Well...i didnt put alot of thought into it, and i didnt want to get into this flame war (a low flame for now) But certain people need Certain Things to achieve something. i would want a Faster camera to shoot fast subjects.
I am simply trying to underscore the importance of aesthetics, which is highly subjective and often marginalized during these discussions. Most people who advocate the importance of skill recognize that gear is important on some level. Last week, in a similar thread, I wrote the following (sorry for the redundancy, but…):
"…While there are varying opinions on this matter, two angles, at least for me, stand out:
1. Gear is important; you at least need a camera to take a picture. But it can go beyond that. A sports or wildlife photographer might improve their work (which could help generate increased revenue) if they acquired longer reach and a faster frame per second rate; a low light shooter might benefit from a faster, albeit pricey, lens; architectural shots might require an equally expensive tilt-shift lens; while a collector might sell his family to a snakehead trafficking syndicate to bask in the joy of procuring a limited edition Spice Girls Leica M6 rangefinder, bound in Day-Glo dyed leather.
Fair enough, most people on this site, by the very nature of being on this site, recognize that gear is important to some extent.
2. To me, the issue is not so much the importance of gear, but the argument that the mere attainment of high-end gear automatically translates to improved photos. Advocates of this view can quickly point to the above-mentioned examples where upgrading might indeed prove beneficial. Yet, even if a pro finds it a worthwhile investment to move from mediocre to high-end gear, the pro still had to develop the skills to become a pro in the first place (assuming this person is worthy of the title). Just as a quick side note, let us not get stuck on the ludicrous notion that a "pro" is the final reference point for photographic quality. The gear is important, but only to the extent in which a photographer can capitalize on it, and to what extent it facilitates his or her objectives; and these values are going to vary, sometimes immensely, depending on the individual.
One of only six photographers commissioned by the Salt Lake Olympic Committee, veteran photojournalist David Burnett (http://www.davidburnett.com/index.html), used a Holga to photograph the 2002 Games, while receiving an award for a portrait of Al Gore using the same cheap device. It is absolutely irrelevant if a better camera could have taken technically superior photos at the Olympics; that was not his point.
This then leads us into the issue of quality, which has its own dualistic issues:
1. Quality as defined by images that are tack sharp, low distortion, low chromatic aberration (CA), high resolution, and accurate color among other indicators.
2. Quality as defined by the photograph's aesthetic appeal: visually, cognitively, viscerally, or any combination of such. This is where the subject matter, the composition, the unique angle, the tones, lighting, wit, and creativity come into play; all of it pretty much subjective. There are countless photos of high quality, as defined by definition 1, that are still complete crap, while there are phenomenal photos that nevertheless score low in most of the measurable indexes.
The debate is largely fueled by the fact that all of these issues and definitions mentioned, and many others not broached, mix, and the ratio of this mix in terms of value is going to differ among each person."
? an impossible dream.
