So is equipment really a big factor?

Of course gear matters, but I'd say with the quality you now get with any new dSLR the situations where gear matters a lot are further and further towards extremes of photography. Really low light, macro, extreme tele shots, fast action, indoor sports, very shallow DOF, etc. For all "everyday photography" you can't reallt blame the gear anymore.

You also can't really judge anything from a small compressed JPEG online, most of the difference will be because of different post processing skills.

Gear matters, But not to some, an example.

http://princess-of-shadows.deviantart.com​/

400D ftw.

I have noticed that 5d images always have something more to them than my 30d has. I cant put my finger on it but it just seems like the colors are so much fuller and the images are sharper. Not something that you could do with USM and a saturation boost.

Better photographers tend to use better equipment, better equipment doesn't make better photographers.

If you can't see and/or don't understand light now amount of equipment is going to help you. If you don't know how to fully use your equipment the gear is not going to help you. Remember a great photographer can get good images with any camera (give him some time to learn to use it) but a photographer that doesn't have a sensitivity to light and a good understanding of it or can't see the best gear in the world won't help/

Learn light and how to see it and to see in general then get the gear. I've seen better images from Holga and a point and shoot from great photographers that understand light and can see than from some that have the best gear and have no vision. Understand those things fully then this gear will give you a tool that will better enable you to capture what you see. But find the gear that does that best. That doesn't always mean a 1D body. For some it could be a 40D, a 5D a Haaselblad, an M8 and for some its a 1D.

The saturation in my 40D is much better than my 20D so a lot less post processing. Also the noise control is much better. So I'm glad I upgraded.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5649525
...
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Minor White

I would say that was more true when using film than it is for digital cameras, especially now at the end of the film era when neither cameras nor film improve that much any more. It will take some time until digital has stabilized in the same way, it still matters which camera you choose.

That quote is complete cobblers - some cameras/lenses simply cannot record what the photographer sees, as he's seeing it.

Likewise yet another sweeping Holga generalisation.

It depends what you're shooting!!!

A Holga can not and will not - ever - produce consistently good bird photographs (to use a subject I'm reasonably familiar with), and this ad nauseam regurgitation of stale, irrelevant cliches doesn't make them true.

Adding this at the end of the post - "But find the gear that does that best" - completely contradicts everything you say before it, and fully validates the idea that gear does matter..

Couldn't agree more, and I don't think a Holga is that great for indoor sports or motorsports either.
Unless you're going for some artistic interpretation.

FretNoMore wrote in post #5649752
Couldn't agree more, and I don't think a Holga is that great for indoor sports or motorsports either.
Unless you're going for some artistic interpretation.

Having the knowledge of what tool for what job and then how to use the tools is the most important part of the equation. I'll take an old F-1 with a manual 300 2.8 lens in the hands of a veteran sports photographer over a 1DsMIII in the hands novice any day.

Keith R wrote in post #5649710
That quote is complete cobblers - some cameras/lenses simply cannot record what the photographer sees, as he's seeing it.

Likewise yet another sweeping Holga generalisation.

It depends what you're shooting!!!

A Holga can not and will not - ever - produce consistently good bird photographs (to use a subject I'm reasonably familiar with), and this ad nauseam regurgitation of stale, irrelevant cliches doesn't make them true.

Adding this at the end of the post - "But find the gear that does that best" - completely contradicts everything you say before it, and fully validates the idea that gear does matter..

Learn to see and learn light before you invest in gear. Some of the greatest photographs have been taken with the most modest equipment.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #5652034
Having the knowledge of what tool for what job and then how to use the tools is the most important part of the equation. I'll take an old F-1 with a manual 300 2.8 lens in the hands of a veteran sports photographer over a 1DsMIII in the hands novice any day.

The comparison is always done in this way, which doesn't make sense. Bad photographer with expensive camera vs good photographer with cheaper camera.

Why don't you keep one parameter constant - the photographer - and see what he can do with different cameras, and then figure out whether the camera matters?

Ya gotta start somewhere and learning light is the best place to start. Because if you don't understand it and can't see it then all the other stuff is useless.

I'd rather learn using as good tools as I can afford. I intend to end up using the good stuff anyway so why waste time learning some other products, and be limited by them while learning?

Some have to make do with simple gear, some I understand even like the challenge of using mimimal equipment. Yet others claim people have to "work their way up" before they are worthy of good gear. That "suffering artist" road isn't for me though, I don't get it at all, but to each their own.

You can learn with a 20D just as well as a 1DsMkIII. Learn to walk before you try and run. No one is saying you have to work your way up but no amount of equipment will teach you to see. Light and the ability to see is something every good photographer can do.