Discussion: Good equipment vs Good Photographer

[Kym]

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]

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]

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.

[The Moose]

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.

[NGP]

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]

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]

I think its 60/40 Gear then Photographer.

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

[hoffy]

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]

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

steve.

[Kym]

I've had back to back meetings today - including with Auditors.

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.

[Goldie]

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.

[NeilC]

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.

[ving]

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.

[Seesee]

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.

[draco]

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"..

[Tannin]

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.

[Sar NOP]

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]

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.

[heartyfisher]

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]

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