I’ve read articles on the Internet which make a point that the camera you use to take photos is not that important. Supporting this statement, the example is often given that despite tremendous advances in camera equipment there’s still few photographers or photos which could be compared to Ansel Adams and his work from the 40’s.
Most of us have also seen wonderful photographs taken with simple point-and-shoot or cell phone cameras and would agree good photography has much to do with the creativity, imagination, skill and passion of the photographer rather then equipment they use.
And then there’s the other reality…
This morning I watched a video by Moose Peterson on his techniques and tips for taking bird photos in Florida. I’ve never met or seem Moose in person but he seems a likable guy and I find his videos to contain useful tips and techniques.
He also can do what he teaches, shoot beautiful wildlife and landscape photos.
There’s a point in the video where Moose described his equipment of choice for this project and it was clear Moose believes the best equipment gives you the best chance of a great photo.
A quick sum of the cost for the equipment (Nikon D3, 600 mm prime lens, etc.) Moose used in the muddy Florida wetlands would be close to $20,000. I think most professional photographers would have similar equipment, suggesting equipment is important?
Do we have opposing photographic philosophies? No, not really, it’s simply that:
“In photography good equipment can improve your results, but it’s not the only or most important factor.”
As an amateur photographer I nurture the creative, imaginative, skillful and passionate side of myself through practice, training and reading…and I buy the best equipment I can reasonably afford. Of course my gear is no where near the level of Moose’s. But then I’m not at the level of Moose either. ;-)
As for the Ansel Adams thing, I’ve gotta believe he’d love the camera gear that’s available today! That man with a good digital camera would rock! :-)
*Photo: Taken from a helicopter while flying to the Mildenhall Glacier near Juneau, Alaska.
I love the title and the picture. I think that we’d all like to think that the camera doesn’t matter, but in truth, it can matter quite a bit on the end result. You still capture the picture, but what can you do with it after the fact?
If you’re strictly showing on the web or smaller sizes, then almost all cameras are equal, but as you start going with larger pictures, shooting in darker surroundings, etc, the camera starts to make a difference.
Also, I can tell a big difference in lenses between the cheaper ones and the more expensive ones. The more expensive ones seem to have a bit better color rendition and overall sharpness. They don’t need so much sharpening and color saturation.
Of course, I’ve done no technical analysis. I say this from the point of casual observation and purely subjective judgment! ;-)
@Paul: Thanks! I agree equipment makes a difference.
Each time I’ve upgraded my camera I’ve felt there was a discernible improvement…but like you, that’s my seat-of-the-pants opinion. :-)
Absolutely agree with you about lenses too. I’m hoping to be selective on future lens choices with an eye towards fast professional glass. Of course that will mean much fewer purchases spaced much further apart. ;-)