What!!! I thought more money you spend, the better the picture???
I agree, most decent equipment and up can outperform most photogs. What really matters is good composition, the photographic eye, as I call it. All you need is a decent level of equipment. There are some true superb photogs that can outperform most equipment, but they are really rare. I guess it's easier to quibble over equipment spec's than good photographic skills.
My favorite pixel counting topics include, lens sharpness comparisons, MP counting, using only expensive filters or no filters, and of course "I recommend you buy the lens I bought b/c rest is junk" advises.
I've joined in on all of them, but I know in the end it's the photog that really counts. Besides, if you take a shot with a dSLR, can you look at the print and say, oh this is with a Canon so and so using a this and that L lens? I can't, all I can say is if it has nice composition and use of light.
You mean to say I'm not allowed to use my P&S camera as an excuse for my crappy photos (except, of course, for my Triangles Challenge entry, which scored the only perfect 10 in DPC history).
i think im gonna shoot some film just for fun someday.
in high school one of our assignments was to build and shoot with a pin hole camera and even though the hole i made had to be equivalent to like f/100, that thing took sharp pictures. they always said that the more glass and filters you layer onto your camera the softer the picture...so that must mean the pinhole camera must be sharper than a 1ds mark II!
Look, let's face it...on the web, at 640 pix, cameras are very much levelled. In the real world, with big size prints, you can really see why it does matter what equipment you use.
I don't think anyone is really saying a $100 P&S digicam can make as nice of a 20x30 print as a EOS 1Ds Mark II. I think it's between similar level of equipment such as entry level dSLR, similra lenses such as Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Canon/Nikon etc.
Geez, everyone is so literal, let's all relax a bit...
Now breath in.........................
and breath out............................
;)
yeah, also when you look at things like "macro photography" or "sports photography" or anything requiring special gear it really does matter what you have. There are certain things you can't do well no matter how good a photog. you are if you don't have the right equipment.
My dad has been trying to tell me this because I have done nothing but talk about really wanting a canon rebel for the past 6 months..... :) Perhaps he is surely right, but I still want one..
But then 3 of my 7 ribbons were won with a 3MP point and shoot (Pentax Optio S). 6 out of my 7 ribbons were NOT won with a DSLR.
I really enjoyed pushing my equipment to it's limits.
I don't think anyone is really saying a $100 P&S digicam can make as nice of a 20x30 print as a EOS 1Ds Mark II. I think it's between similar level of equipment such as entry level dSLR, similra lenses such as Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/Canon/Nikon etc.
Geez, everyone is so literal, let's all relax a bit...
Now breath in.........................
and breath out............................
;)
I think what Mr. Rockwell is saying is that a good photographer using a $100 P&S digicam will make much better photographs than a mediocre (or bad) photographer with a EOS 1Ds Mark II.
As per usual Ken starts with a concept that definitely has validity, then overstates and oversimplifies it to the point of making a mockery of it. Sorry, just not a Ken Rockwell fan.
The idea that equipment just makes no difference is ludicrous on the face of it.
The fact is that it's a multiplicative relationship. You need both a talented photographer and the appropriate equipment for the task at hand. The equipment need not be expensive or complicated for some purposes (one can certainly produce high art with a pinhole camera) but for other uses you'll be S.O.L without good gear, no matter how much talent you have. Again, multiplicative... talent without the right equipment or great equipment with no talent, doesn't matter, the output is zero. In between is an entire continuum of possibility.
Very much the old 'this vs that ' argument. How about balance? An amateur like me with no real talent needs all the help he can get. A talented individual like bobsterlobster will get away with a pinhole given the time.
I just don't buy the argument that either is better, we are too much different with individual needs and capabilities. So, I'm with kirbic et al.
I'm with kirbic here too... hmmm... maybe that should be my challenge for this year: do a wedding with a pinhole camera... Doubt I'll find clients but...
Interesting thing though, my first digicam was a 2mp Concord EyeQ 2000, and it was all I could afford. So I really enjoyed pushing it to the max, even took some very nice family portraits with it (took me a couple of days of trying...). Then I moved up to a 3.3MP camera and I let my dad take it (the Concord)to Europe since he just wanted a PS. Well, he got back and I barely was able to salvage a few of the photos with photoshop they were so bad. Whoever took photos must have had absolutelly no clue about what they were doing, besides the awful motion blur, most photos were just very badly under/over exposed. I definitelly would have done better with a pinhole camera than they did with that one. I loved that camera, but it was way too limiting. I finally got a DSLR (a D70), and now I don't have to spend my time trying to figure out how to trick the camera into doing what I want it to do... I can focus on learning better composition and technique, and my photos are predictable. I'm far from being good, but at least I have a decent tool.
wow! but it must be really bad for your camera if you overexpose...i would think that you could really hurt your sensor cells if you really underestimate the exposure lol
