Reading mode: Light Dark

Can we please stop saying 'The camera doesn't matter'?

Go to last post
eNo

eNo

Forum Pro
Messages
11,744
Solutions
2
Reaction score
358
Location
Los Angeles, CA, US
Just came from reading: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=40791373

Great work. Fantastic results. No doubt. Did the camera not matter?

Let's see, a D40, which in its own right is probably one of the best cameras ever made in its class in terms of capability toward IQ, and a medium format (really?) film camera. Somehow these examples prove the camera does not matter!?

We can all agree that the best camera in the world today in the hands of an unskilled, uninspired photographer won't produce remarkable results. That's not the argument. At all. Yes, we must know how to get the best out of our cameras, and greater yet are the importance of artistic vision and sensitivity to what's at the core of each photograph.

Yet, it is no coincidence that the most talented photographers of our time tend to end up with the most capable cameras. Could it be that they don't want to be held back by equipment limitations, so that they can focus on what their technical skills and artistic vision can achieve? Oh, to hear the tired 'It's not the camera...' cliche here, one would think that's not the case.

Fact of the matter is, even an iPhone today is a far more capable and sophisticated camera than many could get a decade or two ago. Pointing us to an iPhone photo as if it proves the camera doesn't matter misses the point entirely. And photographer/artists who need shallow DOF, low light, or action/sports capability will understand they need to get another camera. They will know this because rather than in spite of their technical skills and artistic vision.

So please, please, please! Can we stop saying that the camera doesn't matter as if it is a self-evident truth? Please?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Splash page: http://downeyweddingphotography.com
Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/
 
It sure as hell matters to me :^)
 
At the current level of technology when we are comparing relative apples to apples (IE DSLR to DSLR)

That today's current run of cameras will provide quality output when handled by a competent photographer.

So in that context, the camera matters less than the brains behind it..

Obviously if your chasing sports and need FPS of a machine gun, then the gear will matter....or if you need more DR...the D7000 or D3X will probably do you better......etc.

And anyone who thinks differently probably has never shoot outside their chosen arena. (Me included....)

Roman
--

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.
~ Albert Einstein

We are officially live!!!!
http://www.commercialfineart.com/
Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
People say 'The camera doesn't matter' just to feel self important and like they are somehow better than people who like to upgrade their gear.
 
There was a link posted recently to some nice images produced with a D40... though it was also paired up with a ~$3500 58mm f/1.2 Noct-NIKKOR lens so I'm sure that helped :-)
 
I agree and am also tired of hearing people say the camera doesn't matter. Just because people have gotten better shots with cheaper bodies or better sports photos with a lower FPS body than I have doesn't prove the camera doesn't matter or higher FPS isn't better for sports.

That said, I also know there are people who are planning to upgrade their D60 to a D800 where the upgrade will likely not make a noticeble difference in the shots they get. However, if they have the money, that is all the right they need to upgrade. When they ask dumb beginner questions, we all have the right to not respond if it annoys us or makes us jealous that someone with zero apparent photo-aptitude has much better equipment than they know what to do with.
 
Does it matter…maybe. Haven't we all seen instances where a fairly capable individual has moved upward and onward to the latest model and their images don’t improve although they think they have. The situation the individual deals with in capturing images in their style or choice has a bit to do with yes the latest and greatest will improve their images. This subject has been turned over way too many times. Frankly, I don’t think there is a definitive response.
BJ
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08
 
Pap38 said:
Does it matter…maybe. Haven't we all seen instances where a fairly capable individual has moved upward and onward to the latest model and their images don’t improve although they think they have. The situation the individual deals with in capturing images in their style or choice has a bit to do with yes the latest and greatest will improve their images. This subject has been turned over way too many times. Frankly, I don’t think there is a definitive response.
Click to expand...
Agreed, especially on that last sentence... which begs the question: why do people keep making that "camera doesn't matter" statement so categorically? If it depends, it depends -- and doesn't then mean we can treat the notion of the all-knowing-all-important photographer Canonical, does it?

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Splash page: http://downeyweddingphotography.com
Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/
 
Pap38 said:
Does it matter…maybe. Haven't we all seen instances where a fairly capable individual has moved upward and onward to the latest model and their images don’t improve although they think they have.
Click to expand...
Ages since I wrote this, but I'm convinced every noob with an amateur body who upgrades to a superior model goes through at least two stages, and hopefully three.

First is the honeymoon period, renewed enthusiasm and vigour - they move mountains and generally show improvement - those cat photos have never looked so good.

Second, the lull - they sit back and think the camera is magic. They end up taking worse photos than they used to as they think the camera is what matters and is doing the business.

Third, the recovery. Hopefully the penny drops and they realise that the rush of blood in phase one lead to early morning rises, chasing light, exploring subjects - and that's what made the difference, they would well have done exactly the same with the first camera. They than build on that and flourish - or they end up spending their life on here talking about what matters...
Pap38 said:
BJ
--

http://www.flickr.com/photos/34495676@N08
Click to expand...
--
http://www.johnleechstudio.co.uk
http://www.johnleechstudio.blogspot.com
 


Not bad for a camera with a limited DR, and cramped pixels, and way older than today current gear.

Again, I am not saying the gear does NOT matter, but when you put someone behind the camera that knows what they are doing.....ANY camera can take a pretty nice pic. I myself would like to revisit that place with a newer camera as I could get larger prints.

But so many people do not take into account that a well exposed, well visualized and well executed shot from even a P&S like this can make for a very solid image. Composition, light, vision, technique...those all come from the processes about 2 inches BEHIND the camera.....and no amount of technology can make up for it.

Roman
--

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious; It is the source of all true art and science.
~ Albert Einstein

We are officially live!!!!
http://www.commercialfineart.com/
Old Web Site
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
eNo said:
Agreed, especially on that last sentence... which begs the question: why do people keep making that "camera doesn't matter" statement so categorically? If it depends, it depends -- and doesn't then mean we can treat the notion of the all-knowing-all-important photographer Canonical, does it?
Click to expand...
Exactly. When it matters, it matters; when it doesn't, it doesn't.

One of the common refrains is "a good artist can create great images with a Holga/iPhone/whatever". Which may be true, but I don't want to shoot the kind of pictures a good artist can shoot with a Holga, so it's irrelevant.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
The D40 was a truly excellent camera, amazing quality pictures and not at all expensive. I use a D7000 now but only becuase I can afford one and appreciate the extra quality and handling - I definitly would not feel disadvantaged in my photography to any great extent if I could only afford a secondhand D40.
--
http://www.scottwylie.co.uk
 
But I have a problem

My best shot taken on a crappy 35mm compact with tape on it as the battery cover got broken ;-)

It haunts me to this day I cannot deny that. I even went back to the same location with far superior equipment, only to frustrate myself further by getting shots that were technically better..but not a patch on that original one.

Even better it's a heavily photographed location..but it all came together than day and in a way that ultimately satisfies me deeply.

I sold usage rights to the BBC on that image for broadcast

I also sold print rights to a magazine with a panoramic stitch from a Panasonic FZ-5

If you're looking for "yes it matters" then I have a hard time accepting that.

Nice gear most def can help no question, make life easier yup..but ultimately the "yes it matters" crowd are basically wrong.

What matters is the end result few actually care how you got there. I'd rather have a great shot from a hmm camera than a hmm shot from a great camera.
 
I wouldn't be so fast to close your case. Just a few years ago one of the highest earning photographs in global press was taken on a camera phone, and one that was somewhat lacking compared to an iphone.

I've no idea what the 'best' or 'worst' camera is that has been used for NG, but as with any publication, if the pic is what they want, they don't ask questions about kit.
--
http://www.johnleechstudio.co.uk
http://www.johnleechstudio.blogspot.com
 
Barry Fitzgerald said:
It haunts me to this day I cannot deny that. I even went back to the same location with far superior equipment, only to frustrate myself further by getting shots that were technically better..but not a patch on that original one.

Even better it's a heavily photographed location..but it all came together than day and in a way that ultimately satisfies me deeply.
Click to expand...
But if you can't reproduce it with newer, superior equipment nor (presumably) improved or at least equal skill, perhaps the photo's appeal and/or success comes neither from the camera nor your technical/artistic ability !!!

Eureka!!! This is an AHA! moment, I hope, for many reading this. I wrote about this a while back on my blog, relaying a very similar experience to the one you describe:

http://imagesbyeduardo.com/main/2012/01/01/photos-like-snowflakes

Perhaps great photos are more -- much more -- about the unique circumstances in which we captured them than about equipment or photographer? Ponder that for a bit...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Splash page: http://downeyweddingphotography.com
Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/
 
RomanJohnston said:


Not bad for a camera with a limited DR, and cramped pixels, and way older than today current gear.
Click to expand...
Could the same talented/skilled photographer such as yourself do much better with a superior camera? That is the question. Perhaps not. Maybe the lighting circumstances or the scene itself makes differences in how equipment of varying capability can capture the scene trivial or insignificant. But I bet if we started posting side-by-side shots at reasonably large (11x14 print) sizes a keen eye could ferret out the differences more often than not. In some cases, provided a large enough sample of comparisons covering a range of scenes and lighting conditions, just about anyone could notice the differences.

Tonality, detail in the shadows, clarity of detail, ... we all know inferior, older cameras can't consistently get away with producing reasonably similar results. Continuing to argue so is a fool's errand, and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence -- by which I mean more than a handful of side-by-side samples when things lined up just so (plus whatever PP someone had to do to even the field) to "prove" the point that "the camera doesn't matter."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Splash page: http://downeyweddingphotography.com
Gallery and blog: http://imagesbyeduardo.com
Google plus: http://www.gplus.to/imagesbyeduardo
Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesbyeduardo/
 
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