When a person asks these type of questions let's be generous instead of snarky. Let's ask them the type of photography that are doing, or plan on doing, and then if we have anything worthwhile to contribute, do so. But to spout holier-than-thou cliches one more time is simply the sign of either a lazy or an angry mind.
This is the key point to what my previous pool was about.
One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit.
One can't built a modern house with a stone axe, and a doctor can't do surgery without a finely honed scalpel. I'm a pretty decent photographer, and give me a Holga toy camera and I can do some fun shots with it. But I can't do a formal portrait, an architectural commission, a sports or wildlife shoot, or a table top still life or product shot without the right tools, which may include at any one time a camera with a large sensor, long lens, technical movements, and other tools and techniques of the trade.
So please folks, stop the childish nonsense. Equipment does matter, and if anyone tells you otherwise, smile, nod sagely, and simply move along. Or, send them here for a good spanking.
it is merely constructing one's question with precision and place it within the correct context.
both points of view are right. both points of view are wrong.
Nick Utt got his famous Pulitzer prize winning shot with an ordinary camera not in mint condition (what else, in the war conditions)
It was not a gold plated Leica M.
But he was in the right place at the right time, and risked his life.
The napalm could have splashed on him too, if the pilot was a wowo king.
Well if you want to go at very high speed down a drag strip in a straight line, then a powerful sports car will beat a Perodua Kerisa (or is it Kanchil) any day.
There was this article or editorial in the Straits Time a few days ago entitled "F16 vs F16 - Who will win?"
In it, they said that if equipment were equal...the better trained or experienced person will win. However, if an F16 were to go head-to-head with a propeller plane, even if it were piloted by the world's best pilot, the F16 with a lesser pilot, will blow the propeller plane out of the sky without him even knowing what happened.
the author does not take into consideration that most of the people asking about equipment usually have a d80 and want an excuse to upgrade to d300 or d3
so you tell me, how many people in the world really need a d3 to produce the photos they want to produce?
he makes comparison between holga and dslr.. of course different la.. in some sense, he is spouting cliches as well, so it's like the pot calling the kettle black. tell us something we didn't know already, please.
it is a good article, that makes a good point, but it is just as horrible as the people it seems to be condemning
in the context of cs, i maintain that the number of mindless equipment hoarders (hoarders, mind you, not seekers - hoarders keep and hoard gold like trolls under the bridges - seekers want something new to up their photography ante) in clubsnap far outweighs the number of seekers.. and this is a mentality that everyone should seek to change. this is of course a personal view, but you have to admit that a photographer who produces world class pictures versus a photographer who has a lot of equipment.. most people would want to be the first. of course having both is preferable.
My views. Equipment matters to those who feel the limitation technically. But not artistically. Giving them a D3 will allow them to have more controls since they got the experience and knowledge for it. Equipment will not matter to those who feel the limitation because they do not know how to handle the camera technically. And artistically. Give them a D3 and they still produce the same shot as a D40X.
Photography is a field of science & art.
If one is looking at the 'technical' aspect of it, the limit of the gears is the limit of the outcome.
However if one is looking at the 'artistic' aspect of it; then is the eye behind the gears tat matter.
Ah, finally we realize it is about the SUM TOTAL of all parts in the chain - I'm sure you know the saying "the weakest link"?
Bad gear + bad photog = Almost certainly going to yield bad results
Great gear + bad photog = Nothing fantastic, or maybe a lucky shot once in a while
Bad gear + great photog = Possibly some nice results since skill can compensate to SOME extent, but still nothing fantastic
Great gear + great photog = Now you're talking.
Then you need to add great light to the equation. All of this is nothing without great light.
u missed the whole point!
Of coz we know dslr specs are better than P&S, or else why dslr costs so much more?
We are talking abt a balanced equation of photographer and his camera.
Some ppl can only produce 5yr old kid's result using a dslr.
i got a fren showed off to me how great his camera is... especially it is so expensive. And he shot great stuffs, overseas scenic landscapes, etc.
But end of the day nothing fantastic. I can shoot the same thing using a prosumer which is so much cheaper.
It is just like using Dual core processor + 4GB ram just to surf net.