their melancholy an "unmotivated technological race which enslaves people's freedom of thought and makes them chase all the time the newest equipment".

Truth is: technology, as life!, goes on. What's really good is that while we do get old, and there's no medicine for that, when technology gets old we can simply upgrade!

So just enjoy nostalgy, and the incredible opportunities new equipment brings daily...

Lory

--

'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain

It depends on the subject mater you are shooting. I do wildlife/nature stuff. And a newer more advanced camera does allow me to explore aspects that I previously would never have been able to. I.E. IS gives me more stops on slower glass. Better HIGH ISO performance allows me to shoot in low light. Higher FPS allows the occasional burst when I need it. Higher pixel cont allows me to crop without loosing to much detail. I can take pictures in light that was unusable previously.

There are certain things I can do now that I never could with my older equipment. I think I take better pictures so there for I should be a better photographer. The old masters would thing the where in paradise with today’s tech. I believe that older equipment can be a creative hindrance.

That why I shoot digital and my old film stuff is gathering dust in their bags.

--
Collin

http://www.pbase.com/collinbaxter

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away. (George Carlin)

Robert Schroeder said:

Good photographer or not, the better camera will tend to produce technically better images of the same scene, and it may even let you take a photograph under circumstances a less good camera just wouldn't at all.

If you want to talk about becoming a better photographer, compare photography courses and teachers, not cameras. Cameras are, in principle, for making the best out of however good a photographer's skills are.

Click to expand...

Well said.

I work in a school where photography is taught to a fairly high level (City & Guilds), but I always say, you can teach someone photgraphy, but that does not make that person a photographer.

Regards,

John
--
Who is that in the hyperfocal distance?

Around here, there's a lot of body chat. Having gone from E20-E1-E330-E3-EP1, I've found that body upgrades are strictly incremental. The better bodies didn't really take better photographs, but they did make some things more convenient.

Where I have seen a leap in photographic capability is in glass upgrades. The 7-14 made possible shots that were previously unthinkable. The PL25 imparts a subtle but exquisite effect, as well as being darn fast. The 50-200 and 50 Macro? When it absolutely, positively has to be sharp...

I bought the 7-14 and PL25 shortly before getting the E3. Adding those two lenses did a lot more than adding the E3 body.

I will confess, the EP1 has been a hoot to use. It opens doors in that it's darn near invisible when you carry it. No one seems to notice it.

Yes if the new camera inspires you to be more creative and take more photos.

--
Big Mike
http://www.bigmikephotoblog.com

Gidday Ray

purpleray wrote:
. . . SNIP . . .

purpleray said:

Fortunately or unfortunately, I have just bought a new monitor to replace my old Sony Trinitron. The daylight photos are stunning but my theatre shots show a level of graininess and noise that I thought I had controlled with exposure compensation, pp and Neat image. I am stunned.

Click to expand...

STOP pixel peeping, mate ... ... you will go blind; and mad, lol.

Seriously though, there is a reason I prefer to use a CRT monitor. I have two flat panel displays in the house, one is even a calibrated sRGB monitor (Philips). Both of them show photos pretty badly. My CRT monitors I use for photo editing do not ... Nor do the prints, or the web ...

Both of the panel displays are even pretty ordinary looking at web images ...

I look forward to the day when aRGB panels become available at a price that is not double the cost of the rest of a super-modern, super-fast computer ...

purpleray said:

I always knew that I had to wait for technology to develop so that I could be confident that high ISO and low light results would not be at risk because of the limitations of the sensor. I always planned to be patient. Doubts about the quality of the results were kept under control by the prints and my ability to control the screen output.

Click to expand...

What panel monitor did you buy? And have you calibrated it? Maybe you need a new graphics card?

purpleray said:

While the prints are good, the onscreen result with my new monitor is pretty much uncomfortably unacceptable.

Click to expand...

As I said, just stop looking at things at 100%, unless this is the size you are going to print ...

purpleray said:

Maybe I can fix it through reprocessing with the new monitor.

Click to expand...

More likely the prints will then crash ...

purpleray said:

Maybe I need a new camera now so that I have the confidence to front up and do another theatre job because a 'better photographer' has to produce better results.

Aaaah!! - for me a new camera may make a better photographer.

Click to expand...

Nah ...

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction):
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

I happen to agree with the old saying that the camera is the tool, the person controlling the camera provides the vision, control and talent that dictates the result.

Here's a story about an award winning Photojournalist, Alex Majoli who happened to use Olympus P&S digicams;

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

As much as I like my E-30, I really aspire to improving my 'vision and talent'.
Zig

Yes. In low light scenes and when I have to maintain a certain minimum shutter speed to capture kids' concert or sports (no flash allowed). Well, that's the only case I can clearly see (and from my own usage experience) that faster lens or high ISO capability makes me a "better" photographer - clear shots vs no or blurred/blotched shots. For other cases I doubt it would be of much difference to me - the camera is then better than me anyways

Hi John

My Sony trinitron was really old in the tooth. Light and contrast was fading rapidly. I bought a Benq E2420HD monitor online from somewhere in Victoria (Ferntree Gully). It has an sRGB and Photo display mode as well as the ability to recalibrate a standard mode. It has a test screen and some of its own calibration processes which I have used in a quick installation. The Photo mode is terrible but the sRGB mode seems OK.

I have only briefly looked at photos in Lightroom, Picasa slide viewer and Windows fax and print viewer. My son is doing one of his final university assignments on 'my photo processing computer'. He claims it's the only reliable one in the house (we have three plus a laptop). So I am just quickly looking at slides in all the glory of 1900x1040 24 inch screen and not really pixel peeping.

The daylight shots are stunning in terms of colour and resolution. Some of the theatre shots come out fine, others show banding and noise that I had addressed in original pp on my Sony Trinitron. The noise and banding looks worst in Lightroom, then Windows fax and picture viewer, and least bad in Picasa slideshows.

For theatre, I usually have a short turnaround time. A lot of my pp time is spent eliminating bad noisy shots and fixing noise from other shots I want to use. I tend to go for the leads and the wider stage and not just to zoom in on the head and shoulders of the leads - hence my problem with dynamic range, uneven light and noise.

The positive thing is I can see my shots warts and all. There are some things I have missed in original pp that I can clean up. I'm not sure I can completlely clean up the banding and noise from my ISO1600 shadows but at least I will know where I stand. They do print fine upto A4 - so that's a relief.

When my son finishes his assignment, I will do a more careful calibration. Happy to hear any more ideas.

I guess I will look for an Oly sensor upgrade sooner rather than later.

Thanks

Cheers

--
Purpleray

G'day again Ray

I really have to run, but the ambient light may well be affecting what you are seeing much more with the panel as against the CRT. Make certain that the editing area is always lit the same, with no direct light in your field of view, or impinging on the screen.

And BTW, Benq are not renowned for the IQ of their monitors AFAIK, but I could be re-educated about that ...

Just FWIW.

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php
Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction):
http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group