I've been using DSLR cameras for many years now... Started with the 20D, then 40D, and now I've been using the 5D Mark II since around it's release date. Love the 5D2 but with L glass it's hard to "always" taken with you which is why I've considered a Leica m8.2 or m9 with a 28mm, 35mm, or 50mm lens.
Anyway, I was with a friend of mine on Monday at the Missouri Botanical Gardens and it was a scorcher (it was unbelievably hot outside) I had no camera with me except for my iPhone 4's built in camera which is EXCELLENT for a smart phone camera, but not something I would rely heavily on. I could not have handled the 5D and lenses that day, I would have killed me (not literally) but it would have been very painful to say the least.
We where ended up near this maze garden and near the top of this overlook you could see the entire thing. I was about to take a photo when this young child suddenly started to dash through the maze. Not only was I lucky enough to photograph him, but while he was in mid air as well. If you look at the photo from a more abstract or artistic stand point it says things (to me) about the innocence of children/childhood, it also has a bit of a phallic symbolism to it perhaps implying that the maze is a child who can not wait to be an adult, or more precisely, the journey of moving from childhood to adult hood. I thought the shot resembles some of Henri Cartier-Bresson's work, who along with William Eggleston have been a huge influence on me. No processing at all, no ultra shallow dof, just a moment captured.
My point is: The best camera is the one that is WITH YOU.
This was my first time seeing such strong immedite negative reactions to a post, at least to a post that struck me as quite innocent. I mean, what's there to disagree with? Having any camera at a lucky moment is surely better than nothing, and 5 megapixels was top of the line 7-8 years ago. Many fine photos were taken with limited-quality cameras. Cartier-Bresson's 35 mm camera did not come close to the level of detail of what was the standard for quality photography at that time (I think medium format?). And the OP never actually claimed that his iPhone picture was the best picture in the world, just his best picture (and it seems from later clarification that he meant "a surprisingly good picture given that it was taken with a phone").
As for the interpretation attached to the picture, I happen to disagree with the comments that the story a picture tells does not "count" if it wasn't planned. To me, the picture is all that matters. If it tells a story, it does not bother me that the story arose by accident, or that the photo was not taken with a Hasselblad. But to each his/her own opinion on this matter. I imagine a lot has already been written about this topic.
I think, as the OP later clarified, that the post touched a nerve because it was possible to read it as putting down the value of high-quality cameras, and this is after all a gear-oriented forum. But I am glad this was clarified, because I think many would agree that higher-quality cameras are helpful, but that a phone camera these days can be good enough for capturing a lucky moment very well.
What I found most remarkable, as Biological_viewfinder said, is the OP's courage in responding to the initial critical posts, because some of these had quite a negative tone. And I was also impressed that Biological_viewfinder recognized the OP's persistence, and his/her own maturity in taking back his/her original response. The evolution of this post was a remarkable example of how initial tension between comments can proceed to a rich, worthwhile discussion.
My own reaction to the OP is: 1. you took a nice picture with your iPhone. I do like how it captures the carefree aspects of childhood. 2. You took several great pictures with your other gear. 3. I too am excited that modern technology lets us have an acceptable-quality camera with us at all times.
And my own comments about gear: its importance is overrated, and for very understandable reasons. We
know how to improve our gear and technical possibilities, meaning there is a method that can be easily prescribed and, with enough money, achieved. Whereas we don't "know" as easily how to create better pictures. There are guidelines and tips, but there isn't a simple recipe for how to reliably improve the quality of our pictures. Therefore many of us understandably do what we can (improve our gear) as soon as we can afford to, and then spend our time focusing on that much more elusive goal, of improving our photos. And we spend time discussing gear to make sure we have the best possible tool in our hands: given how hard and unpredictable it is to take a great picture, the last thing we want is to miss it because we didn't take care of what was comparatively easier to do, i.e. obtaining the right gear.
In this light, the OP's initial post can be viewed as a gear-supporting comment, rather than a put-down of expensive cameras. After he was indirrectly praising the special technical features of his phone camera (good enough to capture certain types of shots, and small enough to be with you at all times). Now we just have to wait for L glass to be wedged into that phone's slim frame
.
Drusus
