Nikon's FB Page "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses..."

[DJL329]

Give a novice a 300D with kit lens (55-250 or 75-300 III) and ask him to use Auto mode/P mode (like P&S) and ask him to take a portrait at 100mm. Using a tripod and natural light coming from a window.

Give the same guy a 7D and a 100mm f2 or f2.8 with the camera on the same tripod and all he has to do is pull the trigger in auto mode.

Which one will be better?

Did he need to understand it to the maximum? All he did was pull the trigger.

Even for complete noobs, better gear will make a difference... some difference 

I whole heartedly agree with this.  It is (or at least can be) similar to golf.  I suck at golf.  I will always suck at golf.  However, buying a good set of clubs helps me to suck just a little bit less at golf.  Similarly, I may never be a great photographer, but decent equipment can help some of my pictures to suck a little less.  I doubt anyone on here woud say a photo out of kit lens is going to match the exact same photo taken with L glass.  Without changing the composition or the lighting or anything else, it should be sharper with better color, etc., all the great things that L glass can give you.

Yes, it might be sharper with better colors with an "L" lens versus a kit lens.  Unfortunately, those are not the ultimate determining factors of whether or not a photograph (or any work of art) is "good."  A good photo doesn't even have to be in focus, so why should making something that's poorly composed/exposed even sharper help?

    "I wasn't sure before, but now that it's sharper, I can clearly see that it's lousy..." 

Think about it:  seventy/eighty years ago, pro photographers were shooting amazing pictures using equipment that was considered ancient decades ago.  They were able to do it not because they were using the latest digital cameras with modern auto-focus lenses, but because they understood composition and exposure.

[FredBGG]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

It's Facebook and some poor employeee of Nikon has to come up with something to post multiple times a day.

Personally I think it would be more interesting having a discussion about what a crap interface Facebook has and how it is a complete waste of time unless you are hoping to be discovered for the next reality show.

As far as photographers and their equipment....

Well to a certain extent they are right. many aspects of your images are going to be only as good as the camera can make them. In the real world, not that of one's own ego, the tools you use will determin the quality of your images. Depending on your style you need to choose the best camera for what you are doing to get the best results. This may mean a film point and shoot if you are terry Richardson when he want's that look. Too much "photographic technical quality"can be counter productive.

One thing is for shure. With the advent of digital larger format photography is being lost.
You can use whatever L lens you want or top of the line leica odr Nikon lens, but due to the optical limitations of smaller formats you will not get that dimensional look of larger formats.

MF format digital is right at the low end of the MF size scale.

I for sure am my best with a big sheet if 8x10 polaroid or tri-x in an 8x10 camera with a Symar 480mm lens. Camera brand not important... it's just a box.

Do I take good pictures with a 35mm DSLR.... yes, but my best are with 6x8cm film or bigger.

Equipment really does count and Nikon does not make what IMHO really counts... neither does Canon.

With a shitty camera , my talent does not change, but my photographs will and I will not be as satisfied as I would be if I used what I wanted.

The good thing is that the really good equipment is cheap these days... well as long as it lasts...
large MF cameras and large format cameras are easy to find used at very nice prices.

I paid about $ 2,500 for a lens back in the day. I bought one for $ 250 the other day. Same formidable 180mm f3.2 Fuji GX680 lens.

[aldvan]

Things are more complex according to me, as usual... If you are taking a picture of a riot in Damascus, composition and content are (partially) less important than sharpness, focus, density, saturation etc.
But if you are taking a picture of the wall of El Capitan in Yosemite, or of a highly detailed coleopter on a beautiful and colorful flower a slight off focus, a unwanted grain, or a less than sharp pixel can spoil the best of the talents...
In the present technological era, no part of the kit can be overlooked. You can be Michael Schumacher, but without a good car, any good driver with the best car will win hands down... Obviously is also true the reverse: no best car will win without a good driver...

[NotABunny]

All the artists thought that Nikon meant that quality hardware improves the artistic skills of the photographer, while Nikon obviously (by any rational argument) said that quality hardware improves the technical side of the photography.

If artists think that (modern) cameras, lenses, lighting equipment and post-processing software are just conspiracies made up by greedy companies, it's sad. Art has evolved and, in this world, there is also competition to deal with.

[K-amps]

Things are more complex according to me, as usual... If you are taking a picture of a riot in Damascus, composition and content are (partially) less important than sharpness, focus, density, saturation etc.
But if you are taking a picture of the wall of El Capitan in Yosemite, or of a highly detailed coleopter on a beautiful and colorful flower a slight off focus, a unwanted grain, or a less than sharp pixel can spoil the best of the talents...
In the present technological era, no part of the kit can be overlooked. You can be Michael Schumacher, but without a good car, any good driver with the best car will win hands down... Obviously is also true the reverse: no best car will win without a good driver...

The Camera is like the eye, the Photographer, like the brain.

One is very limited without the other...

[ecka]

It's all about the right tool for the job. If you are able to take some great pictures using P&S camera it means that the gear is good enough for the job and, probably, any decent photographer can do it. But, if you think that your skills can somehow compensate for not using a proper gear, then you are terribly wrong.
That Nikon guy was talking about a photographer, not just some newbie with a camera. When you think about it really deep, you'll understand that he is right. The "proper gear" is not always the most expensive one. A good photographer must be capable of using his equipment to it's full potential. So, better equipment = more potential.

[TexPhoto]

Remove the emotion and anger from the reaction to Nikon, and you are left with one conclusion: Canon Rules, Nikon drools.  Rock on.

[mortadella]

Remove the emotion and anger from the reaction to Nikon, and you are left with one conclusion: Canon Rules, Nikon drools.  Rock on.

If that was somehow Canon's FB status I think we would all have a different opinion of it...the fact that it's Nikon just makes us want to find something wrong with it.  Which has proven to be pretty fun.