- Status
The converse is
equipment can only capture images as good as the photographer, and I can assure you that I am much more of a limiting factor than my equipment.
The only time I feel truly limited by my equipment is photos in low light situations where additional lighting is not allowed, and even in low light, my equipment is much more capable than only a few years ago. There are lots of camera and lens features that would make life easier, but are not truly limiting.
equipment can only capture images as good as the photographer, and I can assure you that I am much more of a limiting factor than my equipment.
The only time I feel truly limited by my equipment is photos in low light situations where additional lighting is not allowed, and even in low light, my equipment is much more capable than only a few years ago. There are lots of camera and lens features that would make life easier, but are not truly limiting.
Upvote
0
I agree with the poster above me. You can hand a 1DsM3 to a noob and that will not turn him into Ansel Adams. But you could put a point-n-shoot in Adams' hands and get a very respectable (albeit not masterpiece) picture.
I once ran into someone who bought a 7D + 85mm f/1.2 L + 580EX II as his FIRST ever kit. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and took a lot of stuff that more experienced photog's could take with an iPhone.
I would only go as far as saying the equipment should match the skill level of the user. Both are equally important.
I once ran into someone who bought a 7D + 85mm f/1.2 L + 580EX II as his FIRST ever kit. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and took a lot of stuff that more experienced photog's could take with an iPhone.
I would only go as far as saying the equipment should match the skill level of the user. Both are equally important.
Upvote
0
I have absolutely no doubt that with my P&S, i could take a better photo than my gf (with no photographic skill) could using my 7D and any combo of my lenses.
but then i'm sure some here could use an iphone to get a better shot than i could with full access to any canikonelblad equipment.
good equipment helps, but the real skill is in using the equipment you have...
but then i'm sure some here could use an iphone to get a better shot than i could with full access to any canikonelblad equipment.
good equipment helps, but the real skill is in using the equipment you have...
Upvote
0
I totally agree with all of the above, and that you can take great photos with cheap equipment. Just to play devil's advocate though...
What if you took a photographer that takes pretty good photos with a 600D + Kit lens and handed them a 1ds with an 85 1.2? I've gotta say that the quality of my images went up dramatically when I bought my first DSLR
Of course, the rub of the whole statement is "only as good as", when there are many tricks you can do with lighting/post production to squeeze better images out of devices that weren't designed with those uses in mind. I've seen many examples of studio photographers using their iphone to take great pictures. On the other hand, they used thousands of dollars worth of studio lighting + makeup artists, so to me, it kind of undermines their point.
All things being equal, the same photographer will take better pictures with better equipment 9 times out of 10. We all know this or we wouldn't even bother buying more equipment (except of course to show off our new equipment)
Anyway, in a general sense, I agree with all of you, but I think there is still a grain of truth in Nikon's statement.
What if you took a photographer that takes pretty good photos with a 600D + Kit lens and handed them a 1ds with an 85 1.2? I've gotta say that the quality of my images went up dramatically when I bought my first DSLR
Of course, the rub of the whole statement is "only as good as", when there are many tricks you can do with lighting/post production to squeeze better images out of devices that weren't designed with those uses in mind. I've seen many examples of studio photographers using their iphone to take great pictures. On the other hand, they used thousands of dollars worth of studio lighting + makeup artists, so to me, it kind of undermines their point.
All things being equal, the same photographer will take better pictures with better equipment 9 times out of 10. We all know this or we wouldn't even bother buying more equipment (except of course to show off our new equipment)
Anyway, in a general sense, I agree with all of you, but I think there is still a grain of truth in Nikon's statement.
Upvote
0
every1 read this incorrectly, doesn't look like much thought was put into the comment but they are just saying you cant paint a house correctly if you have a brush and some black paint and your client wants yellow
Upvote
0
Well, Nikon is trying to sell it's equipment, so it is hardly an unbiased source of information. I agree with those who posted before; the photographer is (almost always) more important than the gear he is using. On the other hand, I have certainly encountered situations where my gear was insufficient for the task at hand.
For kicks, here are a few old point and shoot shots I took, 4 years ago:
Mount Cannon and Bird Woman Falls [explore 08/29/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
reflections by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
into the storm by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
wild wool factories by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
For kicks, here are a few old point and shoot shots I took, 4 years ago:
Mount Cannon and Bird Woman Falls [explore 08/29/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
reflections by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
into the storm by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
wild wool factories by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr
Upvote
0
Dave said:
You're statement is true but I don't think that's what the Nikon FB post is saying. While you're suggesting two different photographers each with different equipment the statement from Nikon is comparing one photographer using different equipment... the implication being higher versus lower quality equipment in the hands of the same person Question then is if any given photographer would take better pictures with better equipment. I don't think that's necessarily true... depends whether the photographer or the equipment is the limiting factor (i.e. the weakest link). If the person has never used anything other than a camera phone they might not even be able to turn a DSLR on and attach the lens so they won't get a picture at all. In the hands of a pro, it might be fair to say that a he/she will almost always get a better picture with a better camera and lens (better meaning better suited to the type of picture being taken of course).
Upvote
0
Meh said:
You reminded me about a comment which is often made in cycling: it's "90% rider and 10% bike". Putting me on a fancy Colnago will not make me win the TdF. However, in a pro race, that 10% counts, and it counts for a lot, because races are determined on seconds or less.
Yervant (or name your favourite pro photog) would be able to do produce some very good photos with a 600D and a kit lens, I am sure, but to compete in the market at the level which he does, he needs the very best equipment.
There is no substitute for skill, as others have pointed out, but at the highest levels of performance, equipment can make that small (even minute) difference that separates one photographer, or cyclist, or racing driver, etc. from another.
Put the other way around - putting me on an expensive Colnago is, right now, about as useful as putting lipstick on a pig.
Upvote
0
Yeah, equipment can indeed be limiting. I don't care how good of a photographer you are, you won't be able to get acceptable images in the situations I frequently shoot in (e.g. fast sports in poorly lit gyms with no flash allowed). My 7D with f/2.8 glass wide open is barely good enough sometimes. I can't wait to get a 5DIII and some fast primes!
Upvote
0
N
NotABunny
Guest
Obviously, the people who get annoyed by that comment are those who have not exploited their gear at the maximum. Which means that they have wasted money on their current equipment.
Remind me, why are you waiting for 5D3 / 1Ds 4? Is it because you think it will include magic that's going to make more artistic photos, or is it because you're thinking that it will include hardware that's going to allow you to go farther with your skills (which, contradictorily, you think are below the capacity of the current cameras)?
I wonder how many of these people would say that a rock climber's skills are more important than the rope, when the rope breaks.
Remind me, why are you waiting for 5D3 / 1Ds 4? Is it because you think it will include magic that's going to make more artistic photos, or is it because you're thinking that it will include hardware that's going to allow you to go farther with your skills (which, contradictorily, you think are below the capacity of the current cameras)?
I wonder how many of these people would say that a rock climber's skills are more important than the rope, when the rope breaks.
Upvote
0
NotABunny said:
If this is true, we could all spend a life time with a point and shoot, and still fail to produce better images than those who truly mastered using one.
Thankfully, it isn't true. They've only "wasted money" if the added utility of the more expensive equipment is less than the utility (to them) of the extra money they spent on it.
If I get $1500 worth of joy in jumping from a Rebel to a 5D Mark II (and what constitutes $1500 worth depends entirely on my subjective preferences) then it is not a waste to buy one. There is no rule that says that I have some obligation to spend a certain amount of time using cheaper equipment and maximizing the results obtained from it to acquire skills that make me "worthy" of a more expensive camera.
Of course those who want to maximize the results from a point and shoot before buying a more expensive camera are welcome to do so. But those people will never own an SLR (and never upgrade their point and shoot)
I'm not in the class of people who have to own a camera that doesn't exist but I did buy a full frame and I'm pretty sure that there are some much better photographers using much cheaper equipment. The reason was that I really enjoy using it for taking the types of pictures that I take. I don't see it in terms of "going further with my skills". I am not a pro and I don't participate in photography contests, so have no interest in "going further". Indeed, I think one could "go further" with a point and shoot, and if "going further" were truly the goal, one might be better served by using a variety of very inexpensive cameras.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
[quote author=Nikon/Facebook]
Do any of our facebook fans use any of the NIKKOR lenses?
[/quote]
What the heck kind of disingenuous question is that? A Nikon fan page with 800,000+ likes, and they wonder if any of those 800,000 people have a Nikon lens? I suppose if they have to wonder about that, they're completely slamming their own lens quality, and maybe they think all their customers buy Sigma lenses instead? :
It's ok, though, they apologized for being offensive...
Do any of our facebook fans use any of the NIKKOR lenses?
[/quote]
What the heck kind of disingenuous question is that? A Nikon fan page with 800,000+ likes, and they wonder if any of those 800,000 people have a Nikon lens? I suppose if they have to wonder about that, they're completely slamming their own lens quality, and maybe they think all their customers buy Sigma lenses instead? :
It's ok, though, they apologized for being offensive...
Attachments
Upvote
0
dash2k8 said:
I agree both are important:
But unless this guy took a loan out from his kid's college fund, I find nothing wrong in his choice or his purchase. Looks like he did his research, zoned in on a prime lens (most noobs like me would try and get max coverage from 15mm to 400mmm regardless of the speed of the lenses...) that is fast and sharp.
Why should he be asked to buy a rebel kit lens when all of us would not... The only wrong thing I can see is if he thinks he can shoot like an Art or Ansel or any great guys on this forum without learning how to shoot.
I gave my 350d and kit lens to my 12 year old daughter trying to get her into this wonderful hobby... She might take 100 pics and have 10 turn out really great... but the limitations of the kit lens then comes into play... if she had better gear, those could have been even better....
I just got my first L lens a month ago... my skills are still the same as a month ago, but my successful rate has gone up significantly. For example: Pictures with L lens dont burn out highlights as much as kit lens do, I don't know why but no one told me this would be one reason to get an L lens...
I am not saying gear is more important than skills, but gear WILL make a difference, so kudos to that guy to get decent gear.
Upvote
0
"A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses..."
This is an insult to photographers and photography in general.
If they truly believe that, then whoever uses Nikon 1 will never be a good photographer :
This is an insult to photographers and photography in general.
If they truly believe that, then whoever uses Nikon 1 will never be a good photographer :
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
