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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Kym]

I voted gravy....

What? SURPRISED I AM!!!
Made the tri-null option of candy/gravy/soup just for you David!

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]

What? SURPRISED I AM!!!

Is that the Yoda response.

FTR, I voted 20% gear, 80% tog

[ving]

What? SURPRISED I AM!!!
Made the tri-null option of candy/gravy/soup just for you David!


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.

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]

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]

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 )

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]

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]

80% tog.. all the way

[old dog]

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.