Is it the camera or the photographer?

cdifoto wrote in post #5726929
I absolutely refuse to use a cereal box camera. And you can't make me!

Maybe you need to buy different cereal.

chauncey wrote in post #5726964
Au contraire mon ami, why be so judgemental concerning what a neophyte should buy.

Judgemental? Nope, merely offering an opinion based on years of experience in other endeavors, similar to photography.

tonylong wrote in post #5727034
Well, who sets that "starting point"? I say the only person who can say what the best starting point is will be the one making the decision. And why not a 5D if the person decides that it fits within their budget? Who can possibly judge them for getting a fine camera? Do you seriously believe that a person would be disadvantaged in any way by buying, say, a 5D with a "kit" 24-105 L lens over a Rebel and kit lens? The 5D is, in fact, as easy to learn and use as a 20D or a 30D...

Now, if a person introduces his/her desire to enter the DSLR realm with an indication that they are on a restrictive budget, then I have no hesitation recommending a Rebel or a used 20D/30D whatever. But some of the arguments and judgements against buying high quality gear lean into arrogance, IMO. A person who is serious about learning and developing photography skills/understanding can learn just as easily with a 5D or a 1D and can grow into a body they won't feel compelled to unload within a year, and can benefit from the advanced qualities of those bodies sooner rather than later.

There are, of course, people who just want an advanced point and shoot camera, who aren't serious about "serious" photography, who won't want to read the manual, much less delve into photography books and tutorials. Those people would probably be best served by an advanced point and shoot such as the G9 or the S5 IS and I'd have no problem nudging them in that direction. And, someone who says something like "I don't want to bother reading the manual, could you tell me what it says?", well, when I loaned my son my 30D not long ago, I helped him get started, but then his homework assignment was to read the manual once through while taking some practice shots. Then ask me some more questions.

I understand what you're saying but I firmly believe in the building block of learning, which means starting out with the most basic tools. I've seen it time and time again in my other life where someone undertaking a new endeavor elects to use more expensive (or complex) tools only to quit or fail later on.

However, in the end, this is an endless debate and we all have our own opinions, not likely to be changed by debating on the internet.

To each their own - different strokes for different folks.

it's true of having the right gear in a difficult situation makes a difference.

However, I think why most people do not like people with pro level bodies is because people naturally think that with pro level bodies and pro level glass, the image comes naturally.

There are many many posts here in POTN that showcases this clear example. Threads are started asking why my image doesn't come out like that, or the image is OOF and other stuff, and in their sig, i see the 1DIII and 300 2.8 and etc...

Personally, I started on Nikon 35mm's and I learn photography the old school way. from what I remembered, the bodies were not the ones that made the difference, it's the kinda of negatives being used. I still can easily think of 10 different kinds of 35mm negatives and I'm not talking about what you can get when you walk into Walmart or CVS off the counter negatives.

I'm not the best sports photographer yet and I've been shooting sports with my 30D's since I started at the beginning of the year. I'm pissed off that there are small slight problems with my images. I blame myself for not being able to get better images, but a friend of mine, whom I bought my 3rd 30D body from, sold me his 30D and bought himself a 40D, then sold the 40D and bought a used 1DMkII tells me that there is a difference in the body. I told him maybe and I'm going to get to use it to see if I increase my keeper rates.

so far, I've seen his images from the 30D, 40D and 1DMkII and I can say, it is indeed slightly better. He was doing pretty good with the 30D's already.

I think the best way to test is to let some of the members here in POTN use the regular bodies and see what they produce.

Many folks started an old manual camera, but that is not who the major three are marketing to today.

The camera makers want to sell the romance of "pro" cameras to anyone with the ability to load the camera and walk out into the garden to shoot a zillion flower shots. I see it all the time at the club meeting. If you include all the newbies here that NEVER made a darkroom print vs the ones that have some HS experience to those that have had labs installed at home what do you think the ratio would be?

Now most of us are the lab, we decide on out computers which prints to work on, how they are PP'ed and then printed etc. The labs, are d-e-a-d. Silver based photography is on life support. Green boxes on cameras are used by those that charge for photography with no real clue as to how the image is made. And many understand that they do not need to "understand'.

Case in point, hho many of us have heard " wow nice camera I bet it makes nice shots?"
The photographer does not get any respect in the creative process except by those that understand the process. But if they are paying clients, they still think it is the camera that does the heavy lifiting. How many working shooters now have their gear lists on their personal websites. That way they know that the client sees they are a "pro" because of the gear they own.

In the film days, I NEVER had a client ask what 35mm, MF, or LF camera I used to shoot their project. Now I get the question all the time. I have even had some say that I had to use a such and such camera or they did not want to do business with me!! I have been asked by prospetive clients to shoot something "just like this - only better and of course cheaper. Then they show me what they think is a great shot.

So if you have a brain, you are screwed. Sorry gang, for us -photographers- it is the brain and the eye. For the rest of the unthinking world it is the gear.

You can debate ad nauseaum about what Ansel or Iioos or any other name shooter would do. But it is a moot point. That was yesterday. The public wants xeroxs of good shots, don't think - just shoot it.

Aaagogo, have you not noticed these-- https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=519072 and https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=333015

i know the IQ and color of the new Digi III processors looks good, but like I was saying, this is about the same as some 35mm negatives that I've used in the past. That is of course with my own developing and control over 35mm.

Then again, although I love digital, I still love my 35mm and MF, downside is, in today's world, it's not as convenient as a digital.

besides, with the cost of DSLR today, learning photography is made even easier. The old school photogs will understand how much it cost to learn photography, and how time consuming in the film days.

Now, EXIF data and histograms make is easy to review setting and learn and tweak, in film, no one will teach you on the proper settings, you can learn the iso/aperture/ss relation easy, but getting it right, no one or very few people will share, cause of all the time and money it took them to learn on 35mm.

I've never denied that in the right hands, the pro level body is just amazing. but like some members pointed out, alot of people assume that with the pro camera body, you get the shots.

but most people forget, that it is the person holding the camera that captures the images, and that includes, getting the right ISO, aperture, SS, framing, background... etc. Definitely not point and shoot and expect it to come out well.

It's very rude of me to point out the threads, but over my short time of browsing, I've seen threads that made me wonder, why did they not start with a simpler body and learn the basics.

get the basics down right first, learn to crawl before learning to fly.

you don't tell a chef at your favorite restaurant that he must have an excellent top of the line pots, pan, stove, knife and cutting board, neither would you tell your favorite writer that he must have the best keyboard, computer, mouse and print house right.

chauncey wrote in post #5728303
Aaagogo, have you not noticed these-- https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=519072 and https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=333015

tonylong wrote in post #5726670
When did being new to "serious" photography become a bad thing?

When did it become deserving of derision for an enthusiastic newcomer to buy a first DSLR, take a shot that was flawed, and post it asking for advice? Or, even worse, to take a shot that surpassed anything he/she had done before, and posted it, not realizing that some people would express contempt at the fact that the photo had flaws?

When did asking questions about basic things become bad? How many books must one read before they are allowed to ask a question that others with more knowledge know the answer to?

When did it become bad to be enthusiastic about photography and, even though one understands little, to buy the best gear one can afford in hopes of learning to use that gear to take increasingly better photos?

No body said new was a bad thing. We all have to start somewhere but knowing what is considered a good B&W print is if your doing B&W can't be a bad thing can it?

If you don't strive to be better then whats the use, right? I said the proper tool for the job but its the photographer that picks the lens the angle to shoot from the time of day to shoot waits for the quality of light to become right in the studio makes the choice of what lighting to use for which subject those are all decisions made by the photographer not the gear.

jra wrote in post #5722704
I've seen a few posts on here talking about how the general public often notices a photog with a nice camera and comments on how the camera must take great pics. We all know better here...the photographer is the much more important element....but while watching TV this evening I saw a Nikon commercial and I realized....That's how they market their equipment. They imply that it's the camera that "gets the shot". Not long ago, they went to a town and gave a bunch of people a Nikon to shoot with and used the photos in their ad...implying that by simply giving a person a decent camera, they become a great photographer. It's no wonder why so many people seem to think that great photography is nothing more than buying a nice camera.

Well, if I'm trying to sell my used camera... it's all about the camera.

If I'm trying to get someone to pay me for a wedding, it's all the photographer.

In reality, skill is very important. Knowing the technical stuff allows you to express yourself in the medium.

The cameras are important to an extent. A better camera will allow you to shoot in lower light, focus faster, last longer... etc.

For majority of amateurs the camera truly does not matter, because any camera allows you to improve your skills.

But it is the amateurs who create art. Art by definition is excess, so if one has the time for artistic pursuits, one probably has the means to acquire top gear for its creation.

The pros are less likely to spend excessively... etc.

I don't advocate beginners to invest in professional gear, but if they insist, who am I to argue?

I remember a time when SLR sales were spiraling downwards to the dismay of camera mfrs. With fewer cameras across which to spread their R&D budget, it looked like either prices would have to go up, or photogs would have to soldier on with the same camera model year-after-year; not that that would have been a bad thing mind you.

Now that amateurs are buying DSLRs by the bucketload, and spending money on all variety of lenses, those camera mfrs have been encouraged to ramp-up their R&D budgets, and prices have for the most part been maintained or reduced over the life of a product. We are also seeing product life cycles that would have been unimaginable in the SLR days, with incredible advances in technology with each new generation camera.

All of this is made possible by amateurs willing to spend bucketfuls of their hard-earned money on pricey equipment. Rather than bash them, professionals and serious hobbyist alike should thank them.

And so what if they can't achieve competent levels of photography with their pro gear. At least they will soon realize that money and gear alone will not buy them skills. Once they realize that, they can then stop making excuses and start working on their knowledge and skills.

EORI wrote in post #5728858
Rather than bash them, professionals and serious hobbyist alike should thank them.

I do. Got a bargain on both my 10D and my 1D II that way.

I have a differnt question for the group;

If I equipped a complete NOOB with a top of the line camera, L lenses, tripod with correct head etc. All they need to get some good shots including wide open exclusive access.

That being set, could the average Joe tell the diff between images shot by the pro and those shot by the NOOB?

LBaldwin wrote in post #5729036
I have a differnt question for the group;

If I equipped a complete NOOB with a top of the line camera, L lenses, tripod with correct head etc. All they need to get some good shots including wide open exclusive access.

That being set, could the average Joe tell the diff between images shot by the pro and those shot by the NOOB?

Are we to assume said pro is actually skilled? Some pros who claim to have eons of experience have sucked the whole time.

How difficult is the task/subject matter? Less challenging circumstances can sometimes close the quality gap.

definitely, cropping, framing, background will show the difference as proven many times in this forum.

LBaldwin wrote in post #5729036
I have a differnt question for the group;

If I equipped a complete NOOB with a top of the line camera, L lenses, tripod with correct head etc. All they need to get some good shots including wide open exclusive access.

That being set, could the average Joe tell the diff between images shot by the pro and those shot by the NOOB?

LBaldwin wrote in post #5729036
That being set, could the average Joe tell the diff between images shot by the pro and those shot by the NOOB?

Unless average Joe has zero sense for aesthetics, he should be able to distinguish even between images created by a serious hobbyist and the NOOB. Could the average Joe distinguish between images created by a serious hobbyist and the paid pro? Maybe, maybe not.

cdifoto wrote in post #5728998
I do. Got a bargain on both my 10D and my 1D II that way.

Sounds like you took candy from a baby.

A good photographer with crap camera = crapper photos
A crap photographer with good camera = crapper photos
A good photographer with good camera = better photos
A crap photographer with crap camera = crapper photos

The posters who say the camera does not matter are full of it, of course the camera matters, as does skill, as does knowledge, as does lighting, as does the lens, it all works together to form the image, and if any component is crap, so is the photo.

Even if I hired the best wedding photographer in the world, and they rocked up to my wedding with a P&S, I'd still kick them out and demand a refund.