PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Good equipment vs Good Photographer



Kym
15-06-2009, 2:21pm
It is often said "It's not the equipment but the photographer that counts".

While this is true in part, I think the reality is that good equipment makes a significant difference.

Eg. Action photography: The AF speed of top of the line lens / camera is much better than an entry level body with kit lens.

Other issues like IQ of good glass vs 'kit' lenses.

So what is the proportion?

pgbphotographytas
15-06-2009, 2:35pm
I think it is a 50/50 thing, trying to take bird photos with "kit" lenses is normally not going to work well but then having all the best gear will not help if you don't know how to get the best from it.

The old saying of "it is not what you have got but how you use it" rings true with this.

Paul

ricktas
15-06-2009, 2:37pm
I said 40/60. It isn't also about having the right gear, but knowing which gear to use and how. Take a good macro lens, it can also be used to produce stunning portraits. The gear is there, but the photographer needs to know what to select and use for a given situation.

NGP
15-06-2009, 2:39pm
well actually neither.. a less experienced photographer can still get better images with high quality gear compared to entry level kit. obviously the better equipment doesn't make one a better photographer but you still can achieve better results (if that makes any sense?). where an experienced photographer will actually push the "higher quality" equipment to its limits, the less experienced might not even use half of its functions/benefits.

kiwi
15-06-2009, 4:00pm
I think the ratios really are genre specific.

Birding and sports especially just require stellar gear to produce stellar photos

Portraits, landscapes etc I think are less dependent on gear

DzRbenson
15-06-2009, 4:08pm
I think its 60/40 Gear then Photographer.

But I still think Post Processing needs to be brought into this.

hoffy
15-06-2009, 4:10pm
Agreed NGP. The same could also be said with a good photographer and average equipment. A bad photographer will take bad photo's with a Holga, where's a good photographer will take exceptional photos with a Holga

stevemack
15-06-2009, 4:45pm
I voted its all the photographer,my pics speak for themselves with a $700 camera when new.
I notice alot of people here start big and produce pics like you can with a point and shoot having the best will do you no good if you dont no the fundamentals :th3:

steve.

Kym
15-06-2009, 4:49pm
I've had back to back meetings today - including with Auditors. :eek:

Some very interesting comments!
I voted 40% gear 60% tog.

Post processing does make a big difference but if you have a bad image there is only so much you can do.

The Genre comment is very interesting. Wildlife/birding does need good long glass, and some form of SR/VR/IS/OS - also a reasonable body.
Landscape less so.
Action/sport I think needs (or at least makes good use of) good gear.

Yes, a good tog could do well with a box brownie or 2mp phone camera simply by using the light and ensuring good composure - but they would be limited at the same time.

So I guess a good tog will also get more our of good gear than a less experienced person, but equipment does help the less experienced person significantly.

NeilC
15-06-2009, 4:53pm
I would have to side on majority for the photographer went 40/60 but would have gone 30/70 :). Or mainly on the photographers knowledge of there equipment. During easy conditions there is plenty of room for error, but when conditions get tough, the 'sweet spot' for getting it right is smaller and you need to know how to drive your camera to get the best out of the situation.

But in saying that, there are times when the good gear will be the difference in getting the shot or not, especially low light conditions.

Goldie
15-06-2009, 4:55pm
Define better?

Also, the best gear in the world can't compensate for poor composition skills, no eye for detail, inability to visual the photo in your mind, inability communicate with models/stylist , etc. There's more to photography then pushing a button.

All good equipment does is give a photographer better range of opportunities, and better image quality.

ving
15-06-2009, 4:58pm
i voted gravy....

80% photographer...

give a newbie and pro the same say d90 and 70-200/2.8 vr to shoot say a motor race and what will the outcome be? it takes skill not equipment for the most part.

Kym
15-06-2009, 5:11pm
I voted gravy....
What? SURPRISED I AM!!! :confused013 :D
Made the tri-null option of candy/gravy/soup just for you David! :th3:


80% photographer...
give a newbie and pro the same say d90 and 70-200/2.8 vr to shoot say a motor race and what will the outcome be? it takes skill not equipment for the most part.
That's a good point... but as indicated in previous posts gear makes it better/easier for the 'pro'.

Lets switch it from the gear you suggest and make it a 5mp 3xzoom P&S in auto mode only.

The pro should do better but I think the gap would be less; hence the gear does make a difference.

hoffy
15-06-2009, 5:19pm
What? SURPRISED I AM!!!

Is that the Yoda response.

FTR, I voted 20% gear, 80% tog

ving
15-06-2009, 5:23pm
What? SURPRISED I AM!!! :confused013 :D
Made the tri-null option of candy/gravy/soup just for you David! :th3:


That's a good point... but as indicated in previous posts gear makes it better/easier for the 'pro'.

Lets switch it from the gear you suggest and make it a 5mp 3xzoom P&S in auto mode only.

The pro should do better but I think the gap would be less; hence the gear does make a difference.thanks for the gravy... i need it to fight this bleeding flu i have.:th3:

your 5mp 3x zoom p&s is just the same as the example i made... maybe even more so. you need to know where to aim the camera, lighting, compensations due do shutter speed in auto mode for example you might have to pan..... etc.
sure if they were both shooting a static object from teh same angle at the same time it might be similar tho.

Seesee
15-06-2009, 5:30pm
Hard to estimate....with some genres of photography I think you can get away with lesser gear...I'd say 50/50 on gear and skill.

Miaow
15-06-2009, 5:50pm
I think with photo software and PP you can fix a few things using cheaper equip that may not be needed if use better equip - but I think really it comes down o the photographers eye in a way if it's a good pic. I think I'd really love better glass I'm sorta getting annoyed at how much I have to sharpen recently to make it look ok (then again that may be just me:confused: )

Edited to add: Looking at some of the pics Trev took at Pt Nepean with the P&S and what I did with the Canon - I'd say the kodak's in a way appear sharper? Hmm...

sixty5
15-06-2009, 6:11pm
I agree with kiwi in that the ratio's are genre specific. I noticed a huge difference from my kit lens to the lens' I use now.

I also think that CypherOz is also on the mark with "Eg. Action photography: The AF speed of top of the line lens / camera is much better than an entry level body with kit lens."

Then you have people who just have the "eye" for photography and produce images from cheaper equipment.

So going on that, I will vote for the last option.

DanNG
15-06-2009, 6:31pm
80% tog.. all the way

old dog
15-06-2009, 6:36pm
I went the 40/60 as well. Better gear makes a big difference as you have more chance to get THAT shot. But, I would love to be a better tographer and I`ll keep at it.

arthurking83
15-06-2009, 9:46pm
I hope the chicken soup is one of those thick, rich and hearty broth types!!

... otherwise I've made a grave(y) error of judgement! :D

draco
15-06-2009, 11:30pm
i voted 40/60... although better gear (and post processing) helps.. a "better" photographer will know the rules (of thirds?) and will surely have better composition, framing, subject, background, etc...

given that a newbie and a pro have the same gear, but they wouldn't have the same "eye"..

redders64
16-06-2009, 10:28am
I voted 60/40 as I believe my camera makes me look better than I am, the difference in my shots since changing cameras has been fairly dramatic in my opinion, although it helps to hang around APers a lot to:D . I think a good camera can be a bit more forgiving when you stuff up.

CAP
16-06-2009, 10:45am
I voted "all photographer"
Why?????
I think the is a definite advantage in having "good equipment" but you still need to know how to fully utilise it.

I have stood beside or near others with much better gear than I have and "to my mind at least" taken some better images.
On the other hand I have also compared pics with others with far less gear than I was shooting at the time and their result were much more appealing than mine.
At the end of the day there are way too many variables in what costitutes a "good photo"
No point in having an amazingly sharp pic if the composition, balance, DOF, lighting, tones etc of the pic are out the back.
Personally I would prefer to view a well composed image of less IQ.

Agree with others that it is basically genre specific as well.
On 2nd thoughts maybe should have gone 20% gear 80% tog.

David
16-06-2009, 10:56am
This newbie after 1 year speaks only for hisself in saying I reckon its 80 percent tog and 20 percent gear.

I dont count what happens to the image after the shutter goes off (post processing) as photography because you add another element to the mix Photographer, camera/gear and the a computer with software.

I say gear is important because, for example, I know my 75-300MM kit lens is going to struggle to produce a sharp, clean wildlife image beyond a certain focal length no matter how much I know about my camera and its nuances and that of the particular lens I have been pushing the boundaries/limits of for a whole year (most misses, a couple of hits).

So I put that genre or photography on the 'to do later' list and wait for a much better telefoto lens (Sigma that can go to 400MM) before I feel confident in my lens producing good quality action and wildlife images. Same goes for macro images of flowers/fungi etc, I know the limitations of my 18-55MM kit lens will be soft (mostly misses, few hits) cf other lenses, but I persist with both lenses and will take those action and macro images anyway, trying to squeeze every ounce of capability out of the camera occassionally while i focus on 'anyone can (almost) take a seascape/landscape/rainforest image and it looks good tourist genre work whilst Im learning the trade.

Meantime I have got to know my basics of photography THEORY and my Canon 400D very well and focus alot of my attention on composition and exposure, knowing these kit lenses can be very good but are more often than not inferior to the lenses other people use.

I have begun collecting 'better lenses' now I THINK I have the basics of photography THEORY stored away and have moved on to CONSCIOUSS INCOMPETENCE - knowing what is wrong with my images and beginning to develop an understanding of how to fix what is wrong or improve it.

I dont blame the lenses for rubbish shots most of the time, I blame a lack of know how and experience - that is Consciouss Incompetence- so I dont think buying thousands of dollars worth of lens or a better body is going to teach me a thing, only make it easier to kid myself that Im getting good at this stuff, when I probably am still in the kindergarten.

I will buy new lenses and one at a time and work it hard and learn its capacity and how it fits with my camera is different genres and take another year of crappy shots and the odd good one- at my own pace.

Yeah, I would say 80 percent photographer and 20 percent camera/gear fits in my case.

jim
16-06-2009, 12:33pm
I'd say at least 80% photographer. A good photographer with poor equipment will work within its limitations and make worthwhile photos, maybe even great ones. A poor photographer is unlikely to get much out of even the best kit.

I tend to agree with the dreaded K_R_ that enthusiasts like us worry too much about the quality of our stuff, when we should just get out and use it.

arthurking83
16-06-2009, 4:43pm
......

I tend to agree with the dreaded K_R_ that enthusiasts like us worry too much about the quality of our stuff, when we should just get out and use it.

And he's living proof that even pro's should concern themselves with the quality of their work! :p

(ie. I've had a look at his gallery :rolleyes: .... and I rest my case! ;))

jdreamer
16-06-2009, 4:48pm
I voted 20/80 too.

jim
16-06-2009, 7:13pm
Hi Arthur, by stuff I meant equipment. I think Mr R_ does care about the quality of his photography (though I admit it looks fairly pedestrian to me)

Sar NOP
16-06-2009, 8:35pm
I think the ratios really are genre specific.

Birding and sports especially just require stellar gear to produce stellar photos

Portraits, landscapes etc I think are less dependent on gear
Exactly, each case is specific. I don't think one can be a good photographer on evey subject and/or with any gear. For instant, a good landscape photographer who always use a manual SLR (film) with a wide angle lens likely won't be successful by using a high end DSLR and a long (AF) focal length on bird !
That's why it's a 50/50 ratio for me...

SpaceJunk
17-06-2009, 6:35am
strictly 50/50 for me, I have seen some very worthy images posted here from p&s cameras and can only be impressed by folks who understand their kit and how to get optimal results from it. :crzy:

Steve Axford
17-06-2009, 7:15am
It's a bit like the argument of nature vs nurture. You really can't have one without the other. A photographer without a camera will do just as badly as a camera without a photographer.

Kym
17-06-2009, 11:48am
It's a bit like the argument of nature vs nurture. You really can't have one without the other. A photographer without a camera will do just as badly as a camera without a photographer.

Except that I'm talking about a qualitative issue - being the quality of the equipment.
How much does good gear improve your photography and how much is skill?

Steve Axford
17-06-2009, 12:54pm
Except that I'm talking about a qualitative issue - being the quality of the equipment.
How much does good gear improve your photography and how much is skill?
But you ask for a quantitative answer to a qualitative question. This isn't possible.

David
17-06-2009, 2:49pm
While Steve and Cypher work out the meaning of qualitative vs quantitative concepts (the word qualititative in research at least has nought to do with 'quality' per se (funny how we get derailed by strange things here in AP), getting back to Cypher'S intent,
what do you think Steve ?

Can a good camera/lens make a person unconsciously (unaware of how or why the image turned out as it did) look like a scmick/expert/master photographer ?

Ive taken a shot or two where people commented that it had great composition, very good exposure, nice rule of thirds application, mass balance, apeture controlling the DOF, clever use of Shutter Speed and avoidance of 'vignetting' when I thought composition was something a music composer did, shutter speed was how fast you hit the button, apeture was ..huh ?...ISO was an Indigenous Services Officer and exposure was taking the lens cap off. Now I know what those things mean I am consciously incompetent instead of unconsciously incompetent :)

I think a person can have an innate photographers 'eye' in terms of composition and subject matter, but everything else has to be learned with experience and consciouss awareness of creating an image by use of the tools and experience you have with the camera and lenses at your disposal being a contributing, but significantly less important factor.

So Im sticking with a quantitative valuation 80 percent photographer on Cyphers scale which may not be technically correct but uses concepts and values your average Joe can get to grips with. Over to you Steve -

Steve Axford
17-06-2009, 3:34pm
While Steve and Cypher work out the meaning of qualitative vs quantitative concepts (the word qualititative in research at least has nought to do with 'quality' per se (funny how we get derailed by strange things here in AP), getting back to Cypher'S intent,
what do you think Steve ?

Can a good camera/lens make a person unconsciously (unaware of how or why the image turned out as it did) look like a scmick/expert/master photographer ?

Ive taken a shot or two where people commented that it had great composition, very good exposure, nice rule of thirds application, mass balance, apeture controlling the DOF, clever use of Shutter Speed and avoidance of 'vignetting' when I thought composition was something a music composer did, shutter speed was how fast you hit the button, apeture was ..huh ?...ISO was an Indigenous Services Officer and exposure was taking the lens cap off. Now I know what those things mean I am consciously incompetent instead of unconsciously incompetent :)

I think a person can have an innate photographers 'eye' in terms of composition and subject matter, but everything else has to be learned with experience and consciouss awareness of creating an image by use of the tools and experience you have with the camera and lenses at your disposal being a contributing, but significantly less important factor.

So Im sticking with a quantitative valuation 80 percent photographer on Cyphers scale which may not be technically correct but uses concepts and values your average Joe can get to grips with. Over to you Steve -

Ahh. You guys just think I'm being pedantic. But I really don't think you can answer such a question. It takes both to take a photograph, so both are vital. You could say they are equally important, but that really misses the point. I'm sure we could come up with examples where the camera seemed to be all important - eg it is impossible to take a photo of a distant object (eg a star) without a very good telephoto lens (a telescope), or examples where the photographer seemed all important - eg a photo of a very significant event is better if it is taken with the cheapest of cameras than it is missed by the most expensive.

I think it is very like the nature vs nurture argument. That one tends to swing with the political scene, though again, it is very hard to imagine the one without the other.

Over to you David.

David
17-06-2009, 4:04pm
Na I dont think your being pedantic Steve- you have implicitely come close to a 50/50 position where both the photographer are equally important/influential in producing good photographs, or as close to that as your likely to concede. Im not saying you have decided on a generalisation, but that is close to it I reckon. :)

Meantime, I have enjoyed reading everyones input and comments about this issue; makes you think about what you are doing standing behind a camera if nothing else.

Steve Axford
17-06-2009, 4:33pm
Ok - call it 50/50 if you wish, but all other answers are meaningless. It isn't a matter of opinion. Just like the world isn't flat. (oh hell - now what have I started)

David
17-06-2009, 4:57pm
Well Steve if the world is not flat how come I have flat feet ? ;) ...:food04:

Steve Axford
17-06-2009, 5:09pm
Hadn't though of that. Oh shit, I just fell off the edge. Byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ..........

James Axford
17-06-2009, 6:43pm
Test: give a better than average photographer (this is hard to measure) a less than average camera (also hard to measure) and compare his photos from previous ones. Who wants to do it??
I’m taking my self out of this one as I’m less than average :)

Kym
17-06-2009, 6:55pm
Guys... the poll values are indicative not exact. A way of describing the balance between the two extremes.
We use terms like 40/60, 50/50, as a way of describing a qualitative assessment. They do not mean an exact measured mathematical value.
Someone has already suggested 30/70 but I deliberately left the poll having less options.
Steve: yup you arrived at an overall rating (if you will) of 50/50.

enduro
17-06-2009, 10:45pm
It's not a difficult ratio to predict.

A skilled photographer will quickly lean more about the abilities/limitations of particular gear and work within them. For instance, hand an experienced amateur a simple P&S for a week or so and they will achieve greater results with that than the learner that owns it will for a long while.

Turn the scenario around and hand the learner a pro or high end consumer level DSLR over to the learner for a week and I am sure one could predict the results.

We often hear the phrase, that person takes amazing shots - but that person does have a great camera.

Great buildings were made with the most primitive tools, great surgery can be performed with the most advanced technologies. The product of either is a poor result without experience and skill in using to tool.

dbax
17-06-2009, 11:04pm
It's not a difficult ratio to predict.


Great buildings were made with the most primitive tools, great surgery can be performed with the most advanced technologies. The product of either is a poor result without experience and skill in using to tool.

And that's about my opinion as well, though I do agree about the genre issue, but to generalise I'd say the driver wins the race not necessarily the fastest car.... though It would help:D

enduro
17-06-2009, 11:51pm
Certainly more adaptable gear (longer, sharper lenses, higher frame rates, IS, VR, WtheF etc) can assist a user to achieve something that was previously unachievable, but this cannot be confused with greater skill.

virgal_tracy
18-06-2009, 3:50pm
I voted for the photographer. My reasoning is to look back 30/40/50 years and have a look at those photographers that are classed as great and then have a look at the equipment that they use compared to today.

Like anything in this world art, sport, academia, those that are considered a great of the past would come up with a way of adapting and being great in today's estimation. That comes down to talent, not equipment.

heartyfisher
08-07-2009, 2:49pm
I voted 20-80 but only because you need some gear to take a picture with. Other wise its all photographer.

Give a great photographer a P&S and joe tog a D300 and a 70-200 and I don't care what genre at the end of the day the only pictures that can be published will be from the "real" photographer. Or let me put it another way. Give the novice a 10,000 budget and the Photographer 10% or less of that and you will still only get great pictures from the great photographer !

As for me I think if I have 10,000 for gear I will be delirious!

rogklee
08-07-2009, 10:19pm
I voted 40-60%


But that being said, I've seen some of the pics Chase Jarvis has taken (US pro photographer) with his I PHONE!!! Absolutely stunning. *Check out his gallery with only iphone pics. Would never have thought it's possible

Rog

Tannin
09-07-2009, 12:43am
During easy conditions there is plenty of room for error, but when conditions get tough, the 'sweet spot' for getting it right is smaller and you need to know how to drive your camera to get the best out of the situation.

I would have voted 30/70 also. But, interestingly, the reverse of the above also applies. Let's say I have an old EF-S 18-55 (a pretty ordinary little kit lens), and I also have a 50/1.2L (as good as it gets). I have a nice sunny winter day and a pretty landscape scene in front of me. The picture I take with the $80 18-55 at 50mm and f/11 is going to be near as damit the same as the picture I take with the $3000 50L. Easy conditions, any lens will do. Now, let's switch to a gloomy overcast day and a backlit scene where, for depth of field reasons, we want to shoot wide-open or close to it. Now the $80 lens is hopelessly out of its depth, and the L Series unit shows its class.

That's actually the thing I notice about top-quality gear more than anything else: when the going is easy, most gear copes comfortably enough. But when the going is tough, the top-quality gear really does make a major difference. I notice this particularly with the 500/4: It still blows me away with the results it returns in bad light. But in the end, if you don't know how to use it, it isn't a lot of help. Hey - I could buy the best guitar in the world, but you still wouldn't line up to hear me play.

Kym
09-07-2009, 3:33pm
I would have voted 30/70 also. But, interestingly, the reverse of the above also applies. Let's say I have an ... <snip>

Exactly! and well written.

The poll was only indicative so 30/70 or 20/80 or 40/60 are close enough.

It also indicates the good 'tog will get more out of good gear in difficult conditions.
It also answers the question why bother with a DSLR and not just a good P&S Ultra-zoom.

mikew09
30-07-2009, 12:21pm
All, this is a pretty old thread but I though I would comment again - a little more experience.

Yesterday my mate brought in his 3 day old Canon 50D with grip and the 17-85 USM IS lens.
Before now I voted that gear made a small amount of difference. Well, first we did a comparison of shots, same subject and setting TV, AV & then manual.

We reviewed the shots and for the first time I am a little disappointed with the 400D in view the amount of PP needed to get near the same quality of shot. Next I had to answer the hardest question, is it the nut behind the wheel so to speak. The kindness of my freind allowed me to take a his kit for a walk about session to have a play.

Took me quite a few shots to get used to the differences in the bodies and functions but man, I have never taken shots like these. Colour and Contrast light balance was unbeleiveable. In fact, I am shocked at the difference between the two camera.

Did a little experiment. Took a few shots of the same subject, composure and such and showed them to a few unknowing work mates . painfully there was a WOW in the air with my mates and an oh dear when my were viewed. Once comment - oh dear, what happend there.

The shots are still sitting on my drive in the office but tomorrow I will post a comparision of the shots straight out of the camera from raw to jpeg, no PP.

I must admit, I am quite a bit taken back by the difference. So, back to the point. Sure, composing the shot is paramount to get something appealing, however; gear can play a large part in the photo is colour, contrast, sharpness / crispness etc play an important role in the end photo. Well my chnage of thought for now since having a chance to do some real time testing.

ving
30-07-2009, 12:35pm
g'day mike, silly question but did you use exactly the same lens and camera setting for both bodies?

mikew09
30-07-2009, 12:51pm
Good question. Yep, we did a lens change a some shots, same subject etc. Not as in as much detail as the former but did test.
The result was very similiar in as much as colour, contrast still much better but the sharpness was the greatest difference.
We did draw conclusion from this as before the test I was considering on running with my 400D for a good while longer and investing in L series lens instead. However; the test we did tends to indicate that there would still be a noticeable quality gap between the two.

I sort of thought, maybe a nieve, that lens was king and if I was to purchase the EF 70-200 L IS USM my shots would suddenly transform into those of an 5D - :-0. I am still a baby in the photo game, obviously.

On the other end, the 17-85 definately improved the shots on the 400D but not to the degree of the 50D. This did confuse me. We did the same hand on swap and shot with the lens change also.

We also tried a you take some randoms with my camera and I will do visa versa. Results - my shots looked like someone else had taken them. This frustrated me that the kit made so much improvement to the shot. Mostly around the colur and sharpness aspect. I assume the sharpness is owning to the lens and the colour and contrast mostly attributed to the body and Digi4 technology. This is only our observation though and there is now a lot of techical research to do.

We plan to do another test shoot tomorrow at a park with lots of colour balances, textures and an old church with a written plan of each stage for more accurate comparison later.

These I will post if anyone is interested. I think we have a new test thread to use now.

Hope this helps.

DAdeGroot
06-08-2009, 1:01pm
We did draw conclusion from this as before the test I was considering on running with my 400D for a good while longer and investing in L series lens instead. However; the test we did tends to indicate that there would still be a noticeable quality gap between the two.

I sort of thought, maybe a nieve, that lens was king and if I was to purchase the EF 70-200 L IS USM my shots would suddenly transform into those of an 5D - :-0. I am still a baby in the photo game, obviously.



I did just that, went L lenses (specifically the 70-200/2.8L IS) when I had my 400D. It did improve image quality, but in the end, the 400D's sensor does have a say in things too. The jump to a 5DII was quite astounding. Having said that though, I got some darn fine photos from that old 400D, some have made me a healthy amount of money.
Even the crappy 18-55 kit lens can perform well in the right lighting conditions providing you know what you're doing and what the limitations of the lens are.

Generally, I'd still fall on the 30-70 line. Gear does make a difference, but only if you know how to use it.

mikew09
06-08-2009, 10:02pm
Yea Dave, I think I will take the better lens first approach. Still on L plates and my shots seem to be getting better with more experience. Probably beneficial to learn limitations and how to best manage them with the 400D, work to its limit with the L series lens and then buy the new body - maybe the 60D will be out by then.

We did another shoot with identical lens and I really concentrated on my shots, settings etc and to be honest, there was not a great deal to separate them. To be honest - I should probably wear my 400D out, build the lens base and go for a 5D mkII or current model at the time.

enduro
06-08-2009, 10:19pm
Yea Dave, I think I will take the better lens first approach. Still on L plates and my shots seem to be getting better with more experience. Probably beneficial to learn limitations and how to best manage them with the 400D, work to its limit with the L series lens and then buy the new body - maybe the 60D will be out by then.

We did another shoot with identical lens and I really concentrated on my shots, settings etc and to be honest, there was not a great deal to separate them. To be honest - I should probably wear my 400D out, build the lens base and go for a 5D mkII or current model at the time.

I'd love to step up to the 5d Mk II N however the price tag will kill me! I may have to go for the 60D if it is any good.

Certainly get some good experience with you current camera before shedding some big bucks otherwise you will be training on some heavy depreciation. Secondly, I didn't fidn out how capable my 350D was until I put the 400mm on it, but by then the 350D was already sold and the 40D was on it's way! The 350D won me a few really big prizes.

trigger
07-08-2009, 5:36pm
most if is the tog in the general sense. But some things like sports you NEED $$$ Tele lenses.

good example of poor tog massively $$$ equipment.

http://www.pbase.com/bulbmogul/moguls_equipment

Kym
07-08-2009, 5:46pm
I am very interested in taking photos. Share some tips with me.
Please post an Introduction.
The best place to start is the New To Photography forum.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=104

mrsamo
09-08-2009, 8:58pm
I voted 40-60%


But that being said, I've seen some of the pics Chase Jarvis has taken (US pro photographer) with his I PHONE!!! Absolutely stunning. *Check out his gallery with only iphone pics. Would never have thought it's possible

Rog

Jarvis may be a genius in post processing photos, thus turning a mediocre camera in the iPhone into something slightly better.

mrsamo
09-08-2009, 9:02pm
I think its mostly the gear that makes for outstanding photography but that can't come without the knowledge and understanding.

You can probably take the same photo with a lesser camera and lenses but may have to do a hell of a lot more post processing to get the same result as a superior camera/lenses.

Brodie
12-08-2009, 12:42pm
Its not the camera thats important, its the 12 inches behind it.

MyView
12-08-2009, 12:50pm
......you can take amazing pics with a cheap mobile cam.....so its not the cam - all credit to the photographer.

pgbphotographytas
12-08-2009, 12:56pm
......you can take amazing pics with a cheap mobile cam.....so its not the cam - all credit to the photographer.

I disagree to some extent, try taking a photo of a bird or sport with a camera phone or DSLR with a short lens, while the photographer is very important you still need that meets your needs.

MyView
12-08-2009, 2:20pm
...yes I agree a cheap mobile phone might not be able to take as good a shot "technically" as a more expensive cam - but the fact is you can still take an interesting well constructed shot no matter what the camera (the subject might differ depending on the quality of the cam)....but in end the picture has to be interesting enough to draw attention...and that comes down to the photographer.

jim
12-08-2009, 2:39pm
Jarvis may be a genius in post processing photos, thus turning a mediocre camera in the iPhone into something slightly better.

They're great photos, but it doesn't look like processing to me, it looks like he's really good at pointing his camera in the right direction and clicking the shutter at the right time.

Ie: all 'tog.

ricktas
12-08-2009, 3:04pm
The other thing to consider is, what is the intent of the photo that is taken as well. All well and good to take a nice photo with an iPhone, but if you want it blown up to a 10ft mural for the wall of a cafe or similar, it ain't going to work. So not only is the photographer important, but they have to chose the right tool for the job, the end result has to be a combination of photographer and camera, not wholly one or the other.

TOM
14-08-2009, 10:54pm
i completely agree Rick. 10ft mural...that rules out small format DSLR's too :)

Gregg Bell
15-08-2009, 2:02am
after meeting that professional photographer last night its definitely more photographer then gear, i would have said 30/70.

The photographer last night had 2 D3's and tons of lenses, she was more use to glamour, music, and sports(AFL).

She was given a job to take photos of a motor race, and she took the photos, and the guy that hired her was made, and made it very clear to her, how awful her photos were. She never took motor sports before.

so definitely more the photographer, and how they use their camera. :) the gear does help.

JM Tran
21-08-2009, 6:50pm
after meeting that professional photographer last night its definitely more photographer then gear, i would have said 30/70.

The photographer last night had 2 D3's and tons of lenses, she was more use to glamour, music, and sports(AFL).

She was given a job to take photos of a motor race, and she took the photos, and the guy that hired her was made, and made it very clear to her, how awful her photos were. She never took motor sports before.

so definitely more the photographer, and how they use their camera. :) the gear does help.

LOL, poor client

what about the rest of her portfolio for her specialization, do they stack up to the gear thats used?

Ive seen too many photographers and pros who have high end gear but churn out average to mediocre results

makes me quite sad and embarrassed to see, but keeps canon and nikon etc happy:D

Whisky_Mac
24-08-2009, 4:03pm
Over thirty years back a spent an afternoon with a pro photographing a mockup of a building. He was using a very basic camera ( cannot remember the brand but similar to a box brown). He used a pierce of string the measure out his focal distance from the subject to the lens and proceeded from there. Remember that we never saw the result until after the developing tank. This was a project that he got paid for.

His knowledge of what he wanted and how to achieve the best result out off any equipment was the key to the result. He had better camera including 2 1/4 square but he wanted the result from the lesser camera. I was just a very interested observer while I waited for him to finish before we went out to dinner.

Never underestimate your knowledge.

kiwi
24-08-2009, 4:04pm
yeah, and you only like get 200 chances to get it right at a motor race

Krzys
24-08-2009, 4:29pm
Who is the photographer in question. Does he/she practice every genre? I was originally going to say 20%gear 80%photographer. A creative and technically adept photographer can make due with the worst possible gear in a genre/situation that they specialize in. Though I am going to have to say 80%gear 20%photographer, as it seems that this photographer should have the gear ready for any situation/genre and the quality to blow that photo up to a 10ft mural or bigger. :confused013 :p

kiwi
24-08-2009, 4:32pm
Im not sure that there is a right answer

So, will settle on "depends"

Redgum
24-08-2009, 4:45pm
I'm definitely going to say 100% photographer. Even the best camera can't take a photo by itself. Now, I know what you're going to say. :eek:
I was at the Science Centre in Brisbane yesterday with my granddaughter and she had her photo taken simply with a flash gun and a wall. No camera in sight. Her shadow was imprinted on that wall for a minute or two. (That's how photography started by the way).
History shows that photos taken a hundred years ago often trounce anything done today.
The other thing to consider is that if the camera is more important than the photographer why do they upgrade the camera every second year?
And wouldn't I love to send a camera on the next gig rather than a photographer. Save heaps.

Analog6
25-08-2009, 4:41am
Redgum does have a point there!

But the flip side is you can send the best photographer in the world but if her does not have a camera you won't get much of a result. I'll stick to 50/50. I do believe that the better the gear, the better the result a good, competent photographer will produce.

zollo
25-08-2009, 10:54am
i dont see anybodies gear list consisting of an iphone or even a point and shoot as decent as they can get these days. point proven. definitely 50/50. good gear is made for good photographers and good photographers will use good gear.

Kym
25-08-2009, 11:01am
I'm definitely going to say 100% photographer. Even the best camera can't take a photo by itself. Now, I know what you're going to say. :eek:
I was at the Science Centre in Brisbane yesterday with my granddaughter and she had her photo taken simply with a flash gun and a wall. No camera in sight. Her shadow was imprinted on that wall for a minute or two. (That's how photography started by the way).
History shows that photos taken a hundred years ago often trounce anything done today.
The other thing to consider is that if the camera is more important than the photographer why do they upgrade the camera every second year?
And wouldn't I love to send a camera on the next gig rather than a photographer. Save heaps.


i dont see anybodies gear list consisting of an iphone or even a point and shoot as decent as they can get these days. point proven. definitely 50/50. good gear is made for good photographers and good photographers will use good gear.

Contra points. :D

I think the conclusion we get from this thread is:

A good photographer will get the more from whatever gear he is using than someone without experience; and a good photographer will benefit much more from good gear than the happy snapper. Also a good photography can do more with good gear than he can with more limited gear.

So good gear helps but the 'tog is the main factor.

MTV
26-08-2009, 12:24pm
Why separate the issue into photographer or gear? Surely, they are interlinked. A good photographer not only gets more from the gear they're using, but also knows what gear to use in the first place? For example, I know that if I'm shooting indoors with available light only and using my SLR then my 50 prime is going to make life easier for me due to the better aperture range. Whereas when I'm shooting outdoors, in the light, at an object far away, I can use my 200mm zoom. Now I'm not suggesting for a moment that I'm a great photographer (LOL) but the point is that I know what gear will help me achieve my goals. Alot of the photos I take around the house of the family are actually with my gf's P+S, which sits towards the top end of the market and gives great results without me messing around with lenses etc. I also know that I won't be blowing the images up past the 8mp maximum, so these candids don't require anything bigger or heavier or "better".

100% tog for me, no matter how "good" your gear is, the difference lies 100% in knowing how and when to use it. Sure, if you haven't got the gear to blow a photo up for a 10ft mural then you're going to have a hard time getting those sorts of results, but at the end of the day, if you knew that's what you were taking the shot for, surely you would have sourced better gear for the situation no?

However, I believe the proof lies in the pudding. My favourite photographer of the moment is Mike Brodie AKA "The Polaroid Kidd" who has taken some of the most beautiful images I've ever seen and he only used a Polaroid that he got for free from a friend. Don't believe me? Check his images out here (http://www.lifelounge.com/Life-on-the-rails-with-train_hoppers-and-vagabonds-by-Mike-Brodie.aspx). Its all about capturing the subject matter.

Kym
28-08-2009, 8:13am
<snip>100% tog for me, no matter how "good" your gear is, the difference lies 100% in knowing how and when to use it. Sure, if you haven't got the gear to blow a photo up for a 10ft mural then you're going to have a hard time getting those sorts of results, but at the end of the day, if you knew that's what you were taking the shot for, surely you would have sourced better gear for the situation no?<snip>

Its not exclusive OR ... its a mix!

Give a good modern P&S (face recogntion etc.) to someone who has never taken a photo before.
Give them an afternoon to get some portrait images - guess what? they will do quite well.
So good gear makes some difference, therefore it is not 100% of either but we are looking for an idea of what the mix is.

TOM
28-08-2009, 9:17am
Give them an afternoon to get some portrait images - guess what? they will do quite
well.


I see where you are coming from Kym but I don't agree. On one hand, they may get an acceptably exposed shot (but that's not hard nowadays with almost any modern camera with auto this and auto that), but the camera has nothing to do with the photographer's ability to pose the talent, choose the right locations, and identify the best light (open shade, reflectors, strobes et al). On the other hand, the gear is important if you want to isolate the subject with a nice 75 or 90 or 200mm lens, which you will find difficult with a compact camera with a tiny sensor.

Doonster
01-09-2009, 12:41pm
its not all about the equipment take a guy i know who uses a canon 350D and a few lenses and pulls out some of the most amazing shots. here is his latest stuff http://www.rallyphotos.cz/

pbrunottephoto
11-09-2009, 1:08pm
Whats the good of great gear if you dont know how to use it properly.

Redgum
11-09-2009, 1:17pm
Whats the good of great gear if you dont know how to use it properly.
You learn and that's what photography is all about.

Kym
14-09-2009, 4:10pm
This thread ... Luck/Skill/Gear all worked together for a great result
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?p=396295#post396295

NickMonk
19-09-2009, 11:38am
I voted 20/80. A good photo usually needs a good photographer. A rubbish photographer with excellent gear will still produce rubbish photos (although they may have been worse with a rubbish photographer with rubbish gear). A good photographer will produce good photos with rubbish gear, but with some limitation as to the genre of photography they can produce. I'd love to say 100% photgrapher but there is no doubt gear can be limiting in some genres/circumstances, hence the 20% gear.

Regnis
23-09-2009, 5:06pm
Define better?

Also, the best gear in the world can't compensate for poor composition skills, no eye for detail, inability to visual the photo in your mind, inability communicate with models/stylist , etc. There's more to photography then pushing a button.

All good equipment does is give a photographer better range of opportunities, and better image quality.

hear hear!!!

The Moose
24-09-2009, 2:05pm
I said 40/60. It isn't also about having the right gear, but knowing which gear to use and how. Take a good macro lens, it can also be used to produce stunning portraits. The gear is there, but the photographer needs to know what to select and use for a given situation.

Hit the nail on the head right here. Gear makes a difference for sure but you don't have to take advantage of it. Experience and knowledge counts for a lot so that's where the extra 10% to the photographer comes from, it could even be 30/70 for that matter.

nexus
18-10-2009, 2:32pm
I went with 40/60 because a good photographer can bring out the best in gear (think of it as a good photographer can fulfill the potential of gear better, just like in RPG games ;))

A good photog may be able to use foot zooming, better framing, timing, anticipation and better understanding of poor gear to make a shot look good (or best as it can be), a novice photog may be able to take stunning pictures on great gear but may not be able to fulfil it's potential (perhaps too afraid to use higher ISOs on pro gear etc.)

That also depends on the environment you are shooting in of course... (birds in wild vs studio for example will throw the percentage one way or another)

AlexandraT
26-10-2009, 4:41pm
Well I was recently reading a Photography competition coffee table book and I found myself saying "With that camera! Thats the best they could come up with?" The quality of the photo may have been exceptional but the picture itself not particularly interesting at all.

I voted 50/50, they compliment each other, I think.

Elana
26-10-2009, 4:52pm
I voted 20/80 My experience has been that the majority of photographers doing well in my club ( winning the club comps etc ) don't use either nikon or Canon and quite often have entry level DSLR's. The outside competitions I have entered have also had photographers with very basic equipment winning. All the expensive equipment in the world can't make up for a lack of imagination.

Elana

AlexandraT
26-10-2009, 5:34pm
So true, it takes a good creative mind to create good images.

Jack LC
27-10-2009, 9:56pm
I voted 50 / 50. A good tog is going to produce better results with the same equipment as an average tog.

Gregg Bell
28-10-2009, 2:01am
I'm definitely going to say 100% photographer. Even the best camera can't take a photo by itself. Now, I know what you're going to say. :eek:
I was at the Science Centre in Brisbane yesterday with my granddaughter and she had her photo taken simply with a flash gun and a wall. No camera in sight. Her shadow was imprinted on that wall for a minute or two. (That's how photography started by the way).
History shows that photos taken a hundred years ago often trounce anything done today.
The other thing to consider is that if the camera is more important than the photographer why do they upgrade the camera every second year?
And wouldn't I love to send a camera on the next gig rather than a photographer. Save heaps.

I understand what you're coming from however; You can't buy a hammer, and then become a carpenter. Although a very good carpenter still needs a hammer to do the job instead of a chainsaw. Although Im sure a very good photographer would know how, and be able to use a Kodak brownie to take a shot.

Though I get the feeling most photographers don't even know what a Kodak Brownie even is! Which is a bit sad... :(

ricktas
28-10-2009, 6:14am
Though I get the feeling most photographers don't even know what a Kodak Brownie even is! Which is a bit sad... :(

i reckon you could be wrong here, I think most of us would know what a Kodak Box Brownie is, I still have mine (given to me in the 1970's)

Clubmanmc
02-11-2009, 2:49pm
Sorry but its all the photographer.. And their ability to get the best out of what he or she is using.. A good photo doesn't have to be 4000 mp to be fantastic..

techniques can be learnt, but composure can't be.. You either see it or you don't..

Clubmanmc
02-11-2009, 2:57pm
Sorry but its all the photographer.. And their ability to get the best out of what he or she is using.. A good photo doesn't have to be 4000 mp to be fantastic..

techniques can be learnt, but composure can't be.. You either see it or you don't..

mrsamo
02-11-2009, 3:24pm
The more I read about this poll the more I think that it is the equipment that makes a good photographer.

You look at the majority of users even on this board and you'll find that most have some of the newest and most expensive gears, NEW+EXPENSIVE=BETTER results. The reason why few (if anybody) are using older stuff is because not everybody has the technique or the patience to use them properly, why when newer technology makes the work so much easier?

A few years back nobody thought LCD view or live view would be a feature on DSLRs since SLRs never had them either, but look at it now, people can't live without them.

Autofocus? who needs manual focusing?

I think technique makes a good photographer but if you are of good judgement then its easy to be good with a camera given the technology these days.

Natsky
08-11-2009, 8:03pm
I voted 20/80.
Based this on the fact that I have viewed images from expensive cameras that showed no understanding of composition or how light works. I have also seen some amazing photos taken using mobile phones and 2MP point and shoots with brilliant results because the operator knew how to get the most out of the equipment. Good equipment just makes things easier and allows you to do more.
...and if you have no imagination, the best, most expensive camera in the world will not create that magic shot for you.
as a newbie, that's my 2 cents!

Xenedis
09-12-2009, 5:34pm
It is often said "It's not the equipment but the photographer that counts".

While this is true in part, I think the reality is that good equipment makes a significant difference.

Eg. Action photography: The AF speed of top of the line lens / camera is much better than an entry level body with kit lens.

Other issues like IQ of good glass vs 'kit' lenses.

So what is the proportion?

My viewpoint is that a good photographer will produce a good image with any equipment -- within its limitations.

Naturally, better equipment allows the photographer to produce images that would not be possible with lesser equipment; but on the flip-side, a terrible photographer with the world's best camera is going to produce a very bad photo, but with excellent gear.

As a viewer of photos, I tend not to give any thought to the gear with which they were captured; but when I'm shooting, I'm acutely aware of what my gear can do, and what gear to use if I want a specific look or effect.

Guyzimij2
13-12-2009, 6:38pm
Hi Guyzimij buttin' in here (yep.Im a newbie) Remember not too long ago the types of film we had to start with in partnership with the kind of camera we had to deal with .(I started with a Kodak Brownie Instamatic ). From the cheap to "professional film types and the varied results (I Miss Kodachrome)Choices of equipment and developed skills make for the results one obtains. 40% equipment 60% Tog. my views. Thanks.

Helen S
13-12-2009, 9:18pm
I went 40% Gear 60% Tog. I know some photographers out there with fairly basic equipment, that produce outstanding quality photos time and time again. I also know some with the very best equipment that whilst they can produce some corkers, for the most part their work is just ordinary.

Bill44
04-02-2010, 2:42pm
Well I've read the varying opinions on this poll and agree with some and not others. Being in the position of having reasonable lenses I have always tended to say it was mostly up to the photographer.....up until the past few days.

My Grandson is a pretty good junior cricketer, and his Dad (my son) has been trying to get some good shots of him with his D70 and 70-300 lens. No luck. My son has seen my shots of the lad and was mumbling about how the D70 must be a heap of xxxx. Not so I told him, it's your lens. The 70-300 lens he was using was the G version, thrown in as a deal sweetener when he bought the D70 a few years ago.

So last weekend I lent him my 70-300VR version, Ha Ha big difference. I've just ordered him a 70-300VR from Adorama.

So when people say it's mostly photographer, please also say "With reasonable equipment".:D

MattHylton
05-02-2010, 12:56am
I'd have to say gear helps more than my ability. I can be in a situation and know I need extra light but if I don't have that light I am not going to get the photo or I will get a washed out background.

But you do need to have the head to know what your doing with it also. So I say 60:40 with more emphasis on gear.
My reasoning, my 80-200 f2.8L (the drainpipe)
outperforms my stock 75-300mm 3.5-5.6 hands down (I think that right. I retired this lens)
The gear difference is better aperture better colour and a nice bokeh to boot.

Kym
05-02-2010, 10:33am
My Grandson is a pretty good junior cricketer, and his Dad (my son) has been trying to get some good shots of him with his D70 and 70-300 lens. No luck. My son has seen my shots of the lad and was mumbling about how the D70 must be a heap of xxxx. Not so I told him, it's your lens. The 70-300 lens he was using was the G version, thrown in as a deal sweetener when he bought the D70 a few years ago.
So last weekend I lent him my 70-300VR version, Ha Ha big difference. I've just ordered him a 70-300VR from Adorama.

Interesting anecdote.
This is EXACTLY why we recommend people first buying a DSLR don't fall for the twin lens kit deals and instead get one good lens in their first purchase.
Even to the point of getting a 2nd hand body and putting more towards good glass.

JimD
05-02-2010, 11:01am
Good gear most definately helps.

Audible
05-02-2010, 4:00pm
Good gear helps.

My wife recently went to adelaide and shot up a couple of gigs worth of piccies with a P&S camera. The old say about Monkeys and typrwriters is so true and amongst all the images there where a couple of real beauties, one my wife wanted blown up and banged on the wall.

But, 8 megapixel P&S and blow ups do not work well. Sure the pic is great at 6x4, but it screams for a blow up which doesn't work because of the gear used.

The problem is its a dusk photo and the camera's iso noise and killed it beyond rescue by my skills with photoshop and the blow up looks absolutely awful.
Normally I'd be able to revisit the site and replicate the image with the DSLR, but in this case, adelaide is a bit far away from perth to do that.

So yes, it's mostly the photographer that makes a good pic. But you need good gear to be able to appreciate the pic fully imho.

Xenedis
06-02-2010, 10:54am
This is EXACTLY why we recommend people first buying a DSLR don't fall for the twin lens kit deals and instead get one good lens in their first purchase.
Even to the point of getting a 2nd hand body and putting more towards good glass.

The only problem there is that many newcomers to DSLRs don't really know what they need and want. They generally wind a broad range of focal lengths to cover most shooting situations rather than knowing they want to shoot particular subjects and what lenses they'd need for it.

For a beginner, a kit lens is a good way to start. Once the beginner has more of an idea, (s)he can purchase more appropriate lenses. Dropping four figures on a good lens which isn't suitable, or doing so and then not pursuing the hobby, is rather wasteful.

coolie21
06-02-2010, 10:58am
I have advised a few people who are excited to jump to dslr and dismayed by what they may have to shell out on lenses on top. I've told a few to skip the kit lenses and just get the 50mm f1.8 first to see how they go...

Regarding photographer or kit, if it was all photographer we (canon users) wouldn't be lusting after those red rings...

gh0st
24-02-2010, 5:57pm
20-80 for film
30-70 for digital
50-50 in the future

Just my opinion - the advances in technology are closing the gap between the pros and the amateurs.

MattHylton
25-02-2010, 4:23pm
Regarding photographer or kit, if it was all photographer we (canon users) wouldn't be lusting after those red rings...


So true, I'm in the process of collecting those lovely red rings. One for every situation. I read a letter in the Viewpoint (monthly newsletters) in the Australian Photography Magazine this month that said it quite well. It said

"In my own advice is to buy the best equipment you can afford (especially with lenses), read the manual, use your gear in every possible situation you can, and when your ability is finally beyond the limitations of your gear, upgrade- but not before then!-Ed"

I can add to this

I think this is true of us all. We are all at different stages and threads of our craft. Just like painters can all paint with basic paints but a truly honed crafter will still show his true ability no matter what the medium. But the great painters did use specialised pigments and mixes to make the masterpieces of the world and not finger paint.

Skill will take you so far but if your given finger paint you cannot make a masterpiece.

hlokk
02-03-2010, 8:11pm
I think theres a few aspects to it so couldnt vote on a ratio (really depends on the situation).

If you're in a technically demanding situation (maybe fast action shots, DOF effects, bulb exposures with ND filters, printable shots, etc) then you pretty much need gear that meets the specs (as well as a good photographer).

I've seen a series of photos taken with a really cheap toy camera (I think it was a barbie or mickey mouse one) and the quality was appalling, but the photos were really interesting and came out well (seeing as the photographer was pretty good), so if not a technically demanding situation then a good photographer can still take good pics.

As for good gear and a not so good photographer (ok, I see why you guys abbreviate it as tog), from personal experience, i've had photos come out much better on a dslr than a point and click. Still not sure the exact reasons (DOF and maybe contrast/saturation?) but without trying they looked much better and this was compared to a decent P&S. So having better gear does seem to improve my photos at least.

dsaini
02-03-2010, 9:43pm
I agree with "hlokk", there are far too many aspects to this discussion.

kiwi
03-03-2010, 6:50am
Simple - be a good photographer and use great gear. I can sleep at night now knowing it's an 'and' not an 'or'


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rborsje
31-07-2010, 7:07pm
Voted "its all the photographer" because he/she should know the limits of their gear (whatever they have) and should work within those limits. No use taking a shot of a sunset wth an ultra wide or a bee with a telephoto. They should recognise the limitations of their gear and they either get better gear or stay put. Simple.

peterb666
31-07-2010, 7:22pm
I thought that it was a hard choice between "candy flavoured gravy with chicken soup" and all photographer.

Someone with the skill, talent and imagination will almost always get a shot with any gear that is at hand.

It doen'st matter how good the gear is, if there is no skill, no talent and no imagination, stick to the modern equivalent of the Kodak Brownie and just take snaps of the family when they cannot run away fast enough.

andrask
02-08-2010, 1:30pm
IMO it would depend on the genre or type of photography.

It would be all photographer in Art Photography where blurs and o-o-f images are considered creative. OTOH it would be biased towards the gear in specialised areas such as scientific photography e.g. astronomy, photomicrography...among others.

Jorge Arguello
06-08-2010, 3:58pm
The poll looks simple but the posts are very interesting.

Well... now that we can find a very sophisticated cameras and lenses, the gear really help to get a very good photography.

A very good camera will generate good pictures but photos with bad composition or unclear object wont be pleasent (I think). At least a small skill photographic will be needed to capture some audience to see the photo.

I consider that a photographer can make the most of any gear to obtain the best results from the camera (and not the camera from the photographer).

joele
15-08-2010, 5:44pm
I said 80% tog (on average) as gear in some situations will become much more or less important.. Better and more exotic gear is also about the enjoyment in using it, which helps motivate the tog to get out and take photos in he first place ;-)

Bubbleyboy
18-08-2010, 11:10pm
I posted 80 percent photographer and 20 percent gear . It takes a good photographer to have the eye for what they want to achieve and the skill to achieve those results through the use of settings on cameras and lenses .
That said the better the gear the more a phographer use it to limits or its best advantage , better glass "can"in the right hands give more class .

Bubbleyboy.

ronaldhw
24-08-2010, 2:08pm
50-50, but sometime can be 20 gear -80 tog, depends on the condition. so I picked 50-50.

Example why I say 50-50: a newbie photographer with best gear will probably have better photo compared to pro photographer with entry level camera + slow lens in barely lit indoor situation....

11TCo
25-08-2010, 11:51am
You can have the best gear on the planet but without skills and creativity there will never be any good photos; however with skills and creativity one can take good photos on almost any type of gear (as many famous photographers have demonstrated in the past)

ving
25-08-2010, 12:06pm
i voted gravy....

80% photographer...

give a newbie and pro the same say d90 and 70-200/2.8 vr to shoot say a motor race and what will the outcome be? it takes skill not equipment for the most part.
about to upgrade from d40 to d90... wonder if my shots will be better?

Kym
25-08-2010, 12:09pm
You can have the best gear on the planet but without skills and creativity there will never be any good photos; however with skills and creativity one can take good photos on almost any type of gear (as many famous photographers have demonstrated in the past)

I don't think anyone really disagrees with that, but a good 'tog can make great use of good gear as well.
eg. There are things you can't do with a phone camera. :rolleyes: Try serious birding without a long lens?

This discussion has been going for a while :cool:

Xebadir
25-08-2010, 2:16pm
Ving, there is the possibility that your shots will improve...but it depends if you are able to use the capabilities of your camera. For laughs yesterday I decided to pull out my D40 and put my 24-70 F2.8 on it. Besides the camera feeling terribly odd in my hand (forgot how small it was), just trying to shoot in my room was a challenge with the available useful ISO and not to mention the lack of controls for simple handling and the AF points (which were all the reasons I went to the D300, which shoots easily in the same environment without flash). The D90 has a similar transition. Granted glass has got to be good, but the body definitely plays an important role in utilising it. Not to mention that if you put the best gear in some peoples hands they can't use it to save themselves (whether it be technical or composition problems). The right tool for the right job is useful, but if you cant use that tool its irrelevant.