[dylansalt]

If you take composition and artistic interpretation out of the equation then certainly certain camera's can get the job done way better than others.

You cannot doubt that a Nikon D3s and Canon 1D MKIV will trounce every other camera out there when it comes to sheer performance for lets say low light and sports photography.

The other camera makers have nothing that can realistically come close to these two models.

Just the same for the Canon 5D MK11 which is the FF dslr chosen by serious landscape photographers and we could higher up the tree to MF for this.

[RioRico]

OK, I give up. Canikon FF's rule. Everything else sucks. We should all throw away our Pentax-Sony-Oly-whatever cams because they're no good for wildlife and the Olympics. Everything I know is wrong. Think I'll go eat worms and die. Bye now.

[unixrevolution]

If you take composition and artistic interpretation out of the equation then certainly certain camera's can get the job done way better than others.

You cannot doubt that a Nikon D3s and Canon 1D MKIV will trounce every other camera out there when it comes to sheer performance for lets say low light and sports photography.

The other camera makers have nothing that can realistically come close to these two models.

Just the same for the Canon 5D MK11 which is the FF dslr chosen by serious landscape photographers and we could higher up the tree to MF for this.

Give me an experienced photographer with a 6 year old pentax and kit lens over an inexperienced photographer and a brand new Canikon FF with top-shelf lenses any day.

The point people are making isn't that "Equipment can't possibly make a difference," it's that the photographer is what really counts. I've seen experienced photographers make good images with Canikon, sony, olympus...hell, Kodak Funsavers, Vivitar Plasticams...I've even seen outstanding images out of a pinhole camera made from a flower pot shooting on expired polaroid film.

Good equipment does help for certain things...but a good photog can get stunning results out of any camera.

[K-9]

Nikon apologized for the comment and took it down.

[Clicker]

Must have been a P&S specialist like myself in that case it still won't be a Nikon

[Ash]

Dylan, your statements on performance of the top Canikon FF models are not quite right.
Sure, the AF performance of the D3 and 1D are physically superior to the K-5, perhaps even to the 645D, but that hardly negates the K-5's (and the 645D's) abilities to effectively track moving subjects and to capture a large dynamic range in landscape applications. The photographer has to apply skill in order to use any camera in a sports application, and in that regard a skilled photog can make it happen with the K-5 as well as with a D300 or D700 or higher camera. In fact the 645D is clearly a winner for landscape photography, and in a class of its own compared with the 5DMkII. Nevertheless your point is taken, just not in completion.

[dylansalt]

Please explain to me then what dslrs you see being used at pro tennis, rugby, football etc etc all around the world - by experienced photographers;-)

and why they use them (instead of the K5, D7000 etc) - explain in detail please

I do not doubt that the K5 and other dslr can generate lovely pics - my K10D with a kit lens had many and a lot got published (I did not even need a LTD lens - ever)

My D7000 made shooting indoor climbing comps an absolute breeze with minimal time with pp (compared to the K10D) and I know the D3s would make it even easier (I just cannot justify the expense) - so even as a very experienced photographer I decided that no amount of skill could make up the K10D's shortcomings in certain conditions.

Did your K5 make you a better photographer - if not - why did you upgrade?

and to compare a K5/D7000 etc(that it will compete on the same level) to a d3s or 1d mkiv with regards to extreme low light sport photography and af tracking is in my mind is a little bit ridiculous.

[Rondec]

Please explain to me then what dslrs you see being used at pro tennis, rugby, football etc etc all around the world - by experienced photographers;-)

and why they use them (instead of the K5, D7000 etc) - explain in detail please

I do not doubt that the K5 and other dslr can generate lovely pics - my K10D with a kit lens had many and a lot got published (I did not even need a LTD lens - ever)

My D7000 made shooting indoor climbing comps an absolute breeze with minimal time with pp (compared to the K10D) and I know the D3s would make it even easier (I just cannot justify the expense) - so even as a very experienced photographer I decided that no amount of skill could make up the K10D's shortcomings in certain conditions.

Did your K5 make you a better photographer - if not - why did you upgrade?

and to compare a K5/D7000 etc(that it will compete on the same level) to a d3s or 1d mkiv with regards to extreme low light sport photography and af tracking is in my mind is a little bit ridiculous.

The idea that sport photography is the pinnacle of photography is silly. Yes, for one specific application (which I personally don't shoot) the D3s will be better (preferably with a 400mm f2.8 lens and Sherpa to carry the lot). However for many other applications, landscape, macro, portraiture, etc artistic control of the image trumps gear any day of the week.

The biggest advancement in the K5 is not the auto focus module, it is the sensor which just has larger dynamic range than even most of the full frame cameras out there. A wise man uses the right tool for a particular job. It is just silly for Nikon to sell consumers D3100s with a kit lens based on some professional photographers ability to shoot professional football with a D3s and a 400 mm f2.8 lens.

[RioRico]

The idea that sport photography is the pinnacle of photography is silly.

That's what I earlier called the flattening of photography, the marketing conceit that photography consists of a very limited set of applications for which the seller's product is 'best'. There's infinitely more to photography than sports and birds. And the halo effect: Our costly top-flight gear is used to shoot the Olympics, therefore you should buy our crippled plastic entry-level crap. Yeah, right.

Take a close look at what the sports-shooting pros carry: multiple big bodies and lenses and lighting and support gear. I saw an article last year about what an SI staff togger hauled to a track-and-field shoot: a couple bodies for handholding; a half-dozen slaved bodies on 'pods trackside; an array of lenses for all those bodies; lights and triggers, etc. That's well over US$100k for just one person's gear.

Luckily for us (and too bad for Canikony) we're not all serious amateur sports toggers. I'm likely not the only one here who doesn't give a sh!t. If I made my living there, then I'd care. No, don't use a Q for SI covers. And don't enter a Lada at Le Mans. These are all different machines with different applications. I don't think I'd use a 5x7in viewcam to shoot a kids birthday party. Use the right tool for the job.

If you're limited by your gear, upgrade your gear. If you're limited by your abilities, upgrade your abilities. Or start a blog.

[Aegon]

Think I'll go eat worms and die. Bye now.

LOL, I'd give you rep for this but it says I need to spread the love.

[Blue]

Like a politician going for the doofus vote and alienating supporters who really care about policy.

the doofus vote . . .

[RioRico]

LOL, I'd give you rep for this but it says I need to spread the love.

Hit the reps of Benjikan and Falconeye, they deserve more.

the doofus vote . . .

Can I get political? I've thought of a bumpersticker:

Vote [conservative] - Morons need representation too!

But that's probably too long for the target audience to read.

[magkelly]

If those $5000 Canikon cameras as so "all that" and all other cameras are just entry level wannabes then tell me this, how is it my one teacher can take better shots of soccer games with his K7 than his son can with his $5000 D3 Nikon? The difference lies in experience. The father is a pro photographer of many, many years. The son has never been much interested in photography and barely picks up his DSLR most of the time. My teacher has his pick of cameras and in fact he uses some Nikon as well as Pentax, (It depends upon the job and who he is shooting for but he likes both.) but he still takes his K7 (now K5 too) all over the place, uses it a lot more actually than the two Nikons he uses for work also.

My one teacher, he could take mind blowing pics with a pin hole camera I am certain of it, but his son? He's lucky if he can get a clear snap with a P&S and yet his best "toy" cost as much as a used car. I just know he bought that expensive DSLR thinking he could finally out shoot his Dad sometimes, but it's just not happened so far as we can tell. Put that camera in my teacher's hands and it sings.

My whole family bowls and really well. Me, I am absolutely lousy at it. I have no talent with bowling whatsoever. When my Mom finally quit I inherited her bag and FYI, she had some really nice bowling gear including an expensive pro ball my Dad got her. You know what? It was totally wasted on me and it definitely didn't make me a better bowler, which is why it's now being used by someone else. Several hundred $$$ worth of bowling ball didn't keep my balls from landing in the gutter. My one nephew on the other hand? He can use the worst ball in the lane and he'll still get a near perfect game. He's still in his teens and already a semi-pro eying the pro leagues.

It IS the person using the gear, not just the gear. I don't care how much a camera costs. If the person behind the thing can't shoot worth anything it's ultimately no better having a 5K camera than having a $40 P&S! Good gear can't hurt, but fancy gear cannot make up for real skill.

[ll_coffee_lP]

Well...I haven't had the pleasure of using a D3, but I now routinely use a D700/D300s combo when I previously had a K-7/K10 combo. Despite the discussions of bowling balls, shooting sports, and whatnot - I can certainly say that you can use pretty much anything to shoot anything, but certain tools will work much better.

After using the D700 for a year now there is simply no comparison in what I used in the past. Maybe on paper a K-5 has marginally more dynamic range, or better high ISO, etc., but the fact is the D700 is mind blowing stellar in AF performance, overall responsiveness (menus, image playback, start up time), and flash use.

Could I make money in photography using a K-7? I most certainly did. However, for what I shoot (family, kids, engagements, weddings) there is zero doubt in my mind that using a better camera made the job significantly easier.

c[_]

[dylansalt]

Well...I haven't had the pleasure of using a D3, but I now routinely use a D700/D300s combo when I previously had a K-7/K10 combo. Despite the discussions of bowling balls, shooting sports, and whatnot - I can certainly say that you can use pretty much anything to shoot anything, but certain tools will work much better.

After using the D700 for a year now there is simply no comparison in what I used in the past. Maybe on paper a K-5 has marginally more dynamic range, or better high ISO, etc., but the fact is the D700 is mind blowing stellar in AF performance, overall responsiveness (menus, image playback, start up time), and flash use.

Could I make money in photography using a K-7? I most certainly did. However, for what I shoot (family, kids, engagements, weddings) there is zero doubt in my mind that using a better camera made the job significantly easier.

c[_]

Thanks for the logical reasonable response;-)