Does Pro spec equipment - make a better photographer?

[John Harper]

Hi there

At the risk of getting pilloried for being an equipment nerd, I would be interested to hear peoples views on whether they feel that "professional" cameras and lenses make you appear to be a better photographer.

Whether it would apply to all areas of photography, or just say Sports and Action. You don't need 8.5FPS if your subject isn't moving.

Ditto if you don't need a fast shutter speed and can stop your lens down to F8-F11 to maximise the quality of the kit lens that comes with the camera.

My personal opinion is that for the sort of shots i take mainly, wildlife, birds, air displays, action based if you will.

I feel it has made a difference in being able to have a wider choice of shots, and being able to shoot wide open on the lenses to limit the depth of field.

It also takes away the excuse that you think well if i had a better camera and better lenses the shots would be better.

Let me know your thoughts i would interested to find out a cross section of OPF users

John

 

[Klaus Esser]

"At the risk of getting pilloried for being an equipment nerd, I would be interested to hear peoples views on whether they feel that "professional" cameras and lenses make you appear to be a better photographer."

No - not at all. It´s your eyes and your taste and your photographic education that makes you a better photographer.
Good photographers can make great photographs by using a holga.

What do you mean "a better photographer"? Better than what?

best, Klaus

 

[John Harper]

"At the risk of getting pilloried for being an equipment nerd, I would be interested to hear peoples views on whether they feel that "professional" cameras and lenses make you appear to be a better photographer."

No - not at all. It´s your eyes and your taste and your photographic education that makes you a better photographer.
Good photographers can make great photographs by using a holga.

What do you mean "a better photographer"? Better than what?

best, Klaus

Hi Klaus

I think what i meant by "a better photographer" was if you have a pro spec camera and fast aperture lenses will your images be better than say a budget camera and a kit lens.

Will £5000 worth of equipment by default produce a better image than say £1000 camera and lens. Do you get what you pay for?

If you rattle of shots at 8.5FPS you have more chance of getting "the shot" than trying to shoot that one perfect frame. Or does it only really apply to sport and action photography.

John

 

[Nill Toulme]

In short, no, I don't think it makes a better photographer — but it can certainly make better photographs.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[John_Nevill]

If its any consolation, i've sold more images off the 20D than the 1DN, so I have to agree with others, the equipment in part is irrelevant to one's ability to take good photos.

 

[John Harper]

In short, no, I don't think it makes a better photographer — but it can certainly make better photographs.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Hi Nill

Does making better photographs not by inference make you a better photographer?.

Can pro equipment to a smaller or larger degree make it easier to get sharper photos and fast APO corrected lenses give you just more "zing" to your pics.

I find the AF on the 1DMKIIN to be much faster than my 20D but then its 4 times the price so it should be better!

I just feel that if an average photographer is given pro spec kit their pictures will improve, at least on a technical level rather than perhaps a creative one.

John

 

[Klaus Esser]

Hi Klaus

I think what i meant by "a better photographer" was if you have a pro spec camera and fast aperture lenses will your images be better than say a budget camera and a kit lens.

Will £5000 worth of equipment by default produce a better image than say £1000 camera and lens. Do you get what you pay for?

If you rattle of shots at 8.5FPS you have more chance of getting "the shot" than trying to shoot that one perfect frame. Or does it only really apply to sport and action photography.

John

In EVERY kind of photography it´s the eye and the guts of the photographer that makes good photographs.
A "good" picture, one which shows expression, style an taste not neccessarily has to be razorsharp or to have an extremly wide dynamik.

Of course the chance to get correct exoposed and sharp and color-balanced pictures out of an exellent camera is greater . . but make these items a good picture? They deliver a good technical base - no more.
The world is full of well exposed, razorsharp and perfectly color-balanced pictures . . . which have no meanings at all, which show nothing but what was there at the location. A "good" picture shows more - it shows things, which are not even visible. That is the most important thing to reach for a good photographer: showing in a picture what isn´t there. And to make such a picture, the camera is of least importance.

Here´s a word of a famous english photographer which i adore much - Sarah Moon:

"Very often I say to myself: I would like to make a photo where nothing happens. But in order to eliminate, there has to be something to begin with. For nothing to happen, something has to happen first."

best, Klaus

 

[Jack_Flesher]

I would be interested to hear peoples views on whether they feel that "professional" cameras and lenses make you appear to be a better photographer.

Of course it does! Quality of the equipment and quantity of frames it can produce will always trump great vision and one's technical capability to record it. And per your question, even if it doesn't at least you'll look and/or feel better wearing it...





Sheesh................

,

 

[John Harper]

Of course it does! Quality of the equipment and quantity of frames it can produce will always trump great vision and one's technical capability to record it. And per your question, even if it doesn't at least you'll look and/or feel better wearing it...





Sheesh................

,

Hi Jack

I would like to say i agree with you, but do you think it only really applies where you need 8.5FPS and 2.8 lenses ie (Sport Action and Paparrazzi)

Landscape, Macro shooters etc who don't need the frame rate or AF speed could they save a lot of money and get excellent results with more modest kit.

John

 

[Nill Toulme]

...Does making better photographs not by inference make you a better photographer?.

I think not, any more than a faster car getting me around the track quicker makes me a better driver. Yes my pictures are better, but I'm still the same photographer I was before I picked up that camera — and a really good photographer can no doubt make better pictures with the lesser camera than I can with the better one, just as the better driver will probably turn in a faster lap time than mine even in the slower car.

Now perhaps, over time, using pro equipment will push you or pull you towards becoming a better photographer (or driver), but you have to use it for that to happen.

Does this mean there's no point in getting better equipment? Of course not, not if it lets me produce better results more easily, even with my same old mediocre skills (which it definitely does).

And I think Jack was kidding. ;-)

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Klaus Esser]

Of course it does! Quality of the equipment and quantity of frames it can produce will always trump great vision and one's technical capability to record it. And per your question, even if it doesn't at least you'll look and/or feel better wearing it...





Sheesh................

,

You´re absolutely right! Only the best, most expensive and most professional equipment makes good pictures! Don´t fuzz arond with anything else . . or - as we say here: nothing comes from nothing . .

Who, the heck needs good photographers when there´s exellent equipment?

best, Klaus

 

[Asher Kelman]

The thrill of impressing people distracts from making impressive photographs.

Hi there

At the risk of getting pilloried for being an equipment nerd, I would be interested to hear peoples views on whether they feel that "professional" cameras and lenses make you appear to be a better photographer.

Whether it would apply to all areas of photography, or just say Sports and Action. You don't need 8.5FPS if your subject isn't moving.

Ditto if you don't need a fast shutter speed and can stop your lens down to F8-F11 to maximise the quality of the kit lens that comes with the camera.

My personal opinion is that for the sort of shots i take mainly, wildlife, birds, air displays, action based if you will.

I feel it has made a difference in being able to have a wider choice of shots, and being able to shoot wide open on the lenses to limit the depth of field.

It also takes away the excuse that you think well if i had a better camera and better lenses the shots would be better.

Let me know your thoughts i would interested to find out a cross section of OPF users

John

John,

You have already had great answers. I'm glad you raised this question and that Nill and Klaus took this on seriously and with good humor .

Let me answer in brief paragraphs:

1. Expensive Professional Equipment will always impress people. It's unusual, finely finished, no less than a woman in a Versace gown, Cartier diamonds and legs going all the way to heaven. However, when she opens her beautiful mouth, she reveals her own worth. She's a great actress or a well-kept slut.

So yes, you might appear better! If your wish is to impress people, it will work for a minute or two.

2. Specialized optical equipment may be needed for specific purposes. However, the cheapest might even be the best.

High resolution well exposed pictures of Lions chasing down prey 2000 yards usually requires a fast shutter at least, a used Mamiya 7 or a Pentax 6x7 and the longest lens, for example or a Canon Digital Rebel XTi with a 100-400 mm lens perhaps. Any Digicam with a 400 or 500 mm reach might work well too.

However, for an artistic picture, anything from a pinhole camera, a $25 Holga or 50-year-old rangefinder would trump any expensive camera when an incompetent holds the latter.

3. If one buys a flute, one owns a flute, if one buys a camera one is a photographer. Kolbrenner wrote this in a book of fine B&W pictures he gave me. He's a student and follower of great photographers like Ansel Adams. His camera is a simple 4x5 film camera and he takes few shots with no one except perhaps his wife, seeing his camera. She is impressed with him as a person and an artist, not for ownership.

4. The secret to taking great photographs is to take great photographs. Simplistic, perhaps. Just like landing a plane, a student must learn and seriously think about each approach angle and the conditions of everything around him. Each landing must be safe and sure.

Photography is like that. The simplest cameras with care can yield pictures that will impress and do a specific job. If you did portraits or news photography with a throwaway film camera or lowly digicam, got the image right or the right image reliably, established a style your career will be made. You will be celebrated.

5. Practice makes perfect but only when one has insight and has the persistence and facility to learn from each picture and has a goal for some esthetic and or purpose driven imperatives. Take pictures regularly almost every day, but you must critique them and learn where you screwed up and why things work or not.

6. Know what is possible. Buy books of fine photography in the subjects that interest you and visit galleries.

7. Have a goal. Wedding photos, wildlife, abstract art, forensic photography? You need a goal to provide volition to achieve anything great. This requires work and getting past failures. Without a target, you have nowhere to aim, so you cannot succeed.

8. Learn the craft. Take a course to get the skills needed to achieve your goals. Spend time with skilled photographers. This investment will pay off. You receive input of hundred of years of photography learning by many people each time a competent photographer spends time with you.

This weekend I spent a short while with Jack Flesher in which he explained to me fine points on his use of several large format cameras. This small kindness saves years of groping in ignorance if one is able to take the fruit offered.

I also visited a pathway through Stanford with Mike Spinak and he showed me spring flowers, some common, some invaders and one precious and rather rare. Without Mike, I'd have just walked by.

9. Only purchase equipment to solve a particular issue that limits your work. (the only step that is mostly optional) Now, you can purchase camera with specific capabilities. You will get a rush and you deserve it!

10. Show and sell you fine pictures. See your photographs in wedding albums, journals and, collections galleries or on your walls and be satisfied that you have added something to the joy of everyone.

Asher

 

[John Harper]

Well i have been given some interesting answers to my question, and i suppose its the classic "Boys and their Toys" syndrome.

But from my perspective, and it is only my view and my feelings about the kind of images that i make they are "better" than i was shooting 20 years ago.

Now is that equipment?, or is it 20 years of time passing providing experience and making you look at things differently.

Or in a world where its easy to say "i can't do that because" it takes away the "if only i had better equipment" excuse.

If you use the same gear as the professionals, same camera, same lenses, if your pictures are then deemed to be poor.. its not the equipments fault. You are using the best available same, as all the pros.

I believe the majority of sport photographers use EOS1D spec cameras and 2.8 aperture lenses, why is this?

Is it because it focuses faster than anything else, and has a quicker frame rate so gives you the best chance of getting "the shot" or just because everyone else uses them so they must all be right.

I just feel using pro gear gives you the best chance of taking "the shot" or else why would all the pros use them.

John

 

[Ron Morse]

Well John, my favorite reason for getting something is " just because ". The only person you have to make happy is yourself ( maybe your wife ). If you are really enjoying yourself and learning new things you may get better images.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ron,

Just because can be a good reason for even great people. I have a great friend, Rodney, the one who had throat cancer and he loves his Rolex watch, "just because"! Frankly they are so crude and ugly to me, but hey, we all have different tastes.

I showed him my $120 watch which I thought was smart and did me well. He showed me his treasured Rolex and to my amazement dropped it a glass of water! "Can you do that with your watch?" he quipped! Well what was there to say?

A week later, at a nearby restaurant, Michelle Richard the chef and owner was killed when he tried to stop a thief stealing a customer's Rolex.

My cheap watch won't do that, but also it still can survive a quick dip underwater or a spot of rain. That's all we need!

Think about that when you try to take your 1DIIN with a white lens in some place where that could bring a day's drugs or a months food!

"Just because" is perfect for choosing icecream flavors or girls with a beautiful smile.

Try to keep a low profile when you hunt, and photography is such a journey! Just find a good companion and great wine, "Just because".

Asher

 

[Klaus Esser]

"I believe the majority of sport photographers use EOS1D spec cameras and 2.8 aperture lenses, why is this?"

special tasks demands special equipment. When it comes to speed, a fast camera and a fast lens ist the best to do with sports. That´s got nothing to do with "better" photographs.

"Now is that equipment?, or is it 20 years of time passing providing experience and making you look at things differently."

One of my favourite cameras is - after my Nikon F5 was stolen - a Nikon F2 from 1975. The set of 8 manual Nikon-lenses i use on my 20D and 1Ds.
It was good stuff 1975 and it´s good stuff today. I also like my Hasselblads - one 500C from the 70s and two ELX from the 90s.
They´re precise and reliable - but it´s MY duty to make "good" photographs

best, Klaus

 

[Nill Toulme]

...Just because can be a good reason for even great people. ...

It certainly seems to be good enough for certain leaders of great nations... :-(

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Ron Morse]

Ron,

Just because can be a good reason for even great people. I have a great friend, Rodney, the one who had throat cancer and he loves his Rolex watch, "just because"! Frankly they are so crude and ugly to me, but hey, we all have different tastes.

I showed him my $120 watch which I thought was smart and did me well. He showed me his treasured Rolex and to my amazement dropped it a glass of water! "Can you do that with your watch?" he quipped! Well what was there to say?

A week later, at a nearby restaurant, Michelle Richard the chef and owner was killed when he tried to stop a thief stealing a customer's Rolex.

My cheap watch won't do that, but also it still can survive a quick dip underwater or a spot of rain. That's all we need!

Think about that when you try to take your 1DIIN with a white lens in some place where that could bring a day's drugs or a months food!

"Just because" is perfect for choosing icecream flavors or girls with a beautiful smile.

Try to keep a low profile when you hunt, and photography is such a journey! Just find a good companion and great wine, "Just because".

Asher

Asher,
This is all off topic but " just because " is very valid.

My cousin, a year older than me, sold his Nikon D2X, D70, kept his D80 and started buying old fashion box cameras, setting up a darkroom all over again " just because ". I think I will give him my darkroom stuff if I can find where I stored it.

I don't care for liquor at all but love wine. I can drink a bottle of wine which gives me diarrhea and then do it all over again " just because ".

Oh---- and I posted this " just because ".

Please forgive me. I couldn't help myself.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Ron,

You are drinking cheap wine! The going back to film was not "just because" rather a straightforward "because" just like when I choose the finest wines!

I happen to be shooting film at the moment for the same reason: a deep need to be fulfilled hopefully by more meditative photography. That, my friend is a true slam dunk"because" not merely an erruptive, spur of the moment, happenstance or superficial "just because"!

Asher

 

[Jack_Flesher]

Hi Jack

I would like to say i agree with you, but do you think it only really applies where you need 8.5FPS and 2.8 lenses ie (Sport Action and Paparrazzi)

Landscape, Macro shooters etc who don't need the frame rate or AF speed could they save a lot of money and get excellent results with more modest kit.

John

John, I'm sure (or at least hope) you caught the dripping sarchasm in my original response.

The fact is, I beleive it is 90% talent and 10% equipment that counts. Some of the best sports shots I have ever seen were shot with a 50 year old Leica M; outstanding street images shot by a relatively poor Russian student using a 40 year old Pentax Spotmatic and expired B&W film souped in a makeshift darkroom; the best close-in wild bird photos I have ever seen were shot by Roger Tory Peterson -- and I think he used a graflex press camera (relatively modern for the time) to get many of them! The point is, these folks made do with what gear they had available, used some creativity and modified their technique to create great images. Yes, it would have been easier on them had they used 9 FPS wonder-bodies with ultra-fast or ultra-long image-stabilized lenses and high-tech carbon fiber tripods with complex gimbaled heads suporting them, but I wonder if the final results would have been significantly different? I doubt it, other than perhaps the perspectives...

That said, let me state for the record that I personally own a lot of damn fine equipment. B U T... my justification for this might surprise many people since it is NOT because I believe it helps me take and make better images! Instead, my justification is aimed at reliability. My time is valuable to me and I get precious little enough of it to get out and shoot as it is, so when I am out I want to make sure my gear works. And keeps working even if it has to withstand some rougher-than-normal treatment. Kind of like Asher's watch, it can take (enough of) a licking and keep on ticking.

In summary, I'd say creativity coupled with dedication is the main requirement for making great images.

Hope that clarifies,

 

[Scott B. Hughes]

At the risk of getting pilloried for being an equipment nerd, I would be interested to hear peoples views on whether they feel that "professional" cameras and lenses make you appear to be a better photographer.

A couple big 'ol Canon white lenses, in some people's eyes, certainly makes you appear to be a better photographer... compared to uncle Bob who's got the Drebel w/the 18-300/5.6 zoom.

As others have said, it's the photographer that makes the image. Although, if the equipment can assist in making a technically better image, I'm all over it.

I reach for what is the best glass, body, etc. for the need at hand. There is a difference in focus speed and accuracy, quality of image file between our 20D and our 1DM2 and 1DsM2.

It also takes away the excuse that you think well if i had a better camera and better lenses the shots would be better.

Twenty-five years ago, I owned a Spiratone 300/5.6 mirror. Now I own a Canon 300/2.8. Knowing that the weak link is not the gear will cause me to be more focused n my work.

Perhaps, I am a equipment nerd. But more so, I'm looking for the best result.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Scott,

Yes for getting a professional job done with the most reliable set up is better for everyone. BTW, I like you website. You deserve the best lenses 'cause you obviously can make use of them!

Sorry to be so preachy! It's just the "appear" ticks me off, gets my feathers ruffled and sets me on a war-path. I hate dishonesty and the superficial. (I have, for example, a huge dislike for people that take on weddings just to have a go with the 20D and the set of 24-105 and 70-200 lenses when they cannot justify the faith a bride puts in their work! )

Every time I see an old time professional at work, worn-out camera, perhaps an old Bronica or a Fuji 6x9 for groups, I get a thrill that they can deliver each and every time.

As long as you don't turn up with a little silver digicam, appearances are not that important!

Asher

 

[Martin Kuivenhoven]

On the other hand ..

I have made worse pictures with my E-1 than with my Oly C7070WZ compact. Reason is that the E-1 can make better pictures if you dial in the right settings, however you have to know/do it your self. Pro spec equipment may not offer the help of "scene modes" that help the inexperienced. So if you know what you're doing and the camera is the limiting factor in obtaining better results yes, then better equipment helps.

For me it was the reason to choose a "better" camera, now I need to figure out what to do to get the results I want (and hopefully become a better photographer as I go along..)

 

[Asher Kelman]

Well Martin,

That's a great topic!

Asher

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

My take on this is simple.

If you can not play Beethoven on an old and detuned Honky Tonk Piano somewhere in a Saloon in South Dacota, then you can not play Beethoven on a Steinway Concert Grand in Carnegie Hall either. But if you can play it in Carnegie Hall, you sure will be able to do so in that Saloon. <grins>

 

[Jack_Flesher]

Yes, but by the time one has reached that stage George, it probably will sound a heck of a lot better in Carnegie Hall!

 

[Georg R. Baumann]

Still it requires YOU to play.... this is what I mean, it is the photographer that makes the music, ahem pardon, photo.

 

[Gregory Fischer]

Oh crap...

As long as you don't turn up with a little silver digicam, appearances are not that important!

Asher[/QUOTE]

...I'm waiting for my little Panasonic SILVER digicam to arrive tomorrow (via a little brown truck)... It was $20 cheaper than the black version. Before I read your comment above, Asher, I was excitedly anticipating it's arrival... man...
What kind of viper's nest have I stumbled into here...???
(I joined this forum yesterday).
Now I feel I must attempt to demonstrate the merit of the little silver digicam...
(loved the flute quote, by the way...)

 

[David Hufford]

"At the risk of getting pilloried for being an equipment nerd, I would be interested to hear peoples views on whether they feel that "professional" cameras and lenses make you appear to be a better photographer."

Naturally. In my case, the only thing that stops me from becoming the world's greatest artist/photographer is the fact that I have not yet acquired the right equipment. When I do, everyone else can hang it up. Unless, of course, they buy even better stuff....

 

[KrisCarnmarker]

Hmmm...this is interesting, and a question that can be applied to almost anything. Does a more expensive guitar make me a better guitarist? Does a more expensive computer make me a better developer? Does a more expensive knife make me a better cook?

I don't think the answer is so black-or-white.

Does it make me a better photographer, I think the answer is a resounding no. Or at least, not directly and not immediately. Does it make better images? Depends on how that is defined right?

The human psyche is funny. If buying a pro camera pushes me to invest more time and effort into studying photography, then chances are that I will become a better photographer. When I bought my PRS guitar a few years back, it pushed me past the statu quo of several years. It simply invited me to play more, to renew my interest in learning something new. Now, there are no "pro" guitars. There's just "toy" guitars and "normal guitars". But the PRS was damned expensive, at least relative to the numerous other guitars I own(ed)

Does pro gear produce better images? I doubt anybody could deny that they produce technically better images. If not, why do they exist? Why isn't everybody out there shooting their beautiful landscapes with their phone camera?

Does it make a better image in the artistic sense? Pfff...how can say? The arts world (music, photography, sculpture, dance, whatever) is the snobbiest place in existence. There is no way of defining an artistically superior piece of a art, so the question is meaningless.