Surprise- It isn't the camera, its the photographer.

normhead · 03-16-2013, 09:19 AM - **4 Likes**

I was over at Photo Extract this morning and I'd thought I'd do a quick poll, because they have some kind of jury system to select images, and images of very high quality IMHO,

I just wondered, how many of these top quality images were taken with each different camera and what cameras were used. So I just did a quick poll,
Here's the result

Canon Eos D60 -2 Canon Eos D40 1 Canon EOS 5D mark II -8 Canon EOS D40-1

Nikon D700 -6. Nikon D800 -1, Nikon 3100 -1, Nikon D200 -1, Nikon D2X -1, Nikon D7000 -1, Nikon D90 - 5

Pentax K-5 - 3 , Pentax K-x - 1

Sony Alpha 850 - 2

Despite the endless discussions of what camera is best FF or APs-c etc. etc. some people just go out and get it done with a large variety of camera systems. Some people use 36 MP, some get it done with 12 MP. Just looking down the list, the outright winner is the Canon 5D mark II. And I'm guessing that that's true because only the very serious photographers buy that camera (22%). But a lot of other very serious photographers don't buy that camera.

My conclusion would be, you can think way to much about these things.... just go out and shoot. Even if you own a D3100, you can do top quality work. You can spend way too much time thinking about which camera is best... and it's obvious there are a lot of "right" choices, and not so many wrong ones.

Its amazing how many of these top judged shooters, are still shooting with Nikon D700s. I might be wrong but memory says that's a 5 year old 12 MP camera. I guess they don't read the forums much.

From what you're read on here, you'd think every "serious" photographer would have upgraded to something better by now. It's kind of sad, people buying the latest and greatest hoping to get better, while those who are better, just keep cranking out the images, with what they've got.

alamo5000 · 03-16-2013, 09:32 AM - **1 Like**

I know several people that use the 5D Mark II.

They would all be called professionals even by professionals.

Why do they use this camera? Because it has the functions they want and it isn't an arm and a leg. That camera is 3 or 4 generations old at least....

Its the eye and mind of the guy behind the camera that matters most though. A couple of those guys have taken award winning shots with a point and shoot.

The following photo was taken with a point and shoot camera...

alamo5000 · 03-16-2013, 09:36 AM

This is a well overdue and well deserved post by Mr Normhead. I don't know of very many people who fork out the dough for $10,000 camera bodies and so forth. The guys I know aren't going latest and greatest. They are going practical, useful, and cost efficient.

stevebrot · 03-16-2013, 09:57 AM

I have seen excellent work done with just about anything capable of making an exposure (excellent being defined from an artistic rather than a technical perspective). The camera is a tool...a means to an end.

Steve

johnyates · 03-16-2013, 11:26 AM

Very true. I remember back in the 70's, in the glory days of photo mags, being impressed by a set of photos shot by Helmut Newton on an Instamatic.

stepmac · 03-16-2013, 12:30 PM

Thanks, Norm for your insightful post. I have the collector's disease and I'm fighting it when it comes to cameras. I collect all kinds of stuff, old guns, cameras, books, cars.....it's really bad. Collecting cameras, however; is like growing a flower garden. Both reward you with beautiful things. I'm trying to emphasize photography and eschewing buying new cameras....but I just did. A Sony RX100, and just before that a Pentax K-01, so I am still suffering from collectoritus.

Nesster · 03-16-2013, 01:54 PM - **1 Like**

Quote:

The idea which so many people entertain, that a good photograph is necessarily the outcome of a "good" camera, or that it is in any way possible to judge the excellence of the camera by looking at pictures taken with it, is altogether mistaken. Some of the qualities of the lens may possibly be revealed in the work done with it, but then only to an expert, as we shall see later on; but of the camera, none. The great merits of a good camera are the convenience with which it can be used, and the way in which it can be adjusted to meet the special requirement of each particular case.

-The Complete Photographer, by R. Child Bayley, 10th edition 1932, page 25-26 (first edition published in 1906)

Quote:

Taking the money question first, it is necessary to point out very emphatically that there is very little connection between the price paid for a camera and the quality of the resulting photographs. As good pictures, as sharp, clear, and attractive photographs can be made with a camera costing, say, a guinea in quarter-plate size as can be made with one costing thirty or forty pounds -- their quality depends ultimately upon the photographer. But the man with the more expensive camera will be able to do a great deal of hand camera work which is either quite out of the reach of the owner of the cheaper camera or for which he would have to use a stand; moreover, with the costlier instrument the work can be done more conveniently or with greater certainty. The camera would be more accurately made, have more adjustments, and be better finished.

-Hand Cameras by R. Child Bayley, Second Edition 1913, p 14

**jlstrawman** · 03-16-2013, 03:10 PM

Thanks Norm for your common sense post. It is sad watching people throw money at equipment, thinking that the latest equipment
will somehow take the place of experience and learning.

Nass · 03-16-2013, 04:53 PM

I think it's a bit of both. You certainly do come across the types who have more money than sense and buy the latest greatest gear thinking this is going to make their work good. And maybe it does a little... but you also get good photographers who can make great images without the best gear. Give them really top gear and they will make better images mainly becuase the top stuff just has certain facilities that most stuff doesn't, and they're knowledgable enough to know how to get the best out of it.

normhead · 03-16-2013, 06:52 PM

I remember a friend of mine , a wedding guy (who's name was also Norm,) got a top of the line Nikon when auto-focus came out. He took a picture of his brother bungi jumping... The Nikon (I think it as an F4 or something, kept his brother in clear focus all the way down. WHich at the time was pretty amazing, but man they were some ugly looking shots. Technical wonders, to be sure. But tech value only, absolutely no artistic merit. He did take very good wedding shots, I think bungie jumping was a failed side line he abandoned shortly after that.

jsherman999 · 03-16-2013, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by Nass

I think it's a bit of both. You certainly do come across the types who have more money than sense and buy the latest greatest gear thinking this is going to make their work good. And maybe it does a little... but you also get good photographers who can make great images without the best gear. Give them really top gear and they will make better images mainly becuase the top stuff just has certain facilities that most stuff doesn't, and they're knowledgable enough to know how to get the best out of it.

That's about it. The better someone is with a lower-end camera, the better they will be with that upper end camera, and the more they will be able to wring out of it.

Ordinary amateurs can get more out of better equipment too, though. It just makes it easier to nail the shot, makes the tool less frustrating (and thus more fun) to shoot. More fun usually means more iterations, which usually means increased ability.

If that weren't true, all pros and enthusiasts would be shooting with P&S's

Kozlok · 03-16-2013, 08:42 PM

This reminds me of something i read in Guitar Player magazine. The editor was interviewing Eddie VanHalen, and was given a chance to play Eddie's guitars/amps set exactly the way they had been set, and came to the conclusion that even then he didn't sound like Eddie VanHalen. It's the person, not the gear; photography same as music.

fuent104 · 03-16-2013, 10:36 PM

This is all true, but I feel like it's only half of the equation. Yes, Eddie Van Halen can play a WalMart guitar and make it sound decent. However, there is absolutely no argument to be made that he isn't capable of playing at a higher level of virtuosity when playing one of his personally designed guitar. Gear isn't the primary determinant of whether a photo is good...but gear can and absolutely does help any particular individual become the best version of himself or herself, creatively.

tclausen · 03-16-2013, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

That's about it. The better someone is with a lower-end camera, the better they will be with that upper end camera, and the more they will be able to wring out of it.

Ordinary amateurs can get more out of better equipment too, though. It just makes it easier to nail the shot, makes the tool less frustrating (and thus more fun) to shoot. More fun usually means more iterations, which usually means increased ability.
]

Not necessarily true: "better equipment", to a certain degree, means more control - which, in turns means more freedoms to the photographer, but also requires more "skills" from the photographer.

For example, in order to get a correct exposure, one needs to "understand aperture/shutterspeed/ISO" (that'd be the "better equipment" offering controls for that) or "fly fully autopilot" (which would be what the "ordinary amateur" would use).

I usually say, that the "ultimate perfect high-end camera" would do spot-metering, AF in the same centre spot, and otherwise be fully manual aperture/shutter. I'm willing to bet that most people on this site would be able to take great pictures with that, whereas almost everybody else would be unable to get a single satisfactory picture.

That said, no, it's not the camera. It's not even the technique.....it's the ability to see, and capture, an intriguing subject and composition.....Many of, say, the famous war photographers were not technical geniuses, but had the eye to see what would speak to the viewer (and, the balls to get into the front line trenches....)

Still, it's fun to be a gear fetishist also - I use that to substitute for having actual talents

brntoki · 03-17-2013, 05:15 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by normhead

I was over at Photo Extract this morning and I'd thought I'd do a quick poll, because they have some kind of jury system to select images, and images of very high quality IMHO,

I just wondered, how many of these top quality images were taken with each different camera and what cameras were used. So I just did a quick poll,
Here's the result

Canon Eos D60 -2 Canon Eos D40 1 Canon EOS 5D mark II -8 Canon EOS D40-1

Nikon D700 -6. Nikon D800 -1, Nikon 3100 -1, Nikon D200 -1, Nikon D2X -1, Nikon D7000 -1, Nikon D90 - 5

Pentax K-5 - 3 , Pentax K-x - 1

Sony Alpha 850 - 2

Despite the endless discussions of what camera is best FF or APs-c etc. etc. some people just go out and get it done with a large variety of camera systems. Some people use 36 MP, some get it done with 12 MP. Just looking down the list, the outright winner is the Canon 5D mark II. And I'm guessing that that's true because only the very serious photographers buy that camera (22%). But a lot of other very serious photographers don't buy that camera.

My conclusion would be, you can think way to much about these things.... just go out and shoot. Even if you own a D3100, you can do top quality work. You can spend way too much time thinking about which camera is best... and it's obvious there are a lot of "right" choices, and not so many wrong ones.

Its amazing how many of these top judged shooters, are still shooting with Nikon D700s. I might be wrong but memory says that's a 5 year old 12 MP camera. I guess they don't read the forums much.

From what you're read on here, you'd think every "serious" photographer would have upgraded to something better by now. It's kind of sad, people buying the latest and greatest hoping to get better, while those who are better, just keep cranking out the images, with what they've got.

Well I guess I'm going to be in the minority here, but this seems a fairly shallow post. I agree that great images can be made with much less than the latest and greatest gear. Hell, Ansel has been dead long enough to say that the best camera from the year he died is positively ancient (yet he still "out-pixeled" us with his LF gear). And I also agree that many photographers are thinking that they need better and better gear in order to get better and better photos. But guess what! It's because they are still uneducated. Just like you were. Just like I was. And who can blame them? They think and believe exactly what Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and every other manufacturer out there wants them to. They are still on the low end of the learning curve. Some areas of getting an education entail harder knocks than others. Photography has some pretty expensive and hard knocks for most people along the way.

If there is anything of truth in what I say above, and I think there clearly is, then who is your post aimed at? If it is aimed at the more clueless photographer who needs "therapy", it seems you've not addressed him/her appropriately. If it is aimed at those who aren't so clueless (as your post reads and the responses thus far seems to support), then you're preaching to the choir.

Also, those people buying the latest and greatest with the hope to get better will, probably much more often than not, get better. If they are willing to spend hard earned money on pricey gear, they'll likely pursue it until they actually do improve. Do they spend a lot of money uselessly? Very often, yes. And the difference between photographers who do so and the person who thinks they need the latest and coolest and softest sofa and chairs in the living-room is, exactly, what? People waste money. Some of those people are photography enthusiasts. So . . . ?

Do you want to educate newer and clueless photographers? If you do, I think that's great. You should take every opportunity to do so. I will.

And as for the images on Photo Extract, I think you've weighted the importance (non-importance) of the camera too heavily. I'd say the biggest skill in evidence with most of those images are Photoshop skills. Should we create a post about using Gimp instead of Photoshop?

03-16-2013, 09:19 AM - 4 Likes	#1
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,449	Surprise- It isn't the camera, its the photographer. I was over at Photo Extract this morning and I'd thought I'd do a quick poll, because they have some kind of jury system to select images, and images of very high quality IMHO, I just wondered, how many of these top quality images were taken with each different camera and what cameras were used. So I just did a quick poll, Here's the result Canon Eos D60 -2 Canon Eos D40 1 Canon EOS 5D mark II -8 Canon EOS D40-1 Nikon D700 -6. Nikon D800 -1, Nikon 3100 -1, Nikon D200 -1, Nikon D2X -1, Nikon D7000 -1, Nikon D90 - 5 Pentax K-5 - 3 , Pentax K-x - 1 Sony Alpha 850 - 2 Despite the endless discussions of what camera is best FF or APs-c etc. etc. some people just go out and get it done with a large variety of camera systems. Some people use 36 MP, some get it done with 12 MP. Just looking down the list, the outright winner is the Canon 5D mark II. And I'm guessing that that's true because only the very serious photographers buy that camera (22%). But a lot of other very serious photographers don't buy that camera. My conclusion would be, you can think way to much about these things.... just go out and shoot. Even if you own a D3100, you can do top quality work. You can spend way too much time thinking about which camera is best... and it's obvious there are a lot of "right" choices, and not so many wrong ones. Its amazing how many of these top judged shooters, are still shooting with Nikon D700s. I might be wrong but memory says that's a 5 year old 12 MP camera. I guess they don't read the forums much. From what you're read on here, you'd think every "serious" photographer would have upgraded to something better by now. It's kind of sad, people buying the latest and greatest hoping to get better, while those who are better, just keep cranking out the images, with what they've got.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
If The New Camera Isn't Significantly Better,,,,	tabl10s	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	26	08-11-2012 10:54 AM
this is an old camera, isn't it?	Douglas_of_Sweden	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	33	03-23-2012 12:18 PM
It's not the camera; it's the photographer! Or is it?	Ray	Photographic Technique	56	01-21-2011 02:40 PM
Camera cleaning - When the dust isn't on the sensor?	cputeq	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	05-17-2008 11:08 PM

03-16-2013, 09:32 AM - 1 Like	#2
alamo5000 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,962	I know several people that use the 5D Mark II. They would all be called professionals even by professionals. Why do they use this camera? Because it has the functions they want and it isn't an arm and a leg. That camera is 3 or 4 generations old at least.... Its the eye and mind of the guy behind the camera that matters most though. A couple of those guys have taken award winning shots with a point and shoot. The following photo was taken with a point and shoot camera...

03-16-2013, 09:36 AM	#3
alamo5000 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 2,962	This is a well overdue and well deserved post by Mr Normhead. I don't know of very many people who fork out the dough for $10,000 camera bodies and so forth. The guys I know aren't going latest and greatest. They are going practical, useful, and cost efficient.

03-16-2013, 09:57 AM	#4
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	I have seen excellent work done with just about anything capable of making an exposure (excellent being defined from an artistic rather than a technical perspective). The camera is a tool...a means to an end. Steve

03-16-2013, 11:26 AM	#5
johnyates Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,345	Very true. I remember back in the 70's, in the glory days of photo mags, being impressed by a set of photos shot by Helmut Newton on an Instamatic.

03-16-2013, 12:30 PM	#6
stepmac Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 263	Thanks, Norm for your insightful post. I have the collector's disease and I'm fighting it when it comes to cameras. I collect all kinds of stuff, old guns, cameras, books, cars.....it's really bad. Collecting cameras, however; is like growing a flower garden. Both reward you with beautiful things. I'm trying to emphasize photography and eschewing buying new cameras....but I just did. A Sony RX100, and just before that a Pentax K-01, so I am still suffering from collectoritus.

03-16-2013, 01:54 PM - 1 Like	#7
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Quote: The idea which so many people entertain, that a good photograph is necessarily the outcome of a "good" camera, or that it is in any way possible to judge the excellence of the camera by looking at pictures taken with it, is altogether mistaken. Some of the qualities of the lens may possibly be revealed in the work done with it, but then only to an expert, as we shall see later on; but of the camera, none. The great merits of a good camera are the convenience with which it can be used, and the way in which it can be adjusted to meet the special requirement of each particular case. -The Complete Photographer, by R. Child Bayley, 10th edition 1932, page 25-26 (first edition published in 1906) Quote: Taking the money question first, it is necessary to point out very emphatically that there is very little connection between the price paid for a camera and the quality of the resulting photographs. As good pictures, as sharp, clear, and attractive photographs can be made with a camera costing, say, a guinea in quarter-plate size as can be made with one costing thirty or forty pounds -- their quality depends ultimately upon the photographer. But the man with the more expensive camera will be able to do a great deal of hand camera work which is either quite out of the reach of the owner of the cheaper camera or for which he would have to use a stand; moreover, with the costlier instrument the work can be done more conveniently or with greater certainty. The camera would be more accurately made, have more adjustments, and be better finished. -Hand Cameras by R. Child Bayley, Second Edition 1913, p 14

03-16-2013, 03:10 PM	#8
jlstrawman Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Midwest US Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,058	Thanks Norm for your common sense post. It is sad watching people throw money at equipment, thinking that the latest equipment will somehow take the place of experience and learning.

03-16-2013, 04:53 PM	#9
Nass Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: The British Isles Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,402	I think it's a bit of both. You certainly do come across the types who have more money than sense and buy the latest greatest gear thinking this is going to make their work good. And maybe it does a little... but you also get good photographers who can make great images without the best gear. Give them really top gear and they will make better images mainly becuase the top stuff just has certain facilities that most stuff doesn't, and they're knowledgable enough to know how to get the best out of it.

03-16-2013, 06:52 PM	#10
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,449 Original Poster	I remember a friend of mine , a wedding guy (who's name was also Norm,) got a top of the line Nikon when auto-focus came out. He took a picture of his brother bungi jumping... The Nikon (I think it as an F4 or something, kept his brother in clear focus all the way down. WHich at the time was pretty amazing, but man they were some ugly looking shots. Technical wonders, to be sure. But tech value only, absolutely no artistic merit. He did take very good wedding shots, I think bungie jumping was a failed side line he abandoned shortly after that.

03-16-2013, 07:35 PM	#11
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by Nass I think it's a bit of both. You certainly do come across the types who have more money than sense and buy the latest greatest gear thinking this is going to make their work good. And maybe it does a little... but you also get good photographers who can make great images without the best gear. Give them really top gear and they will make better images mainly becuase the top stuff just has certain facilities that most stuff doesn't, and they're knowledgable enough to know how to get the best out of it. That's about it. The better someone is with a lower-end camera, the better they will be with that upper end camera, and the more they will be able to wring out of it. Ordinary amateurs can get more out of better equipment too, though. It just makes it easier to nail the shot, makes the tool less frustrating (and thus more fun) to shoot. More fun usually means more iterations, which usually means increased ability. If that weren't true, all pros and enthusiasts would be shooting with P&S's

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-16-2013, 08:42 PM	#12
Kozlok Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Albuquerque Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,148	This reminds me of something i read in Guitar Player magazine. The editor was interviewing Eddie VanHalen, and was given a chance to play Eddie's guitars/amps set exactly the way they had been set, and came to the conclusion that even then he didn't sound like Eddie VanHalen. It's the person, not the gear; photography same as music.

03-16-2013, 10:36 PM	#13
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	This is all true, but I feel like it's only half of the equation. Yes, Eddie Van Halen can play a WalMart guitar and make it sound decent. However, there is absolutely no argument to be made that he isn't capable of playing at a higher level of virtuosity when playing one of his personally designed guitar. Gear isn't the primary determinant of whether a photo is good...but gear can and absolutely does help any particular individual become the best version of himself or herself, creatively.

03-16-2013, 10:36 PM	#14
tclausen Veteran Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 1,397	Originally posted by jsherman999 That's about it. The better someone is with a lower-end camera, the better they will be with that upper end camera, and the more they will be able to wring out of it. Ordinary amateurs can get more out of better equipment too, though. It just makes it easier to nail the shot, makes the tool less frustrating (and thus more fun) to shoot. More fun usually means more iterations, which usually means increased ability. ] Not necessarily true: "better equipment", to a certain degree, means more control - which, in turns means more freedoms to the photographer, but also requires more "skills" from the photographer. For example, in order to get a correct exposure, one needs to "understand aperture/shutterspeed/ISO" (that'd be the "better equipment" offering controls for that) or "fly fully autopilot" (which would be what the "ordinary amateur" would use). I usually say, that the "ultimate perfect high-end camera" would do spot-metering, AF in the same centre spot, and otherwise be fully manual aperture/shutter. I'm willing to bet that most people on this site would be able to take great pictures with that, whereas almost everybody else would be unable to get a single satisfactory picture. That said, no, it's not the camera. It's not even the technique.....it's the ability to see, and capture, an intriguing subject and composition.....Many of, say, the famous war photographers were not technical geniuses, but had the eye to see what would speak to the viewer (and, the balls to get into the front line trenches....) Still, it's fun to be a gear fetishist also - I use that to substitute for having actual talents

03-17-2013, 05:15 AM - 1 Like	#15
brntoki Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Okinawa Posts: 73	Originally posted by normhead I was over at Photo Extract this morning and I'd thought I'd do a quick poll, because they have some kind of jury system to select images, and images of very high quality IMHO, I just wondered, how many of these top quality images were taken with each different camera and what cameras were used. So I just did a quick poll, Here's the result Canon Eos D60 -2 Canon Eos D40 1 Canon EOS 5D mark II -8 Canon EOS D40-1 Nikon D700 -6. Nikon D800 -1, Nikon 3100 -1, Nikon D200 -1, Nikon D2X -1, Nikon D7000 -1, Nikon D90 - 5 Pentax K-5 - 3 , Pentax K-x - 1 Sony Alpha 850 - 2 Despite the endless discussions of what camera is best FF or APs-c etc. etc. some people just go out and get it done with a large variety of camera systems. Some people use 36 MP, some get it done with 12 MP. Just looking down the list, the outright winner is the Canon 5D mark II. And I'm guessing that that's true because only the very serious photographers buy that camera (22%). But a lot of other very serious photographers don't buy that camera. My conclusion would be, you can think way to much about these things.... just go out and shoot. Even if you own a D3100, you can do top quality work. You can spend way too much time thinking about which camera is best... and it's obvious there are a lot of "right" choices, and not so many wrong ones. Its amazing how many of these top judged shooters, are still shooting with Nikon D700s. I might be wrong but memory says that's a 5 year old 12 MP camera. I guess they don't read the forums much. From what you're read on here, you'd think every "serious" photographer would have upgraded to something better by now. It's kind of sad, people buying the latest and greatest hoping to get better, while those who are better, just keep cranking out the images, with what they've got. Well I guess I'm going to be in the minority here, but this seems a fairly shallow post. I agree that great images can be made with much less than the latest and greatest gear. Hell, Ansel has been dead long enough to say that the best camera from the year he died is positively ancient (yet he still "out-pixeled" us with his LF gear). And I also agree that many photographers are thinking that they need better and better gear in order to get better and better photos. But guess what! It's because they are still uneducated. Just like you were. Just like I was. And who can blame them? They think and believe exactly what Canon, Nikon, Pentax, and every other manufacturer out there wants them to. They are still on the low end of the learning curve. Some areas of getting an education entail harder knocks than others. Photography has some pretty expensive and hard knocks for most people along the way. If there is anything of truth in what I say above, and I think there clearly is, then who is your post aimed at? If it is aimed at the more clueless photographer who needs "therapy", it seems you've not addressed him/her appropriately. If it is aimed at those who aren't so clueless (as your post reads and the responses thus far seems to support), then you're preaching to the choir. Also, those people buying the latest and greatest with the hope to get better will, probably much more often than not, get better. If they are willing to spend hard earned money on pricey gear, they'll likely pursue it until they actually do improve. Do they spend a lot of money uselessly? Very often, yes. And the difference between photographers who do so and the person who thinks they need the latest and coolest and softest sofa and chairs in the living-room is, exactly, what? People waste money. Some of those people are photography enthusiasts. So . . . ? Do you want to educate newer and clueless photographers? If you do, I think that's great. You should take every opportunity to do so. I will. And as for the images on Photo Extract, I think you've weighted the importance (non-importance) of the camera too heavily. I'd say the biggest skill in evidence with most of those images are Photoshop skills. Should we create a post about using Gimp instead of Photoshop?