Any decent camera can be a good camera

Okay.  This might start an argument, but I hope not.  In fact, I'm requesting eight now that any replies remain civil and positive, no matter what your opinion...

I've been a wedding photographer for nearly 25 years.  I've used pretty much all kinds and formats of cameras, and if a photographer is competent, it really doesn't matter much WHICH camera and lens are used , but rather HOW it's used.

I could use a 4x5 film camera and still get some good webbing photos -- I just won't get as many!😉  My V3 is a great inconspicuous camera for candids.

That said, whether you have a Z5 or Z9 or Z50 or anything older, given the right lighting / the right exposure / the right timing / the right focal length, etc. then beautiful photos are possible.  Limitations such as low light sensitivity or number of pixels are much less of a concern.

My Z7ii and D7100 behave better in low light than my D800.  Do those cameras take better photos?  I hope not -- I hope I can still get equality good photos with ANY of the cameras I use.  I'll simply choose the best tool for the job.

Parry Johnson wrote:

Okay. This might start an argument, but I hope not. In fact, I'm requesting eight now that any replies remain civil and positive, no matter what your opinion...

I've been a wedding photographer for nearly 25 years. I've used pretty much all kinds and formats of cameras, and if a photographer is competent, it really doesn't matter much WHICH camera and lens are used , but rather HOW it's used.

I could use a 4x5 film camera and still get some good webbing photos -- I just won't get as many!😉 My V3 is a great inconspicuous camera for candids.

That said, whether you have a Z5 or Z9 or Z50 or anything older, given the right lighting / the right exposure / the right timing / the right focal length, etc. then beautiful photos are possible. Limitations such as low light sensitivity or number of pixels are much less of a concern.

My Z7ii and D7100 behave better in low light than my D800. Do those cameras take better photos? I hope not -- I hope I can still get equality good photos with ANY of the cameras I use. I'll simply choose the best tool for the job.

This argument is a hoary old chestnut. What you say is often true, and often not. There are many situations for example where a film camera just would not cut the mustard. And many nature photos are only possible with a Z9 or similar. Wedding photography is probably rather undemanding of a camera. The same is true of landscape photography.

More often than not I could not even get acceptable photos of fungi using a film camera. In a dark wood reciprocity failure kicks in, and the light is more often than not an odd colour, so the colours usually came out odd. Throw in different reciprocity failure for each emulsion, and it’s a nightmare. Use flash? Yes, that’s a good option, but it looks unnatural. Use a modern ILC, and you can get a custom white balance, and use focus shifting, and get amazing results.

Frankly modern ILC systems are so good, that we can get amazing photos.

Better equipment frees you up to focus (hehe) on the other aspects to capturing wedding images. You don't want to lose time (money) sitting at a computer editing images either.

You can use pliers, a crescent wrench, or a socket to remove a bolt. However, if you have to remove that bolt 10 or 100 times, using the proper tool is going to make a big difference in the long run.

Parry Johnson wrote:

Okay. This might start an argument, but I hope not. In fact, I'm requesting eight now that any replies remain civil and positive, no matter what your opinion...

I've been a wedding photographer for nearly 25 years. I've used pretty much all kinds and formats of cameras, and if a photographer is competent, it really doesn't matter much WHICH camera and lens are used , but rather HOW it's used.

I could use a 4x5 film camera and still get some good webbing photos -- I just won't get as many!😉 My V3 is a great inconspicuous camera for candids.

That said, whether you have a Z5 or Z9 or Z50 or anything older, given the right lighting / the right exposure / the right timing / the right focal length, etc. then beautiful photos are possible. Limitations such as low light sensitivity or number of pixels are much less of a concern.

My Z7ii and D7100 behave better in low light than my D800. Do those cameras take better photos? I hope not -- I hope I can still get equality good photos with ANY of the cameras I use. I'll simply choose the best tool for the job.

Basically any ILC can take stunning photos as long as you put a nice lens on it, because that's what matters the most for IQ.

The most important thing is however to learn to use your gear and what it's limitations are and working within those limitations. And of course to learn about light and composition.

Although no matter how experienced a photographer is they're not magically going to make the limitations go away, even if some limitations can sometimes be worked around. An experienced photographer will however know what they need for a specific task.

JayPhizzt wrote:

Although no matter how experienced a photographer is they're not magically going to make the limitations go away, even if some limitations can sometimes be worked around. An experienced photographer will however know what they need for a specific task.

Exactly.  I don't like saying, "Sorry, I can't take that shot."  However, unless one has the time and patience (which is rare during a wedding!) and is willing to try some experimentation (which you do have to do on occasion or stagnation happens), then  sometimes you either have to stop or change to another tactic that you know will work.

Too much experimentation can also lead to inconsistency, and that's not good either.  Basically, stick to what you know works and try new things within your (and the clients') comfort levels -- don't do ANYTHING that jeopardizes that relationship.

I’d say you’re right, up to a point. Certain cameras make certain jobs easier, but all modern ILCs are capable of producing good images.

What I’d say is most important is knowing your camera thoroughly, so that it works like an extension of your body and it’s pretty much instinctive to use it in the right way for the job and for the conditions. It is tempting to be always chasing the latest and best model, but if you change too often it’s harder to get to this level of understanding.

A more basic camera in the hands of someone who really knows how to use it will deliver better results than a top of the range model in the hands of someone who doesn’t understand properly how it works and what it can do.

Those are good points, Chris, and I think we're basically on the same page.  A large format film camera is certainly different.

The analogy about hammers is also a good one.  I prefer to use the saw analogy instead (as my dad was a carpenter).  I've got all his old hands saws, and one will do a better job at cutting wood than the other, but that depends HOW you cut the wood.

Every profession or trade has its tools.  You don't always need the most expensive or newest -- you only need to get the job done consistently, and if that 80-year-old bucksaw does the trick,  go for it!

Yes, but when you say decent camera, it has to be asked decent camera for what?

Shooting family/travel pics?

Shooting wildlife in Africa?

Shooting fast moving sport like football/F1 etc?

I would say that yes, if someone just wants a camera to document their daily life with their family, friends and the normal travel adventures, any camera in the past 10 years should give you good results providing you know how to get the best out of it.

So what's "decent enough"?

raunak wrote:

Yes, but when you say decent camera, it has to be asked decent camera for what?

Shooting family/travel pics?

I like sharp and properly exposed most of the time: Nikon FA, 1982

Shooting wildlife in Africa?

Any camera with shutter speed >1/500 second and the ability to do several frames in succession: Speed Graphic with 6-shot film holder, 1930s

Shooting fast moving sport like football/F1 etc?

Ditto to above, but add Pentax LX, Canon F1, Nikon F2, Olympus OM-1, early to mid-70s

I would say that yes, if someone just wants a camera to document their daily life with their family, friends and the normal travel adventures, any camera in the past 10 years should give you good results providing you know how to get the best out of it.

So, in other words, innovations (not necessarily inventions) such as winders, autofocus, autoexposure modes, etc. have all existed since at least the Canon A-1 in 1979 and/or Nikon F3AF, Pentax ME-F, Canon T80, or Minolta Maxxum 7000 of the early 80s, so that at least quadruples the "decent enough" timeline.

Although, if we're talking about the general public, I suppose that honor goes to Mr. Eastman 140 years ago, although I'm not sure many photographers of lions in the wild lived to get prints from their close-up adventures!

Parry Johnson wrote:

So what's "decent enough"?

raunak wrote:

Yes, but when you say decent camera, it has to be asked decent camera for what?

Shooting family/travel pics?

I like sharp and properly exposed most of the time: Nikon FA, 1982

Shooting wildlife in Africa?

Any camera with shutter speed >1/500 second and the ability to do several frames in succession: Speed Graphic with 6-shot film holder, 1930s

Shooting fast moving sport like football/F1 etc?

Ditto to above, but add Pentax LX, Canon F1, Nikon F2, Olympus OM-1, early to mid-70s

I would say that yes, if someone just wants a camera to document their daily life with their family, friends and the normal travel adventures, any camera in the past 10 years should give you good results providing you know how to get the best out of it.

So, in other words, innovations (not necessarily inventions) such as winders, autofocus, autoexposure modes, etc. have all existed since at least the Canon A-1 in 1979 and/or Nikon F3AF, Pentax ME-F, Canon T80, or Minolta Maxxum 7000 of the early 80s, so that at least quadruples the "decent enough" timeline.

Although, if we're talking about the general public, I suppose that honor goes to Mr. Eastman 140 years ago, although I'm not sure many photographers of lions in the wild lived to get prints from their close-up adventures!

great, if all these options work for you. IMO, decent in 2022 for the vast majority would mean something that can produce clean "digital" output for immediate use across different social media and atleast upto A3 prints.

ChocolateMoose wrote:

I've only been a photographer for 2 years but since joining this community the gear debate it has is quite weird to look at or engage in. Photography is one of the most gear focused hobbies I have ever encountered and most people in the community are saying it doesn't matter.

As a sociologist this happens in a lot of societal debates, people tend to value aspects where their own social capital lies. Of course experienced photographers are gonna say that gear doesn't matter because they are trying to stand apart from your regular photographer with their experience. While a new photographer can just go to a store and buy the latest and greatest. This effect is called social distinction.

But back to the gear debate, of course everybody and most cameras are able to take good pictures if, IF you are a hobbyist. If you are a professional you need reliability, efficiency and quality. This comes at a price.

Talent multiplied by gear = the result.

And even then it depends in which field of photography you're trying to work in, portrait, wedding, events, macro, product or editorial. All these fields have different needs and gear.

I did several ceremonies with my Z5 and although I get good results, I miss so many shots because the afc is just plain bad in dimly lit conditions. Also the 4.5 fps makes me miss a lot of shots where a 15fps camera would just nail a certain smile, emotions etc.

So let's just stop with this gear debate. Gear is important, why? Because it can make room for your creative talent. If you're a bad photographer you will still be one with the best gear. If you are a good photographer better gear will make you have more consistent good shots. Simple as that.

This last paragraph is powerful.  Making room for your creative vision and talent is very important.

ChocolateMoose wrote:

I've only been a photographer for 2 years but since joining this community the gear debate it has is quite weird to look at or engage in. Photography is one of the most gear focused hobbies I have ever encountered and most people in the community are saying it doesn't matter.

This is a gear forum. Most here judge photos on technical terms. There are other ways to think about photography but this isn't the place for it.

Better cameras will always result in better probability of having better shots (assuming other variables remain constant), whether in resolution/quality, speed, or autofocus. Even more rugged cameras will give you better chances when less rugged cameras shut down or become inoperable.

You “can” get great wedding shots using a D90, but chances are higher you will get much better shots using a Z7, and even better chances with a Z9. Will customers see or value that? May be or not, but the photos will still be better and/or you will have bigger selection of photos to choose from.

Varuas wrote:

Better cameras will always result in better probability of having better shots (assuming other variables remain constant), whether in resolution/quality, speed, or autofocus. Even more rugged cameras will give you better chances when less rugged cameras shut down or become inoperable.

You “can” get great wedding shots using a D90, but chances are higher you will get much better shots using a Z7, and even better chances with a Z9. Will customers see or value that? May be or not, but the photos will still be better and/or you will have bigger selection of photos to choose from.

Well, it depends a lot on what you're shooting. When it comes to image quality the lens is what matters the most. A higher resolution is only going to benefit you if you do large prints or heavy cropping. Else it's really noise and dynamic range that are the main differences when it comes to cameras/sensors and those things are of course generally better on larger and newer sensors, which can in several cases yield better results. Better AF and more fps can of course be highly beneficial for several scenarios as well, but again it depends on what kind of photography you're doing.

Parry Johnson wrote:

I like sharp and properly exposed most of the time: Nikon FA, 1982

If it's sharpness you're after it's lenses you should be looking at as sharpness is an almost entirely lens sided characteristic and has very little to do with the camera/sensor.

Of course, the ones you have might only be good at very low volume.

Parry Johnson wrote:

Okay. This might start an argument, but I hope not. In fact, I'm requesting eight now that any replies remain civil and positive, no matter what your opinion...

I've been a wedding photographer for nearly 25 years. I've used pretty much all kinds and formats of cameras, and if a photographer is competent, it really doesn't matter much WHICH camera and lens are used , but rather HOW it's used.

I could use a 4x5 film camera and still get some good webbing photos -- I just won't get as many!😉 My V3 is a great inconspicuous camera for candids.

That said, whether you have a Z5 or Z9 or Z50 or anything older, given the right lighting / the right exposure / the right timing / the right focal length, etc. then beautiful photos are possible. Limitations such as low light sensitivity or number of pixels are much less of a concern.

My Z7ii and D7100 behave better in low light than my D800. Do those cameras take better photos? I hope not -- I hope I can still get equality good photos with ANY of the cameras I use. I'll simply choose the best tool for the job.

You are contradicting yourself. On one hand you are saying that any decent camera can do a good job. On the other hand you are saying that you are choosing the right tool for a job meaning that not all tools do an equally good job. I firmly believe that tool matters. For instance some cameras are much better in low light letting you take better pictures in darker conditions. Same goes for action pictures.

JayPhizzt wrote:

Parry Johnson wrote:

I like sharp and properly exposed most of the time: Nikon FA, 1982

If it's sharpness you're after it's lenses you should be looking at as sharpness is an almost entirely lens sided characteristic and has very little to do with the camera/sensor.

Agreed. Sharpness in use is a bright, large viewfinder.  The FA had that, plus matrix metering, which made it harder to get bad exposures.

Most lenses can produce sharp images within a range of aperture and focus.  Determining the best lens combines technical, subjective and economical factors, which have always existed.