 |
| Click to Enlarge |
Invariably when you visit a photography forum these days you’ll find active discussions centered around camera gear whether its Canon vs. Nikon or the merits of medium vs. 35mm formats. At the root of these and many other debates on photography forums is the underlying question…
Do high-end cameras make you a better photographer?
The answer might surprise you…
Yes! Unequivocally high-end cameras do make you a better photographer.
Wait isn’t that counter to my comments in the most recent episode of PhotoNetCast? It certainly is, but don’t plan on blowing your savings on a high-end camera just yet. There are numerous factors that play into making someone a better photographer and certainly a top of the line camera is one of them, but not necessarily the most heavily weighted factor. One could argue either of the following two factors is more important than the other in taking great photographs… technical skills/knowledge and creativity. As I mentioned in PhotoNetCast episode #6 a camera whether top of the line or entry level is just a tool. How you choose to use that tool makes the world of difference.
High-end cameras in general offer a variety of technological advantages through expanded functionality, increased rates of frame capture, greater resolution, mirror lockup, improved build quality/weather sealing, expanded color ranges, etc. In this regard it’s easy to get sucked into camera gear envy, but what really makes the biggest difference is what is in your head. Great photography remains dependent on expanding one’s knowledge and experience, a much more difficult process than saving up for and buying the best camera on the market.
Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO) – Learn it and remember it!
No matter what you use whether the best camera in the world or not if you’re photographing junk you’re going to get junk. This speaks to so many levels of photography whether discussing choice of photographic subjects, lighting, technical settings, creative vision, use of a tripod, lenses, reliance on Photoshop or other software applications, etc. Certainly a top of the line camera has the ability to give you superior image quality, but sub-par photography will result in sup-par photographs regardless of the camera body used.
The Mystery of Creativity
Creativity is by far one of the most elusive subjects when discussing photography. The creative process is a personal one and is often unpredictable. Two things are consistent when it comes to creativity and that is vision and ingenuity. Great photography seldom happens randomly. It begins with a vision of what the photographer wants to create and is followed by ingenuity, in the sense of problem solving, to map a course to achieve that vision. That course can face infinite obstacles, but the more knowledge and experience you bring to the table the more likely you as a photographer will be able to achieve your vision.
In that regard becoming a better photographer is as much about “It’s got to be the camera!”, as being a great basketball player is as much about “It’s got to be the shoes!” (a la the classic Nike Michael Jordan/Mars Blackmon Commercial).
[tags]photogaphy, photo, gear, camera, dSLR, philosophy[/tags]
In my humble opinion: Make – no. Allow – yes.
Your gear sets the upper limit of what you can achieve. Your skills determine how much of that potential you are able to realise. A better camera and lenses will let you do a lot more, but it’s the know how that determines well you will do it.
I’ll have to agree with Neil on this, though I get the feeling your hinting at that anyway.
If you know the limits of your camera gear, then I think you could probably get even better than if you were to take the route of new gear. Finding working solutions to the limits of equipment engages the creative drive.
Jim, I couldn’t agree more with you here.
The image you want to photograph has the top priority and determines whether the photo can be any good.
If your vision of the photo is “garbage” (as Jim puts it), then the result will be garbage, regardless of the camera.
It gets tricky once you see a good composition, i.e. a potentially good photo. Here a good camera will get you much better results than a bad camera. Sometimes it will even enable you to create the image at all.
But I think that the pure artistic value is not necessarily linked to the gear used. As long as your vision is materialized in a shot that you (and others) like, the camera has served its purpose. Whether a shot comes in 6 MP or 21 MP does not really matter here, unless you want super sized poster prints.
And by the way, the commercial value of a photo has nothing to do with the technical image quality. I’ve seen exclusive shots (Paparazzi style) from mobile phones that sold for several thousand Dollars. I’ve seen mediocre shots being put on the front page because the photographer had access to the picture editor of the paper. And I’ve seen brilliant landscapes that did not sell at all. Key learning: some markets just do not care about technical quality. 🙂
When asked about photography equipment, I like to make the association to Golf. To get started in Golf, you really do need some half-decent equipment. In Photography, you should probably at least have an SLR and a half-decent lens if you want to be able to make great photos. Point-and-shoots just don’t have the control that you need (yet).
At a certain point in Golf, your skills will outgrow your clubs. Your game will be fairly consistent and shaving off more and more off your score grows difficult. In that case, it is absolutely worth buying more expensive clubs and balls. A ball that goes longer or clubs that are more accurate will definately help you shave off a few points if you have the skill and consistency to back it up. Same goes for photography. Eventually, you will outgrow your entry-level SLR or lenses and you’ll want better lenses or a better body. But only if you have the skill and consistency to back it up will it be worth the price.
That said, I fall back on my good ol’ rule of thumb about buying cameras: When you’re buying a camera, you’re buying into a system. Before considering a specific camera body, evaluate the lenses and the features of the entire system.
@Neil Creek and @the_wolf_brigade I think cameras can help and hurt people. Some of the most creative work I’ve seen has come from those using low to mid-range cameras. It was their creativity that enabled them to overcome limitations in their gear to find new ways of presenting a subject or scene. Cameras definitely can help a photographer achieve more but there is definitely a curve of diminishing returns. Those that get the most out of high-end cameras are usually a minority of the camera purchasing population. I think it’d be fair to say that a lot of people who have high-end cameras still don’t make full use of them.
@Mark Zanzig You make a great point how some markets don’t fret over the technical aspects of an image. On the flip side of the coin there are others that obsess quite heavily on the technical qualities of an image. In the end though if you have a photo of something in demand and there is a limited pool of images to pull from… even a low quality image will sell.
@D.T. North Great point on buying into a system. If you’re thinking about buying a camera no matter where it falls on the spectrum of consumer, pro-consumer or professional you certainly need to think of cameras as system. Many argue that putting more money in lenses is a better investment than bodies and I think that is a solid philosophy. High-end lenses not only can show tangible improvements in sharpness, but they almost always hold their value if you’re looking to resell them.
It can free you up creatively to a certain extent with the improved High ISO performance, and dynamic range. But the ceiling for how good your photography can be is set by the photographer themselves. After all, some of the greatest images ever taken were taken with a slow film like Kodachrome 25 or Velvia which has narrow dynamic range.
I agree that most people don’t even fully utilize what they have. Even on my relatively modest DSLR, I don’t even need the custom functions. The way I use it is hardly any different than when I was using a Nikon N8008S save for the ability to adjust ISO on the fly.
Pingback: Link Roundup 06-28-2008
I would have agreed with you earlier, but not after checking Ahmed Zahid’s photos. You can visit his art at http://flickr.com/photos/ahmedzahid/. I don’t know how he does it, but what I know is he uses Canon PowerShot A620, which is not a heavy and high end camera. In brief, its the not the camera or lens which makes u a better photographer, but the person behind the lens. 🙂
Pingback: Monday Links: 30-06-2008 | Heaven In Black & White
This is a little bit of a different angle…but when someone compliments a photograph that I have produced, I occasionally get an ignorant person making a compliment about the camera. It somewhat annoys me because I’d like to think that I would be able to make such an image regardless of the camera that I used.
That happened recently, actually. A co-worker asked me to take some photographs of one of our company’s projects “…because I have that really awesome camera.” I don’t claim to be an exceptional photographer (especially in the presence of yourself and many of the readers of this and related blogs). But I’d like to think that if he had the very same camera, he wouldn’t be able to produce such works.
If we flip the discussion like that…does anyone’s opinion change?
@D.T. North your experience is a common one and I often correct people when they make such statements. In most cases I find that consumerism clouds their judgement unknowingly. If someone has a nice anything (car, shoes, camera, etc.) it makes things better and shadows your involvement in the process. Never mind your know how or expertise in how to get the most out of such products or equipment. I think your point is all part of the same arguement… it’s not the equipment it’s the creative mind behind the camera.
I remember someone once asked me why nobody commented on the pen that Shakespeare used or the paint brush that Picasso used.
This is a little extreme but you see the point. Why does everyone automatically assume when they see a good photograph they want to know what kind of camera was used?
Truthfully. DT said it best when using the golf club analogy. I have never heard it expressed that way but it fits perfectly.