It's not the gear it's the photographer

[scootermcq]

Bit of a rant, but I see comments flying around here lately in both directions....

"Can't take professional images with a rebel!" and in the next breath "It's not the camera, it's the photographer"

I kinda compare it to sports.....

If I gave my skis to Bode Miller (gold medalist 2010) he would kick my ass. If I were to try his equipment, I could probably beat my best time. If someone who has never had skiis on used Bode's skis, I would still beat them on my cheap ass skis.

If I gave my gear to Joe McNally, his images would kick my ass. If I used his D3, I would get better low light images than I previously had. If you gave a rookie Joe's gear, I would still produce better images with my prosumer gear.

Bottom line.... Yes, it is the photographer, & yes, it is the gear. Better gear will get you better images if you have the skill to use it.

[NathanFranke]

Originally Posted by scootermcq

Bottom line.... Yes, it is the photographer, & yes, it is the gear. Better gear will get you better images if you have the skill to use it.

Well said, and you explained it better than I could have. And I've tried.

[Hill Country Hack]

Ditto on the "well said". I feel at some point, gear offers diminishing returns for the cost.

[zona5101]

Ok...
so you're a 16 year old with a disc camera...what's the better move, take photography classes at the junior college or buy a dslr?


i know its a trick question...

[Jonbar18]

Originally Posted by zona5101

Ok...
so you're a 16 year old with a disc camera...what's the better move, take photography classes at the junior college or buy a dslr?


i know its a trick question...

Buy a DSLR... Even learning is easier on the right equipment, and you always have the googles for free.


Well said. I agree a lot of it is on the photographer, but equipment really does make a difference

[Jim Bryant]

Yep........not only is it the photographers knowledge, but more importantly the gear. There's no way in hell I could capture those sports images with a 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by scootermcq

Bit of a rant, but I see comments flying around here lately in both directions....

"Can't take professional images with a rebel!" and in the next breath "It's not the camera, it's the photographer"

I kinda compare it to sports.....

If I gave my skis to Bode Miller (gold medalist 2010) he would kick my ass. If I were to try his equipment, I could probably beat my best time. If someone who has never had skiis on used Bode's skis, I would still beat them on my cheap ass skis.

If I gave my gear to Joe McNally, his images would kick my ass. If I used his D3, I would get better low light images than I previously had. If you gave a rookie Joe's gear, I would still produce better images with my prosumer gear.

Bottom line.... Yes, it is the photographer, & yes, it is the gear. Better gear will get you better images if you have the skill to use it.

Agreed, better gear makes it "easier" to take better photographs. But it is not required in order to take better photographs.

[sk66]

Originally Posted by Jim Bryant

Yep........not only is it the photographers knowledge, but more importantly the gear. There's no way in hell I could capture those sports images with a 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens.

I bet you could still get some of them.....

[Hill Country Hack]

Originally Posted by sk66

I bet you could still get some of them.....

I can agree with that. Outdoors in good light, I do well with my kit 70-300. Indoors at a HS gym....not so much. Gear in that situation makes a difference.

[scootermcq]

Originally Posted by zona5101

Ok...
so you're a 16 year old with a disc camera...what's the better move, take photography classes at the junior college or buy a dslr?


i know its a trick question...

What came first... the chicken or the egg?