Discussion: Good equipment vs Good Photographer

[James Axford]

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]

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]

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]

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

[enduro]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[Kym]

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]

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]

g'day mike, silly question but did you use exactly the same lens and camera setting for both bodies?

[mikew09]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/for...play.php?f=104

[mrsamo]

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]

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.