[RioRico]

Strikes me as more accurate than most advertising. Note the "only". They're not saying gear makes the photographer, just that the limitations of one's equipment matter, which is true.

Wrong. Saying, "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses," is just plain false. It is a marketing lie, utter bullsh!t. Photographers have shot great photos with lousy gear, and lousy photos with great gear. If that statement were true, Leica and Linhof would rule the world. Yes, nice gear is nice, but it's not mandatory. What IS vital is that a photographer KNOW their gear, and how to use it; and more importantly, how to see, how to use light and shadow and angle and distance. Gear is at the bottom of the list.

Bullsh!t marketing tells me to buy something else. [/me deletes rant about fair and balanced]

[baro-nite]

Photographers have shot great photos with lousy gear, and lousy photos with great gear.

Who said otherwise? I think we can all agree to take this for granted. A talented photographer, given only a Holga to work with, will find a way to make great photos. But this same photographer would be "better", in the sense of being able to produce a wider range of great photos, with better equipment.

As to taking lousy photos with great gear, an area in which I have broad experience (insofar as Pentax makes great gear), that in no way refutes the assertion that a photographer is only as good as his equipment. Don't overlook the "only".

gear is nice, but it's not mandatory

Unless your definition of "photographer" is fundamentally different from mine, which is of course possible, this is absurd.

[RioRico]

gear is nice, but it's not mandatory

Unless your definition of "photographer" is fundamentally different from mine, which is of course possible, this is absurd.

Umm, you chopped-off the first two words of that sentence. I wrote, "Yes, nice gear is nice, but it's not mandatory." Although if shooting pinholes on an emulsion-covered surface, even gear is somewhat optional. I was sort of hardware-heavy, using a bit of tinfoil on an oatmeal carton loaded with photo paper as a pinhole camera. Some pinholers form cameras from their mouths or fists, or holes in the ground. But we probably need something a bit more elaborate for action shots.

[v5planet]

Umm, you chopped-off the first two words of that sentence. I wrote, "Yes, nicegear is nice, but it's not mandatory." Although if shooting pinholes on an emulsion-covered surface, even gear is somewhat optional. I was sort of hardware-heavy, using an oatmeal carton and sheet of tinfoil as a pinhole camera. Some pinholers form cameras from their mouths or fists, or holes in the ground. Bet we probably need something a bit more elaborate for action photography.

Hole in the ground pinhole camera, eh. That could lead to interesting results.

[SpecialK]

We all know that it takes both to get good photography, so Nikon (and Canon) can just keep riding that high horse...

Canikon can not sell photographers. The sell what they make, which is gear.

[baro-nite]

Umm, you chopped-off the first two words of that sentence.

Ha ha, so I did! Ignore that bit, please.

[sjwaldron]

I think both sides of the argument are full of BS. The smart and skilled photographer will get the best gear they can manage.

---

Last edited by sjwaldron; 09-29-2011 at 06:18 PM.

[boriscleto]

Wrong. Saying, "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses," is just plain false. It is a marketing lie, utter bullsh!t. Photographers have shot great photos with lousy gear, and lousy photos with great gear. If that statement were true, Leica and Linhof would rule the world. Yes, nice gear is nice, but it's not mandatory. What IS vital is that a photographer KNOW their gear, and how to use it; and more importantly, how to see, how to use light and shadow and angle and distance. Gear is at the bottom of the list.

Bullsh!t marketing tells me to buy something else. [/me deletes rant about fair and balanced]

Testify!

[einstrigger]

An apology was made by Nikon stating the following:

We know some of you took offense to the last post, and we apologize, as it was not our aim to insult any of our friends. Our statement was meant to be interpreted that the right equipment can help you capture amazing images. We appreciate the passion you have for photography and your gear, and know that a great picture is possible anytime and anywhere.

It wasn't quite the same as the Netflix debacle, but fun nonetheless.

[Ash]

it was not our aim to insult any of our friends

So we can still be friends?

[sjwaldron]

So we can still be friends?

Only if there are free 24mm f1.4 for everyone! (pretends to be offended)

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Wrong. Saying, "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses," is just plain false. It is a marketing lie, utter bullsh!t. Photographers have shot great photos with lousy gear, and lousy photos with great gear. If that statement were true, Leica and Linhof would rule the world. Yes, nice gear is nice, but it's not mandatory. What IS vital is that a photographer KNOW their gear, and how to use it; and more importantly, how to see, how to use light and shadow and angle and distance. Gear is at the bottom of the list.

Bullsh!t marketing tells me to buy something else. [/me deletes rant about fair and balanced]

All that sounds good my friend, but tell me now - which forum here has the most activity? Hint: it isn't this one.

What I like about Nikon's statement is that you can't expect Canon to say: "no, it ain't so, equipment doesn't matter - canon, nikon, it's all the same - it's just about you, the creative and artistically gifted customer".

Few things are necessary, but some things are more efficient. The best way to realize this is to look at weapon technology. The guys with sticks and stones are now featured in museums - and it's not like they couldn't fight. But at the end of the fight, when the smoke clears, the most efficient win. Of course, with art, the nice thing is that you can shoot a piece of crap and hang it in a museum, then say: "see, technology doesn't matter - it's just about getting a unique perspective on crap and that's all due to me". "Vanity, definitely my favorite sin."

[pingflood]

Nikon and Canon have always thought it was their gear that made the photos good... big surprise!

Yes, unlike other camera companies who do their best to not sell you anything, right? Give me a break.

Also, for being so "photographer" oriented I am amazed at the amount of time and effort spent on this site to try to prove how Pentax gear beats Canon, Nikon, Sony etc etc... bit ironic there, wouldn't you say?

[magkelly]

That's just the only reasonable reply to that asinine bit of text.

[RioRico]

Hole in the ground pinhole camera, eh. That could lead to interesting results.

It's mostly for solar photography. I've suggested that for the greatest cam on earth, the meteor crater near Flagstaff AZ be covered-over and lined with photo-sensitive canvas.

I think both sides of the argument are full of BS. The smart and skilled photographer will get the best gear they can manage.

And that depends on what they're shooting. The camera of choice for some noted photographic artists is/was the Argus C3. I think some of my most creative digital shooting was with a non-zoom 1mpx P&S -- I really had to WORK with that one. I'll say that the smart+skilled togger gets the gear they *need* for their work. Just what that gear is, depends.

So we can still be friends?

Can't we all just get along? Ah, the one Canon (formerly Hassy) shooter I know recommends Pentax to her co-workers. Yes, we needn't be fanbois.