[little laker]

I'll be using my K100D, with an OLD manual focus lens (most likely my old K-series SMC Pentax 55mm F1.8) at an indoor event coming up pretty soon, and will most likely be giving those Canon and Nikon shooters a run for their money.

And several of them have spent more for a lens than I have on all of my equipment, including my Sigma gear, tripods, etc.

So I still say that it's the person behind the camera that makes the difference.

[Mallee Boy]

Yes, I agree....of course the camera matters.

BUT, neither is that the end of it.

Because the lens also matters,

as does the photographers ability to operate the camera,

as does the photgraphers ability to read the light,

as does the composition of the shot,

as does the tripod or monopod,

as does the post processing

and as does the printing.

......so?

[serendipity]

So I still say that it's the person behind the camera that makes the difference.

Agreed! And I'm making it my goal in life to prove this point Still quite a way to go yet though!


Serendipity (Mick)

[newmikey]

Isn't it about time we stop aah'ing and ooh'ing next time someone shows us a 800x600 resized 14 megapixel shot to show how good his new camera is?

I just traded in my K110D + 18-55 for a K100D Super body without any money changing hands and I stick by my Sigma 24-135mm oldtimer. I start finding dpreview less and less inspiring as it has become a "mine is bigger than yours" discussion site. As I am happily married with 3 kids, I do not need a replacement for my reproductive organs, which it seems to me, the new lenses and cameras have become.

Maybe just going out to shoot an image for the image itself, rather then for a noise or lens comparison, would be in order. Also, the habit of prefacing every post with the model# of camera and lens should also go. Wait a bit more and we will have every bloody post start with the dollar value of the equipment used

Mike

(I have only 5 senses, so 6 Mp seems like a lot to me!)

[Nesster]

My recent explorations into bottom-feeding vintage cameras, as well as less vintage film SLRs, for me has recapitulated the phylogeny of where we are - that is, each automation or gadget in itself addressed a former Royal Pain.

I see the equipment question as one of range, primarily, and of course of quality. An old folder CAN produce a great photograph, but I have to be more aware (or lucky), and it won't do so in many circumstances. A TLR, or a manual SLR, will do the trick in more situations... and with the SLR I can use different lenses... and so on. A K20D will work easier in situations the K100D might not. But the margins are smaller now.

(A sort of analogous situation exists in the world of high fidelity sound - the top products of 50 years ago are still outstanding, though perhaps of limited application. The general level of sound in average is much greater now than then, and the peaks are relatively lower, or stratospherically expensive and impractial for most.)

There's actually another parallel between photography and hi fi gear: the idea that better measurements and resolution = better reproduction. This IS true in the sense that a dedicated practictioner WILL get a better result with better equipment, that more (natural) resolution will make a better image... But measurements don't have any connection with artistic results. Within its limitations, I can coax good sound out of an old stereo, or a less than state of the art modern one. Someone else may get even better results, or far worse.

Leaving aside the mass market oriented photographers/sound engineers (for whom Good Enough to Sell is the target), the equipment used has many dimensions - usability, reliability, familiarity, specific effects, applicability to the situation, etc. That said, I'd think most quality oriented photographers would opt for the better equipment over so-so stuff, when they can.

And all things equal, shooting with a camera whose exposure behavior I understand and with a lens whose behavior I also know (and whose technical quality is superior) will give me a better straight photograph than if I used a less reliably exposing body with a problematic lens. I've been in the latter situation often enough...

[RiceHigh]

Your Camera Does Matter

Actually, Ken Rockwell is a strange guy who is just a gear head but also a photographer. Whilst he said "camera does not matter", he did review latest gear from time to time!

Michael Reichmann of course is a knowledge photographer who knows much about the inside technics of camera gear too.

So, afterall, these two famous guys just told me that "gear does matter", no matter what they actually claimed!

So, when some people started to say that "gear does not matter" when they only wanted to defend, it's the only time that I couldn't understand.

[Marc Langille]

Well, I'd say that the point is debatable. Ken Rockwell says it doesn't matter and this guy says it does matter what camera you use. Many words - many comments.

Say RiceHigh, do you have an online gallery somewhere to demonstrate graphically the differences or similarities between a cheap camera and an expensive one? I'd love to see it.

Since Michael does not often post images, may I?

With the el cheapo ($325) 6MP DS:



With the K10D at $625 (almost as "cheap"):


Need some 100% crops?? Not a problem to provide them...

The camera matters, so does the lens, the skill level/mastery of the photographer, etc.

Ultimately I've seen some VERY mediocre images from a $5000 Nikon D3. Why? It's the skill level of the photographer. 'Nuff said...

Cheers,
Marc

Since Michael does not often post images, may I?

With the el cheapo ($325) 6MP DS:



With the K10D at $625 (almost as "cheap"):


Need some 100% crops?? Not a problem to provide them...

The camera matters, so does the lens, the skill level/mastery of the photographer, etc.

Ultimately I've seen some VERY mediocre images from a $5000 Nikon D3. Why? It's the skill level of the photographer. 'Nuff said...

Cheers,
Marc

Nice pics Marc. BTW how cheap were the lenses you used for those pics?

I am on the opinion that good equipment helps and depending on the situation is essential. These kind of threads seems to me like the arguments between agnostics and believers, there will never be an agreement.

[Marc Langille]

Nice pics Marc. BTW how cheap were the lenses you used for those pics?

I am on the opinion that good equipment helps and depending on the situation is essential. These kind of threads seems to me like the arguments between agnostics and believers, there will never be an agreement.

Thank you. The lens is FA* 200/4 macro, albeit at a lot less than current eekbay pricing. I am not sure why the lens price is important, as evinced below...

Here's a hummingbird pic taken with the K10D + DA 50-200:


Does this prove that you can take a decent shot with a kit lens on such a fast subject, as shown above? It just means I have to be even more patient than if I were using my FA* 300/2.8... If the above image isn't a plug for the photographer being the most important part of the equation, then I don't know what is anymore...

Regards,
Marc

[TaoMaas]

If the above image isn't a plug for the photographer being the most important part of the equation, then I don't know what is anymore...

Regards,
Marc

Oh no...you're a fool and there are any number of people out there who are more than willing to tell you that. It's ALL about the equipment. But you're in good company, btw. In Rockwell's article, he quotes Ansel Adams, Walker Evans, Ernst Haas, and Andreas Feiniger as also poo-pooing the importance of the camera.

[and]

Im still wondering what the discussion is about. Some cameras and lenses are better than other cameras and lenses. Better equipment doesntmake you a better photographer. So what is being discussed here? Is there a problem

[Marc Langille]

Im still wondering what the discussion is about. Some cameras and lenses are better than other cameras and lenses. Better equipment doesnt make you a better photographer. So what is being discussed here? Is there a problem

Well stated and thank you...

[OniFactor]

Im still wondering what the discussion is about. Some cameras and lenses are better than other cameras and lenses. Better equipment doesntmake you a better photographer. So what is being discussed here? Is there a problem

the problem is is that people like to join camps, and will jump to a side of either 'camera gear makes the picture possible' and 'the picture can't be taken without a photographer'.


it's the chicken and the egg of the 21st century.

[Gooshin]

Im still wondering what the discussion is about. Some cameras and lenses are better than other cameras and lenses. Better equipment doesntmake you a better photographer. So what is being discussed here? Is there a problem

people with too much on their plate that cant afford expensive equipment want to feel satisfied that they can make due without it.

but, they dont stop at that, they want to beat the rich guys or those that think that a hobby should have no price limit into a pulp, they want to crush those of us that can afford the expensive toys, with claims that they suck as photographers and should bend down to the army of holga and pinhole camera swinging fanatics.....



people are bored, so they bitch, thats how forums go..

[Geekybiker]

Bad equipment can make a good photographer's pictures look horrible. However good equipment can never make a bad photographer's photos look good.

I think the author misses the point. Yes equipment does matter, but only when you have sufficient skill to take advantage of it first.