Better camera = Better photographer?

So I have read many times on this forum that the photographer makes the picture, not the camera. From a composition point of view I agree. But from other things (focus, contrast, bokeh, etc) I find myself wondering. For example I started with a T2i and the kit lens. I am now using a 5diii and a 70-200 2.8IS. As much as I would LOVE to take all the credit for my recent images I have to suspect that most of it goes to gear. Curious to hear other's thoughts.

A great photographer can still take amazing pictures with the most crappy gear.
A crappy photographer will still take crappy pictures with the most expensive gear.

Of course your gear is going to shape the outcome of the picture, but that's also because you know how to use it and when to use it appropriately.

Ansel Adams could take better images with a T2i and kit lens than I can with a 5DIII and L glass, so I'd give the credit to the photographer. Every time.

Your argument is like saying that quality kitchen cookware make better meals.

The best camera/lens in the world still cant take the first image by itself, it doesnt get up to catch the sunrise by itself, or the beauty of an individual by itself. So you tell me...is it the gear...or the one that operates the gear that makes the difference?
Better equipment just makes the same job easier...it doesnt do the "real" work for you

I think this argument only goes so far. Everyone says its the photographer but its gets to a point where it might be 50/50 or more towards the gear.I'll ask another question, would you rather have a pro photographer with an blackberry camera or a hobbyist with a 1DX with 3 L primes, a 600ex-rt, a 70-200ii and 24-70ii shoot your wedding?

Exactly what I was talking about:

BIllionfps wrote in post #15617269
I think this argument only goes so far. Everyone says its the photographer but its gets to a point where it might be 50/50 or more towards the gear.I'll ask another question, would you rather have a pro photographer with an blackberry camera or a hobbyist with a 1DX with 3 L primes, a 600ex-rt, a 70-200ii and 24-70ii shoot your wedding?

As another example the cabinet shop I own cuts everything on computer controlled equip. I had better be able to turn out a square panel quicker and more accurately then the best cabinet maker using a table saw. Doesn't mean I am more capable, just means I made a bigger investment in equipment.

Hi

I overall reckon that it is the photographer who makes the difference, especially in terms of composition, etc. If you take the comparison to extremes it becomes much more difficult.

There is however a second order effect that is interesting and should not be underestimated (within reason): when you get your hands on proper pro spec gear it is likely that you want to think more like a pro and that your you raise the standards for yourself. That can lead to better pictures. This second order effect is then "multiplied" by the fact that your gear takes better quality shots than an iPhone or a Blackberry.
It won't make a pro out of you but may get you to take some shots closer to pro standards.

I hope this helps.

BIllionfps wrote in post #15617269
I think this argument only goes so far. Everyone says its the photographer but its gets to a point where it might be 50/50 or more towards the gear.I'll ask another question, would you rather have a pro photographer with an blackberry camera or a hobbyist with a 1DX with 3 L primes, a 600ex-rt, a 70-200ii and 24-70ii shoot your wedding?

This thread is more like a pro with a T2i and some lenses vs a hobbyist with expensive camera and lenses. Because you'll get a bunch of wedding photos that look like snapshots from the amateur with a bag full of L lenses and pro gear compared to what the skilled professional will turn out.
The experience of the pro will trump the gear of the hobbyist nearly everytime, also resulting in getting more done faster.

I try not to leave out the processing when it comes to a final image in these arguments, which can weigh heavily when comparing an image from a skilled photog with average gear to a hobbyist with pro gear.

Better camera(or optics) provides the means for a better photograph aesthetically. A better photographer comes from dedication and the application of skills and artistic ability. Some of the greatest works of art known to man were created with the most crude of tools. The recipe for both a better photographer and a photograph isn't dependent on equipment, only enhanced by it.

Northwoods Bill wrote in post #15617178
So I have read many times on this forum that the photographer makes the picture, not the camera. From a composition point of view I agree. But from other things (focus, contrast, bokeh, etc) I find myself wondering. For example I started with a T2i and the kit lens. I am now using a 5diii and a 70-200 2.8IS. As much as I would LOVE to take all the credit for my recent images I have to suspect that most of it goes to gear. Curious to hear other's thoughts.

Another current thread in this forum, from a person who had never taken motorsports pictures, openly asked how to take "epic" pictures of racing. From the examples posted by the OP and experienced photographers, it was crystal clear that the key to getting those "epic" pictures was previous experience, knowledge of the subject and ability to control the camera.

If you want to be an overnight success in photography, you're going to need to spend several hundreds of those overnights learning the equipment and understanding its capabilities. Epecially with the several Canon so-called "18 MP" DSLR's, there's not much difference in each model's capabilities to generate images.

As demonstrated by messages posted on this forum, while the Canon 7D is the most sophisticated of the Canon 18MP DSLR's, it's also been the subject of many messages from users who have been confounded by the complexity of its autofocus system. Clearly, many of those who bought a 7D because it was "the best" would have been happier with something simpler or less expensive.

Another example of a frequent equipment question: users often ask about
accessory battery grips. Yes, the grips have advantages of additional battery capacity and the addition of a vertical shutter release. However, grips do not include artificial intelligence neural implants that tell a photographer when to push that shutter button or how to aim the camera. Those decisions still depend on human intelligence and experience.

Having nice gear simply gives you less excuses as to why your pictures suck.

Lets not forget how much PP makes pictures look better that the camera can take.

In all hobbies and interests there is some point where gear does matter. Where that line is depends on a whole lot of factors. It also depends on what you are basing the quality of the image on.

A camera definitely matters a lot and will make photos look nicer ONLY if you know how to use it. I do think that lesser cameras complement starting photographers, and when they grown out of them and seek more options, there are more expensive cameras. But in no way a camera will make someone a PRO who has no idea on how to use it.

Expensive gear isn't going to make you better photographer, but it helps.