Thom should know better---and does. The history of photography is very rich already, after only just shy of 2 centuries, and it is not "always about the moment".
Anytime someone makes a statement about something like photography, or any other medium in the realm of visual culture, that states that it is always this way or that----it is almost always (not my qualification, there) wrong. In the main because it is limiting.
--
Can you show me a photograph that is famous for something other than composition or subject matter? Is there a famous photograph out there where people love it because of it's resolution, or it's dynamic range, or some other purely technical attribute, even though the subject/composition is uninteresting?
All you are doing is ensuring a stalemate. Can you show me a famous landscape or macro shot that has bad blurriness, is 1000 pixels in size, has completely ruined colors, or that ended up with 2 stops of DR for the entire scene? Technical merit matters for every shot, just not the same amount for every shot. Some need it more, some need it less, but to claim that it never matters is plain dumb. It just sounds like what people say who want an excuse to use the cheapest and simplest gear.
Where did I say technical quality never matters? I did not - that was your interpretation.
An great photograph taken with a D80 (or even older tech) will always be more appealing than a boring photograph taken with a D810.
To reference what somebody recently said, "where did I say content never matters? I did not, that was your interpretation". So yes, what you say is true, but wouldn't that same shot taken with the D810 be even better than it was on the D80? That's what this is really about, the people who say gear does matter are not saying it in place of content, we are saying it along side content. Im not sure why some people (if it's not you then disregard) think this is the case.
This is assuming both are reasonably well executed technically. I agree that if the technique is so poor that the resulting image is a poor representation of the moment then the moment is gone. But this just reinforces the fact that it's all about the moment.
Completely true, but having a camera that focuses quicker, or at all as may be the case in low lighting, is always easier to manage. Having a lens that is sharp wide open rather than HAVING to be stopped down to get rid of the SA/CA is surely better no? I mean at worst, you will lose nothing but some cash, but at best you may get a shot you otherwise missed completely.
Some people say the best camera is the one you have with you, I say it's the best camera you have with you that can actually manage the shot. I was at our local state part once many years ago and witnessed two eagles fighting in the air, while one carried a fish in his mouth. Sure I had my phone with me, but what good did it do?
It is about the moment, more than anything else. This is why people say "the best camera is the one you have with you."
Haha I wrote the above before I even read this line. I stand on what I said above anyhow, sometimes the minimalist camera you have with you is completely inadequate.
More infamous than famous, though.
