So, does your camera matter?

[Radiohead]

Ken Rockwell says Your Camera Doesn't Matter

Luminous Landscape's Michael Reichmann doesn't agree.

I'll declare an interest here, I'm a gear-head and I think Rockwell is generally an idiot and a deeply average photographer. That said, he's know what he's doing here - write something that will work people up, get people talking about it,m drive traffic to site, sit back and watch income from said traffic roll on.

[jenufa]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

Ken Rockwell says Your Camera Doesn't Matter

Luminous Landscape's Michael Reichmann doesn't agree.

I'll declare an interest here, I'm a gear-head and I think Rockwell is generally an idiot and a deeply average photographer.

He speaks well of you

[stevegreen]

I would probably say no.

Look at some of the great shots that have been taken with the cheap plastic Lomo cameras. Yes, having capable equipment helps in certain situations but a great photo can be taken on virtually anything. It's more about 'moments' and 'feelings' that can be captured or expressed through the photo itself IMO.

[tomson]

I'd put subject and creativity way above camera in terms of importance.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

I would probably say no.

Look at some of the great shots that have been taken with the cheap plastic Lomo cameras. Yes, having capable equipment helps in certain situations but a great photo can be taken on virtually anything. It's more about 'moments' and 'feelings' that can be captured or expressed through the photo itself IMO.

This is where we'll disagree then - some photos can't be taken on some kit. Ergo, the camera matters.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by tomson

I'd put subject and creativity way above camera in terms of importance.

That's not what we're talking about though - we're talking about whether it's true when someone says 'the most important bit is the photographer'. By extension the camera is there unimportant.

Looking at the number of sports photographers using Holgas I'd say it's not that simple.

[Yandros]

I think we kinda had this argument a week or two back when discussing compacts vs DSLR. I think the consensus was that for middle of the road conditions, it doesn't matter, but as soon as you try to do something technically difficult, the hardware sure as hell DOES matter!

I agree with Guy - the images routinely posted here are vastly more impressive than Rockwell's galleries - so I'm afraid I don't take him very seriously.

[salubrious_k]

It's all shades of grey.

Well, it is, if you're shooting in b&w...

[dazza74]

Doesn't this really boil down to your branch of photography and your intended print output. I'd imagine "Radiohead" if you covering a wedding and it's a poor overcast day your D3 will be worth every penny with it's high ISO performance amongst other things.

If you doing landscape photo's and you've no intention of blowing them up super large most of the focusing will probably be hyperfocal manual so would you really need 51 point autofocus D300 over say 11 point autofocus on a D80.

From looking at images on this forum, the only thing I can normally tell is expensive glass over inexpensive glass, guessing the camera they were taken on is almost impossible I'd say outside of "BristolPete's" sport photography.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by dazza74

Doesn't this really boil down to your branch of photography and your intended print output. I'd imagine "Radiohead" if you covering a wedding and it's a poor overcast day your D3 will be worth every penny with it's high ISO performance amongst other things.

If you doing landscape photo's and you've no intention of blowing them up super large most of the focusing will probably be hyperfocal manual so would you really need 51 point autofocus D300 over say 11 point autofocus on a D80.

That's EXACTLY the point. We should be asking what people are shooting and choose the kit accordingly. Therefore the camera may well matter, as may the lens, and supplementary lighting, and tripods and so on ad nauseum....

[stevegreen]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

This is where we'll disagree then - some photos can't be taken on some kit. Ergo, the camera matters.

Well, I suppose if you look at it like that then yes kit does matter.

I suppose it depends what you are shooting. Admittedly no-one is going to get good sports shots without the right equipment but, you can take a great picture on the cheapest of equipment.

It depends on the situation and what the photographer is trying to achieve.

[T0MAT01]

Let's face it, the kit you use does make a difference.
But it depends what you use it for.... after all, you don't need 50 auto focus points to take a macro shot of a flower. It's all relative to what you want to be able to do with a camera and what sort of photography you're into.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by stevegreen

Well, I suppose if you look at it like that then yes kit does matter.

I suppose it depends what you are shooting. Admittedly no-one is going to get good sports shots without the right equipment but, you can take a great picture on the cheapest of equipment.

It depends on the situation and what the photographer is trying to achieve.

Here we do agree. The context of Reichmann's point is crucial here - he's specifically talking about people asking whether they should buy cameraX over camera Y and being told that it doesn't matter anyway....

[onefivenine]

Horses for courses.

Not many macro shooters use Nikon.
They use a Canon MP-E 65 1x-5x lens.

I don't think Nikon or anyone else has anything comparable to that lens... or do they?

[PoisonJam]

The camera matters, yes. If only to an extent. My results have been a lot better since I got a DSLR over those I took on my compact and my knowledge hasn't really expanded at all, other than how to work the DSLR. Apart from the fact to set-up my compact took an eternity, there are just things my compact wasn't capable of e.g. 1.8/f shooting at a gig without a flash.

I've seen some great shoots taken with a compact but that's irrelevant to me: I couldn't do it. But I expect I'd have a much better chance of capturing it with my DSLR, especially if it was a particularly demanding shot or if there was a limited window of opportunity to set-up and shoot.

Sure with shooting static images which don't exceed the limitations of a compact (i.e. shooting some trees ) there's little difference but shooing in more extreme conditions is much better suited to DSLRs where you might not have got the shot at all with the compact.

I thought the point in (D)SLRs is they allow you to be more creative?