Do you judge the photographer or his Equipment?

[Moppie]

Im curious about how DSLR and Compact users view each other, both on the forum, and in real life.


Imagine, your shooting away with your brand new 1ds MKII and someone with a little compact comes up and starts shooting with you, your at some kind of public event so he has every right to be there, AND he appears to know what he's doing and looks the friendly type. The actions over, you've got a few spare minutes and he starts a conversation.

Do you simply chat away, he's another photographer and worthy of conversation?

or

Do you take one look at his camera thats smaller than your lens and right him off as an annoying amature not worthy of your time?




This forum is somewhat dominated by DSLR owners, and more than a small number of pros. Yet there is a growing number of members who have little more than a Canon A series, and I wonder if any of them feel a little threatened by the DLSR owners, and if the DSLR owners look down on them.


Personaly I feel there is nothing but respect for everyone here, regardless of the equipment they use.
Iv read countless threads about equipment where the conclusion has always shown that the equipment you use is irrlevent to how good a photographer you are.
Iv always recieved great comments about the photos Iv posted, and even got some great praise from some of the best proffesionals here.
And the small amount of advice Iv been able to offer has always been treated with the same respect as anyone elses.
The same is true for my experiances in real life, Iv even had a 1D user pass me his camera and let me take a few shots useing my CF card.


Im just curious about how some of the other members feel about shooting with a small compact, how the DLSR users feel about compact users, and hopefuly reassure those of us who are digitaly challanged that its ok to only have a small camera :)

[kb244]

I judge a photographer's artistic value by things that are not equipment dependant, stuff like composition, layout, etc. By the photographer themselves, I say this because I went from consumer digital to a DSLR. A camera is nothing more than a tool, Its like being in a math class, yer not just a better student because you have one of those big fancy graphing calculators, if you dont know how to use it.

I judge the quality (pixel-peeping) based on the equipment or lens.

Basically there are alot of consumer shooters, that may benefit greatly from getting a digital SLR, then there are alot of rich amatures who buy the best in photogear, and would be better off shooting on a consumer model and saving some money.

Normally when I'm out there, with a dslr straped around my neck, and I see someone else having a lil problem with a point and shoot, I usally show them how they can compensate to get the desired shot on a less capable camera, just because its less capable doesnt mean theres not some sort of work around thats just a tad harder to get the same similar results.

[Cadwell]

Bizzare question... you judge the photographer of course.

There are people on here who produce incredible results with whatever camera they use. "dewmuw" (Damian) is a prime example. I always look forward to seeing his shots and he puts many dSLR users on here to shame with the images he produces with his G3.

Besides, it wasn't so long ago that I was using a digital Point and Shoot... and the fact that I can afford to splurge a fairly large amount of money on advanced gear doesn't give me the right to "look down" on anyone.

If I have to admit to a sin though... I am fairly contemptuous of people with camera phones... particualry standing at the side of a race track and trying to shoot a car doing 150mph... :o

[IndyJeff]

I don't look down on anyone because of their equipment, or lack there of. However what I do look down on is when your working a venue and some clod is getting in the way with his p & s because he knew someone who got him a credential. I don't care if you have a p & s or a MK II, if your not working the event as a member of the press, or for a legitimate client, don't get in the way.

A prime example of this is when they do the front row shots and the winners shots at the Indy 500. Not as much with the front row but, the day after the 500 you can count on having to fight your way into position with people who have no business being there, and I don't even know how they got out there but they did.

[Cadwell]

I think you're aiming your frustration at the wrong targets, Jeff. If you can't get the shot because people who don't have good reason to be there are in the way, blame the venue management who let them get there in the first place; not the people with the cameras... that's just bad organisation.

[Scottes]

As to photography, I judge the shot(s). I have absolutely no concerns over the equipment, be it brand, quality, features, or digital/film, or P&S, 1.6x, full-frame, large format, etc. The image determines the image.

As to the person, I judge the personality and sense of humor and conversational ability I guess.

If the best photographer in the world is a jerk then I have no time for him but I will look at his pictures. And almost all of my friends have no idea what the word "aperture" means but we still manage to have a good time together.

And I guess that I have to agree with Cadwell when he said "Bizarre question."

[Belmondo]

I'm not sure 'bizarre' is a fair characterization of the question. I really think it is more rhetorical than anything else. Moreover, I think it's a fair question, especially if it gets people thinking of their own expectations and how they want to be perceived by their peers

There is no question the person behind the camera has far more influence over the quality of he image than does the camera he/she is using. Even a rank ameteur understands that.

Having said that, I would offer this: If you want to be respected as a photographer, show us your photos and not your equipment list.

Laziferous, where are you?

[LisaMarie]

Hi Moppie , ( and others )

You might like to hear the following old photographers story/joke.

A man is invited to dinner and brings along some of his photographs to share with the hostess because he thinks she might enjoy them. After dinner they are sitting around chatting looking at his photos- she comments- wow those are really great pictures- you must have a really good camera !

He smiles politely and does not give verbal response to that comment- night goes on…

Upon leaving the man stops and the front door to say good bye to the hostess and thank her once again for having him over to dinner- he makes a comment before he leaves- That was a really good meal you made you must have really good pots and pans !

[KennyG]

As someone who has to have his work judged on a very regular basis, weekly sometimes, I can assure you I have never been asked by one publication or photo editor what camera I used to take the pictures.

Saying that, if anyone stood next to me, behind the safety barrier, during a motor race with nothing but a typical P&S I would be asking how he managed to get past the press office. There are some things you do that need the right equipment for.

[kb244]

As someone who has to have his work judged on a very regular basis, weekly sometimes, I can assure you I have never been asked by one publication or photo editor what camera I used to take the pictures.

Saying that, if anyone stood next to me, behind the safety barrier, during a motor race with nothing but a typical P&S I would be asking how he managed to get past the press office. There are some things you do that need the right equipment for.

I guess thats to say, there are those who can take pictures, but given the situation it works best to have adaquent eqipment. Would at later time probally be like "hey nice prints, tho would be better if you zoomed into the car instead of half the track"

[Cadwell]

I guess thats to say, there are those who can take pictures, but given the situation it works best to have adaquent eqipment. Would at later time probally be like "hey nice prints, tho would be better if you zoomed into the car instead of half the track"

A camera is a tool... now sure, you can bang a nail in with the bottom of a saucepan in a pinch, but it's better to use a hammer.

Having the right tool for the job helps and a high end dSLR is a better tool for shooting motor sport than a small point and shoot.

[sdommin]

Do you take one look at his camera thats smaller than your lens and right him off as an annoying amature not worthy of your time?

I'll admit to occasionally doing the opposite. As someone who likes to use compact digicams by choice, I'll look at a guy with a DSLR and a ton of expensive lenses and think to myself. "Now there's a guy with more money than skill". I know it's wrong of me to assume something like that, but very often it turns out that I was right!

[BearSummer]

Hi Moppie.

interesting question, so will have a crack at it. Here are a few thoughts, photographers are artists, to judge a person you need to be exposed to their personality, cameras are just tools.

Im curious about how DSLR and Compact users view each other, both on the forum, and in real life.

Imagine, your shooting away with your brand new 1ds MKII and someone with a little compact comes up and starts shooting with you, your at some kind of public event so he has every right to be there, AND he appears to know what he's doing and looks the friendly type. The actions over, you've got a few spare minutes and he starts a conversation.

Do you simply chat away, he's another photographer and worthy of conversation?

or

Do you take one look at his camera thats smaller than your lens and right him off as an annoying amature not worthy of your time?


If a fellow artist wants to chat about our shared interest I would have to be a very shallow person to ignore them. If however I was still "working" then it would be fairly obvious that I was busy and I would excuse myself until whatever was happening was over. However following your description I would be very happy to chat to the person with the P&S. If they then turn out to be an @r$£#0|£ then I have been able to make that assessment from their personality not just from what kit they carry. I have had quite a few people come up and chat to me when I am just out having fun with my kit, and the folks with the P&S and those with expensive SLR's seem to have a fairly similar amount of people who you wouldn't invite to dinner. If anything those with the expensive kit have a few more than their fair share of "wastes of skin". I know there are photographers out there who sneer at those with P&S cameras, if I dont want to carry my heavy kit then I take out a Canon S60, I've had people look down their nose at me, their loss. At the end of the day, if they are like that then I wont want to chat to them cos I wont like their personality.

Expensive tools dont make a great artist, they just make the act of creation easier. I have always said that "I want to be limited by my ability not by my equipment" and I am fortunate that my bank balance exceeds my tallent which allows me to have nice tools which I can grow into rather than being limited by. Not everyone is that fortunate, it just means they have to work harder to get the results they want.

Best Regards

BearSummer

[rebel61021]

Well I would like to throw my .02 cents worth I am a new person to DSLR I have used P&S for several years and always thought I took good pictures with it and now that I have made the big jump to DSLR and I have gotton several lens trying to get good pictures again. Yes I am learning and I almost envoy those of you that have mastered taking pictures with DSLR. I have learned alot since I found this forum and hope everyone that has given me tips and helped me learn, realize that taking great pictures is not the equipment but the knowlege that uses it. I am sure that even the best photographer here could take a better picture with a disposable camera than I can right now with all my fancy equipment. I like to think that I judge people by there ability and there personality and I always keep in mind that I may never be great but at least I can say I had fun.

[LisaMarie]

I like to think that I judge people by there ability and there personality and I always keep in mind that I may never be great but at least I can say I had fun.

Rebel I like how you think and I hope you continue to have fun and always enjoy the wonders and marvels of photography.

[dewmuw]

Bizzare question... you judge the photographer of course.

There are people on here who produce incredible results with whatever camera they use. "dewmuw" (Damian) is a prime example. I always look forward to seeing his shots and he puts many dSLR users on here to shame with the images he produces with his G3.

Besides, it wasn't so long ago that I was using a digital Point and Shoot... and the fact that I can afford to splurge a fairly large amount of money on advanced gear doesn't give me the right to "look down" on anyone.

If I have to admit to a sin though... I am fairly contemptuous of people with camera phones... particualry standing at the side of a race track and trying to shoot a car doing 150mph... :o

:o :o :o Gee shucks. What did you have to go and say that for. That, seriously, is the nicest thing anyone has ever said about my photography. Thanks! You've made my year!!!

By the way - I learnt a long time ago that there is always someone out there with a bigger one than you and always someone out there with a smaller one. I'm just trying to be good with what I have and if I get a good tip from a big guy or a small guy I'm happy to be learning.

I even bought a book designed deliberately for DSLRs even though I don't have one. The guy writing it is someone I respect as a photographer and thought I maybe would learn a thing or two. Well I learnt more than a couple of things.

I'm just off to have a lie down. What a day - I saw Liverpool win at Anfield and then come home to a compliment like that. Where's my damp face cloth? :)

[RockOne]

Imagine, your shooting away with your brand new 1ds MKII Imagine or dream?

I think the photogrpaher is much more important than the equipment. As such I will treat all photographers as equal (actually most as superiors :-), at least until I see the results of their work.
But then I get along with almost everybody :-) ! I am not cameraist (is that a word :-) ).

An analogy would be to judge somebodys driving ability on their car :-).

BTW the "A" series cameras are great, mine gets used as much, or more than then 300D mainly because of it's convenience :-).

[Wazza]

The photographer of course.

What intrigues me, is having someone with a limited camera capability, and still pulling off some amazing shots. Such as Don Ellis, with his G1 and G2!

For the past year and a half, I have been using a Sony V1 - slightly advanced point and shoot, with some good manual controls. Well it's funny when you can clearly see someone with a fine DSLR, really wants to put you on a different level. Coming from the sub-level, and moving up, I guess I'll have a whole lot more understanding, and give a helping hand to people around. (That is one thing which surprisingly does happen. Another photographer sees you, comes along, has a good chat, and share some shooting tips. It's all good fun). What I don't like is the competitive nature of some, who won't share any secrets at all, in the fear that you're going to make better results? :p

[Jesper]

Three years ago, when I had a Powershot G3, I was at the Rotterdam Marathon making photos. There was a guy next to me with a big fat Nikon D100 and when he saw me with my G3, he was asking me "Are you going to make photos with THAT?!". :rolleyes:

Ofcourse the photographer is who makes the photo and you can make great photos with a compact digital camera.

[FlyingPete]

Three years ago, when I had a Powershot G3, I was at the Rotterdam Marathon making photos. There was a guy next to me with a big fat Nikon D100 and when he saw me with my G3, he was asking me "Are you going to make photos with THAT?!". :rolleyes:


I had a similar experience a week ago, I was shooting with my trusty 20D and 28-105 which looks to be a reasonable setup, looks fairly pro to those not in 'the know'.

This guy comes up from a paper armed with 1DS Mk2 and a 70-200/2.8L, and thinks he owns the show, tried to make conversation several times, but a waste of time, at one point he eventually told me he did have time for amateurs.

Did some digging, found out he is actually a free lance guy with a bit of a reputation for being like that. He sees anyone else as potential competition to him, which I sort of understand. I wonder if he sold any of his shots, I will be looking into that, as part of the contract for shooting there was that you couldn't sell band shots for profit, I doubt he gave his shots away out of good will.

Anyway, what he didn't know was that even though I was an amateur, and I only had a 'lowly' 20D and I was not being paid for the work, it was my turf I was running the photographic team and could make the call on what third party photographers could and couldn't do/go. Fortunately I was feeling too nice and busy to obstruct him, or restrict him, so he got away with it - this time :twisted:

On the flip side, there were plenty of keen amateur shooters not part of my team, when it wasn't as busy, I would see if they wanted a better shooting position, and escorted them into the media area for some up close shots, the look on their face to have an opportunity to get that close is well worth it, caught up with a few later on, might have some more shooters for next year now!

BTW for all the flash gear being lugged around by my team, one of my best shooters was only using a G3, but was consistently getting better results than some of the DSLR shooters :cool:

[Moppie]

Bizarre question...

I think that is the perfect answer, it sums up what appears to be the general view rather accurately.





The photographer is more important than his equipment.







I started this thread for two reasons:

It’s been something Iv been mulling over for some time. This forum is so heavily dominated by DSLR owners the general view that equipment is irrelevant seems to be a dichotomy. I thought I must be missing something, that deep down perhaps many people did indeed harbour a belief that with out a certain level of equipment you can not be a photographer. This thread has completely squashed that idea.







The second reason was Bodryn’s reply to this thread: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56611 (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56611)

It made me wonder that if someone else saw the same things, my ideas might have some more ground to stand on.

Fortunately this thread shows that Bodryn’s fears are ungrounded, and that I was right in my assessment of my own.







I guess my own background in the automotive scene contributed to much of my uncertainty, unfortunately what you drive is often more important than how you can drive it, and it’s a view that is growing here in NZ where even a hard working well off high school student can afford a WRX or Evolution Lancer with only a little help from their parents.


And of course the growing popularity of digital cameras, in all their forms from DSLRs to camera phones and PDA’s might have created some degree of backlash against small compact users. I know several good friends who all think they can take great photos because their PDA has a 1MP camera in it, or their brand new 5MP Sony will be better because it has more MPs than my A80.

I know my recent candid’s from a friends wedding surprised the groom, who thought you needed a DLSR to get that level of quality.

Fortunately it appears any backlash has gone against the equipment posers, the people who still think that by having the same equipment as they pro, they can take the same photos. Forgetting of course while they are taking a photo, the pro is making one.


Thank you to everyone who replied, that has to be one of the most consistant series of replies in the internets history :)

And don't stop, there must be some more interesting storys to share.

[joeyjoeyjoey]

Powershot fo life!

[zzpza]

i have three rules (well, guidelines) that i try to follow

* it's you taking the picture not the camera (i.e. person not the kit)
* there's always someone who knows more than you
* there's always something to learn from other photographers

admitedly it usually helps to have the right kit, but isn't always necessary...

just my thoughts.
jules.

[chris.bailey]

I love my S50. It travels the world with me and is also THE families camera. I also love my 1dMkII. It though tends to stay at home a lot and the family know not to touch it. It comes out for special occassions like wildlife, sport or portraits. So I use both. They are both great cameras, they both take some very nice pictures but they are both very different. One fits in your pocket, the other most certainly does not. One is insured, the other is not.

[primoz]

I agree with Jeff. I don't care what equipment people have. And if I have time during event I can talk with anyone no matter if he or she has p&s or newest and most expensive equipment, or nothing at all and he just wants to talk. And I don't mind if they are there shooting same thing as I do. But exactly as Jeff said I DO mind having someone, with no idea where to stand and what to do, jumping infront of my lens when I have WORK to do. There are certain rules which people who do their job know. And there's enough space for everyone to get their shot. But when someone like person which Jeff mentioned, comes by, and he thinks he can do anything since he got accreditation, it's hard to do your work.
I don't shot Indy 500 or Super Bowl, but I do shot lot of alpine skiing, ski jumping, xc sking, biathlon and cycling world cups and other top races that I know what I'm talking about. Even though number of photographers is probably nowhere near number of photographers on some Super Bowl I still know exactly what Jeff meant.

[Claire]

I agree with whoever said the camera is just a tool. Sure, your options may be bigger with state-of-the-art equipment, but if you're truly talented, the equipment won't be the main issue.

I've heard beautiful music been played on an old broken piano with keys missing. Art has been made using charcoal from a fire place. It's all in the artist.

[IndyJeff]

I think you're aiming your frustration at the wrong targets, Jeff. If you can't get the shot because people who don't have good reason to be there are in the way, blame the venue management who let them get there in the first place; not the people with the cameras... that's just bad organisation.

Cadwell I have seen people with p&s sitting in the grass with their back to the track while it is hot. They have no business being in a restricted area, period! There are rules and general safety issues they completley ignore.

At the winners shoot, the day after the 500, people come in with someone who is credentialed. I did this myself but, I stayed out of the way of those who were there working. Yes managemnet is to blame, somewhat because they aren't checking for credentials but, the sponsors are also at fault for bringing people in and allowing them to get in the way.

Now two weeks ago at the Franklin Central wrestling sectionals, after the 125lb class was done they posed for the podium shot. I fired off one frame, I did notice that the winner, who was my subject looked over his shoulder as I took my shot. I get ready to take another and BOOM my second shot is of the back of the head of some proud mother with her p&s camera. Now we all have been there since 9am or earlier and it is approaching 4pm. I am getting testy, I know. So I ask that she please move, about the same time another member of the press said the same thing. "I just want a picture of my son is that ok?" Almost simultaneousley me and two other guys said "Not when you are in the way of the press." She huffed and walked away, right across in front of 2 other guys shooting. I look up and half the wrestlers are off the podium, the guy who won isn't even looking this way anymore. I missed the shot and so did 2 of the 4 other guys shooting it.
What she did was rude, and totally uncalled for.
Her shot will be so loose, you will only be able to identify her son by his uniform I am sure.

When I was asked about the podium shot, my reply was all I got was the back of a fat as*es head.

[DocFrankenstein]

OT: So where do we go to find this talent?

BTT:

[Conk]

I think Moppie's question is an excellent one. In Cadwell's reply in his first post I'd have to agree that I feel the same way. (However,I always look down on N**** users.) Kidding! :twisted:
Sometimes I wonder what the other guy is thinking of me. Usually the point and shooter is liking what he see's, but the guy with the high end N**** gear is usually smirking at me. :confused:

[pradeep1]

I judge everyone by the equipment list in their signatures. :p

[FlipsidE]

Let me put it this way. I would be willing to bet money that there are photographers out there with P&S digicams that could put my DSLR work to shame. Definitely judge by the photographer...not by the equipment.

FlipsidE

[queenbee288]

I would like to respond to lisamarie's story. I am just a beginner but already I get so frustrated when I show someone a photo I took and worked on it a lot in photshop and used a lot of PS editing skills to get the best out of a so-so photo( because I am a beginner) and they say something like "wow that camera takes really good pictures".

[Claire]

I would like to respond to lisamarie's story. I am just a beginner but already I get so frustrated when I show someone a photo I took and worked on it a lot in photshop and used a lot of PS editing skills to get the best out of a so-so photo( because I am a beginner) and they say something like "wow that camera takes really good pictures".


Or when you've finally nailed the picture after tons of takes and proudly show it to people who respond by; "Wow, that's a great picture. Did you fix that in Photoshop?" :(

[FlyingPete]

Or when you've finally nailed the picture after tons of takes and proudly show it to people who respond by; "Wow, that's a great picture. Did you fix that in Photoshop?" :(

I hate that. It is right up there with "how many megapixels does your camera have?"

[primoz]

Hehe this one is easy for me.. usually my answer to this is "enough". There's no way they would be asking you anything more after that :)

[karusel]

Claire: seconded.

Also, when people say like, wow, nice camera, I bet it makes great photos, I just say, yeah, absolutely. How many megapixels? 6. I would find the answer 'enough' a bit obnoxious and rude, despite the obvious attempt to teach a lesson. The thing is, I really understand them, I mean, if you get to see a hot rally car, wouldn't you ask the driver how many HP it has? Followed by - wow, it goes fast, huh? You just politely feed them the smooth truth is what I think.

To the original question though: I cannot deny that when I see someone shooting an event with a small camera sometimes I just feel good because mine is bigger, and you know it's all about size these days, no matter what you hear some people say, hehehe.

Kidding aside, of course I would talk to a fellow photographer, regardless of his equipment, I judge photographers by photos they produce. if you give a good professional photographer a $100 compact camera you will still be able to tell by the photos he'll make, that he's not an average Joe. I do have a limit though, I don't regard mobile-phone-cameras as cameras and I don't regard the photos they produce as photos. I know a guy that's using a Rebel and a 18-55 plastic-o-lense. I've always sort of looked down at this lense, because, you know, it IS a pure consumer lense and does not deliver quite the L to the sensor, to add to that 300D is like, 10D except it's got it's knees sort of, broken, again pretty pure consumer item. This guy makes better shots than A LOT of 1D-MKII-L-people on pbase, actually he can quite easily match professionals although he's very young, high-school young. That kinda made me question my own desires for good (better) glass. Yeah.

[Claire]

I agree with the mobile phone cameras. Sorry, but those are just toys.

I have to admit that when I first got to this board I was a bit intimidated by everyone who kept yelling "get an L!", and at times I still find that they all make it sound like "unless you got an L in your collection, it's not a 'good' collection". Now that I know people more and everything I know they just want to give good advice and recommend the best possible lens. Still, it's quite scary when you're new on the board. It did feel a bit like people were looking down on others because you didn't have and L or some other lens that cost a month's salary.

I also can't help getting the impression at times that whenever someone asks about wedding photography, everyone bombards the person with "don't do it!" etc comments. All in good meaning, but to a newbie some of the posts also sound a bit like "you'll never be able to make it" type of comments.

Thankfully I just didn't let any of it get to me and look how much great advice I've received since I joined! :)

[KelliShaver]

Having been limited, financially, for the past several years and thus restricted to using low-end point & shoot cameras, it hasn't made me feel like any less of a photographer, so I would ceratinly not think that way about others. It has at times made me very frustrated because I was not able to get the shot that my mind was envisioning. I still think I managed to come up with a few jewels, though, from time to time, and it did get me thinking creatively.

The camera taht I use has absolutly no effect on my artistic ability. Whether it's a $1000 DSLK ro a $6 disposable, a better camera doesn't mean I suddnly have a better eye for composition, balance, lighting, line, texture and form.

I'll say the same thing about photography that I'll say about graphic/web design. The web design industry particularly is full of all kinds of people who think they are d9esigners just because they know all of the technical aspects of using photoshop. Knowing how to use a piece of software, or in the case of a camera, a piece of hardware, doesn't make you an artist. It makes you a technician. Having "the best" doesn't automatically make you a pro, and having less than that doesn't mean you're any less talented than the great artist who happens to be fortunate enough to be able to fund his career/hobby to the fullest extent. It just means you haven't spent as much money, and may have to work harder for those great shots.

[Mazza]

Well, I have a DSLR, but I am a complete newbie to photography. So although I might prance around with my big, flashy camera, I hope no one is judging me by what I am holding in my hands, lol, or they are going to get one mighty shock!!

[FlyingPete]

A tripod could help to minimize subsonic vibrations caused by the constant shifting of tektonic plates. AND WE KNOW HOW PESKY THOSE SHIFTS ARE, DON'T WE!?


Right with you there :D


So was the photographer's technique. The resulting images proved it. The fancy IS lens and the L glass couldn't compensate for the photographer's basic ineptitude. The wide aperture capacity lent a natural look to the lighting scheme, but the photographer's technique subverted the technology. The photographer could have achieved the same effects with any other kind of camera.

You forgot the other reason L Glass is good, its $#&* heavy, you get a really good work out lugging one of these white drainpipe things around ;)

Anyway who cares about the photographs, its all about looks and pose value isn't it? :rolleyes:
I have meet ididuals like your L Glass owner myself that turn our simular 'quality' results.


I judge the results.

Too right.

[Claire]

Just for the record so I don't sound like a total saint; if I had the cash I'd run to the nearest photography store and buy the 20D, a really good macro, wide angle and telezoom. Ok, throw in a couple of primes too for the hell of it! And hell yes, I'd probably get an L if I actually had a need for it. LOL But that's what it's at; do I really NEED it, or do I just WANT it? ;)

/Claire
P.S. Did I mention I'd also buy myself some nice jewellery if I had the cash for it?

[Tom W]

Only on photography forums have I seen so much foot stomping about equipment. Among working photographers I've known, at their worst, the comments are more like, "You mean he took that photo on THAT piece of junk!? Wow. I'm surprised."

Which do I judge--- the photographer or his equipment?

You have a knack for explaining things that is better than most. :)

Let's see...

Years ago, there was a lot of the idiotic yammering about 35mm vs medium format, but that issue is pretty much dead, I think. Among wedding photographers it's a dead issue, anyway. Among medium format afficiondes, there's still that Hasselblad vs everyone else nonsense, I suppose, but I'll put my Schneider lenses and Sinar large format against anything out there.

The MF vs. 35 mm argument is coming back in fashion with the introduction of the Canon 1Ds Mk II. Really - though right now, it seems to be an argument that exists only among those that actually use the equipment for a living.

Now that we're digital the foot stomping is ridiculous. I think there are people running around with equipment they don't need and with equipment from which they can't realize any tangible advantage. If one is an astrophotographer, he needs every advantage in order to help him to resolve those distant stars and planets so that he can see whether the people out there drive Lexi or Ford Foci.

I'm probably guilty of wandering around with more equipment than I might need. I can see the advantage, but I'm not sure that it is tangible as far as image quality is concerned (the loose nut behind the camera has a lot of input on image quality, and I'm that nut). On the other hand, the nicer stuff does have a fit and finish that reminds me of the older stuff. I grew up on manual cameras and machined mechanisms, and a lot of the plastic stuff just feels cheap in comparison (even if it is durable, and well-made).

Photographers who shoot for publication--- especially photojournalists-- have always had a practical need for the best lenses and greatest resolution possible because THINGS HAPPEN to images once they go to publication. THINGS HAPPEN when they're in the middle of a tornado or a car crash.

Agreed, though there are many PJ's that use more moderate lenses quite a bit. There's been many a pro image taken with the 28-135 lens. The curse of digital is that we can see the weakness of good lenses such as that one, even if our final output wouldn't be any different.

Does the casual photographer really need L lenses? Can he even realize the advantage of the increased resolution and the improvement in contrast if he hand holds the camera and prints his images out on his desktop printer?

The casual photographer probably does not - especially if he prints on his 4-color HP deskjet (yes, I have one, and it sucks for images). Many pro's don't need the L glass in many situations. But it's debatable if most casual photographers even need a DSLR, let alone a cheaper film SLR. Bottom line - need is in the eyes of the beholder, even if it is a silly waste of money. As long as people waste their own money and not mine, I won't complain.

I'd say not. If we wanted to take the discussion to extremes, we could say that even the IS lenses would benefit from being mounted on a tripod. There'd be that much LESS vibration that the lens would have to deal with. A tripod could help to minimize subsonic vibrations caused by the constant shifting of tektonic plates. AND WE KNOW HOW PESKY THOSE SHIFTS ARE, DON'T WE!?

Interesting point - the tripod, along with mirror lockup is a great thing. But IS is a very handy tool for shooting where tripods aren't acceptable, or desirable. I love it, though I probably can live without it in many situations. Only use it on the long lenses anyway (primarily because I only have it on a couple of long lenses).

Not long ago, I attended a backyard wedding. I brought some equipment to take some pictures because, frankly, I believed that the only reason that my wife was invited was because it was expected that I'd take some pictures. There was another photographer there with a Rebel D, a 10D, a 20D, a white lens on one and some other fancy looking zooms on another. I left my rig in the car and didn't retrieve it when I saw the other guest with her arsenal. Someone who knew that I am a photographer tapped me on the shoulder and said,"Oooh. Go look at her equipment. It's pretty fancy stuff." It WAS pretty fancy.

So was the photographer's technique. The resulting images proved it. The fancy IS lens and the L glass couldn't compensate for the photographer's basic ineptitude. The wide aperture capacity lent a natural look to the lighting scheme, but the photographer's technique subverted the technology. The photographer could have achieved the same effects with any other kind of camera.

It's best not to play professional photographer unless you can be one. I turned down a wedding last week for that very reason.

Which do I judge--- the photographer or his equipment?

neither, unless it's in a court of law and the photographer is charged with killing someone with a camera.

I judge the results.

Well, you definately have a point there - judge not, lest ye be judged. I honestly have to say that I can freely judge both, but for different reasons. I can look at a 600 f/4 lens and judge it to be a great lens. I can look at a great picture and judge it to be a great picture - all in my opinion, of course.

[Persian-Rice]

RESPONSE A(my general opinion):

I don't judge photographers in terms of a "good one" vs "bad one" based on equipment. I however quietly make my assumptions about the other person based on their equipment.

Example being, I take one person's level of skill and compare it to their equipment to first get an idea. Then I see how excessive the difference is. Not naming names(not this board specifically), I see work done with a certain $8000 camera which to be honest, any photographer with some skill could easily do with a cheap digicam. IMO, these people are the ones who want to to have the best equipment, for the sake of having it. IMO anyone who has this mentality is stupid, so I steer clear. Same with some guy who posted that he wanted an L lens, any L lens... what do you need an L lens for if you don't even know what you want to do with it?

On the street, I give respect to anyone with a camera, to a certain degree. I tend to be a very good judge of the person standing across me, some are just wasting time to talk to someone with a big black thing around his neck, while others are actually interested. The other reason I don't judge is that the other guy with a $150 P&S might actually be talented. The first time I grabbed a digicam, I shot and people quickly started telling me that I have a natural skill on my hands. I managed to beat out a good 100-200 people when I applied for university. Most of these other people had expensive gear and my portfolio was completely taken with an a75, so equipment doesnt matter.

RESPONSE B(to guys like indyjeff):

I completely understand your situation. but you need to understand that people don't think anything of it at first guess.

For me, I am aware of this and respect this fact, I also respect others who show this courtesy to me. As an aspiring pro, I understand that these people put food on the table with their cameras, and this is more important. I would expect the same from them.

IndyJeff, that is one example, but I have experienced the other side. I just recently became the "official photographer" of a Junior A, and Minor level AAA/AA hockey club. Last week at my first ever tournament, a father showed up by the glass asking if he could take a shot of his son(goalie) with a Canon s##. I told him to wait 1 min while I got a couple shots I needed to get and he was very very cool about it. So cool in fact that we started talking while I was shooting, he explained how he loved to get shots of his son and whatnot. We also talked about cameras, more specifically how much he loved mine. Out of the deal, he got to take a couple snaps with my 1DII and the 70-200 and got to keep his shots for himself free of charge.

Boy did that make his day.

Some people have the basic common sense to understand that we are not only shooting for our enjoyment and love of the art, but as a career as well. The ones who don't respect that usually don't think of this fact, and then there are ones who are ****ty about it and then call us pricks. I'm not a prick, if I was, I would have told the dad to go back in the stands where he belonged. I wouldnt have told the arena staff he was with me when they questioned him why he was at ice level.

We as the so called "pro's" need to get the point out that photography is not there as hobby or just to record family memories, but it's a massive industry as well.

[Tom W]

But now, there's the photographer to figure into the equation. Aside from his expertise and judgment, does he even matter after the image is captured? Is he still a part of the work after the image is printed?

There are some who maintain that the work exists apart from the artist once the work is produced.

If you apply this question to music and other media, you get some interesting answers.

Well, now, I guess I left that part out. Yes, IMHO the photograph is a part of the photographer, at least when taken in a more artistic sense. Even a news photograph is a credit to the photographer that made it. Maybe he or she was in the right place at the right time, but odds are that there was a creative eye involved with getting a good image that depicted the scene as accurately and clearly as possible.

As for that 600 mm lens, I see that as a work of art in its own way. A quality instrument is a kind of art that many of us gearheads can appreciate, much like a finely tuned motor.