[jhacker]

No One is Making a Bad Camera, You're Just a Bad Photographer

This guy mentions Pentax at the end. The gist is there are no bad cameras anymore, just photographers that need to get better.

[Unregistered User 8]

Hi jhacker. Putting aside his very poor attitude towards just about everything, he forgets that photography is very subjective. The only real test of whether a photograph is good or not, IMO, is whether the photographer who took it is happy with it.

[UncleVanya]

True to a large degree. Large Prints and extreme crops and very low light and sports AF may be areas where the rant is off base a bit.

[luftfluss]

It's an article expressing what we've seen countless other times from other photo-oriented sites over the years. I appreciate the irony that he wrote...

Give them expensive gear, all the lights in the world and more and you’ll begin to see that if you don’t have the vision, creativity, and the know-how when it comes to working with a scene and creating something then there is a strong chance that you’re going to be creating useless garbage.

... because that's what he just did, only with words. By "useless garbage" the author means creating a photo that has no vision and creativity - and that's what this article is. A cellphone shot of a sunset.

[Fenwoodian]

I'm relatively new to Pentax. Prior to becoming a Pentaxian last Spring, I shot Fuji, Nikon and Canon bodies. I would certainly attest to the fact that all three of these companies make mostly good to excellent camera bodies.

However, I do not agree that nobody makes bad lenses anymore. The difference in quality between the top lenses and the bottom lenses is HUGE.

So, to you new and budding photographers out there I'd advise that you probably can't go wrong buying a modern camera body from any of the major camera manufacturers. But, you need to be much more careful and deliberate when making your lens choices.

[KC0PET]

Hi jhacker. Putting aside his very poor attitude towards just about everything, he forgets that photography is very subjective. The only real test of whether a photograph is good or not, IMO, is whether the photographer who took it is happy with it.

Well said!

Of course for a professional the formula is similar, "The only real test of whether a photograph is good or not is whether the customer is happy with it."

[jatrax]

Yep, essentially true. Cameras today are simply amazing, and yet we moan and groan and wish for better. Take the cash you would spend on a new camera or lens and spend it on a class or just a book and time studying photography and you will be way ahead.

But where's the fun in that

[UncleVanya]

I'm relatively new to Pentax. Prior to becoming a Pentaxian last Spring, I shot Fuji, Nikon and Canon bodies. I would certainly attest to the fact that all three of these companies make mostly good to excellent camera bodies.

However, I do not agree that nobody makes bad lenses anymore. The difference in quality between the top lenses and the bottom lenses is HUGE.

So, to you new and budding photographers out there I'd advise that you probably can't go wrong buying a modern camera body from any of the major camera manufacturers. But, you need to be much more careful and deliberate when making your lens choices.

Spend a few months in the single in challenge or watch the cheap camera challenge and then you may see what is really meant. Great lenses are out there but bad lenses are few and far between. The photographer may have to work to coax art from some lenses but that is where the good photographers distinguish themselves.

[Canada_Rockies]

A more modern example - the lens date is relatively modern compared to my S-M-C Takumar 55mm f/5.6 - this is the M 400mm f/5.6 which is really quite new - it was made in 1976 according to the serial number.

The Tak is actually easier to use. When I flip the switch from auto to manual it exposes properly using aperture priority. With the M, I have to actually push the green button to get it to set the shutter speed before I press the shutter release.

[Outis]

I feel like this discussion is overly simplistic-- cameras and lenses are only good relative to their intended purpose. They're right that pretty much every camera will do fine on brightly lit landscapes. On the other hand, there are plenty of uses for cameras that push the limits of technology where differences between cameras do make a difference. For instance, one aspect of my job is taking photographs without a flash in dimly-lit museums. I use the resulting images for my work, so need all the detail that I can get. There, the quality of my equipment makes a huge difference.

Photography isn't just about art, y'all.

[luftfluss]

Spend a few months in the single in challenge or watch the cheap camera challenge and then you may see what is really meant. Great lenses are out there but bad lenses are few and far between. The photographer may have to work to coax art from some lenses but that is where the good photographers distinguish themselves.

I agree. Even kit lenses are good in terms of resolution.

[Digitalis]

My counter argument: 90 percent of everything is crap. Only 10% of photogaphic hardware ( bodies,Lenses, strobes,accessories) is worth a damn, the rest should be melted down for scrap.

[beholder3]

The gist is there are no bad cameras anymore, just photographers that need to get better.

Boy, this requires the photographers to be grown-ups. Where will we end up if old men can't find excuses for their worthless pictures by trying to push the responsibility to the tools they use?

Everybody knows it the guilt of the amateur hammer if your house crashes in on you, never the guilt of the guys who used it poorly.

That article actually is more about growing up and sad excuses than anything else. And it applies to any scenario where people use things.

[mohb]

I blame pixel peepers who think ISOzillion without any noise is the ideal setting

[Rondec]

I do think forum discussions tend to be pretty gear-centric. And understandably so -- it is easier to upgrade the camera than the photographer and it is a lot easier to blame the camera than the photographer, as well.

That said, I do agree, mostly, with the underlying premise. Compared to ten years, or even five years ago, the cameras available are amazing and even the entry level cameras are capable of huge dynamic range and good high iso performance. The exceptions are probably sports photography and wildlife photography, where specialized lenses, high frame rates, and excellent auto focus tracking are super helpful in getting the best shots.