more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[GRHazelton]

Gear or gray matter....

expensive equipment makes you a better photographerbecause, ,spending a lot of money takes all other xcuses away

Not too far off base! My first 35mm slr was a Praktica LTL with a 28mm, the 50mm, a crappy 135, and a nice tamron 200, plus extension tubes. I made some pretty good shots. Then I sprang for a Pentax MX. Lovely camera! But surely even better gear would improve my shooting. So...the Pentax LX. Now I had a truly professional camera, and the results were all up to .... me! No excuses! I think good gear can improve your pix, in that it can make shooting easier, but in the final result your shots are up to the several inches of gray matter .... between your ears.

 

[Bill Burk]

I must be on a lot of ignore lists.

This thread is just moving too fast...

 

[Bill Burk]

Here's an un-controversial opinion...

There is no direct relationship between how expensive a camera is and the amount of photographic greatness that can be obtained from it.

A good photographer deserves the best. An average photographer sometimes buys the best. As jnanian would suggest, the best didn't change the photographer.

As Maris pointed out, sometimes the average photographer gets moved to improve when they buy an expensive camera.

I would project my own prejudice onto that and say that the average photographer with limited money who buys the best thinking they might improve... will improve, in direct relation to the pain of the expense. One with lots of money will only improve as long as the novelty holds.

Great photographs taken with cheap cameras prove that great photography doesn't require expensive cameras.

I really enjoy the photographs I have taken, and I can't tell how expensive the camera underneath the shot was... But sometimes I wish for easier focusing, better framing and a more reliable shutter.

 

[DannL.]

Here you go. The camera of your dreams . . . http://www.ebay.com/itm/221511917435

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's my opinion that once one gets a camera with the features he/she needs and it's well built... that's good enough. The camera 'can be' the cheapest of everything in a photo kit. What's left in equipment is lenses, tripod, meter, etc. A decent tripod and meter can be bought cheaply too, along with most other peripheral gear. The lenses... can be a completely different story though.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

what I need now is a camera with automaticsubject finder,applying all rules of composition,why not?How tough can it beNikon,Canon;anybody?:confused:

 

[analoguey]

Lytro illum?
Sensor size is 5 or 6mpx though -costs as much as an a7r, afaik.

Sent from Tap-a-talk

 

[removed account4]

analoguey

too bad they don't have a film camera like that, it is the
kind of thing that will tune my ukuele, cook my dinner and tie my shoes
definitely the camera of the future ... who needs to focus anyways, focusing is for chumps.

 

[markbarendt]

It's my opinion that once one gets a camera with the features he/she needs and it's well built... that's good enough. The camera 'can be' the cheapest of everything in a photo kit. What's left in equipment is lenses, tripod, meter, etc. A decent tripod and meter can be bought cheaply too, along with most other peripheral gear. The lenses... can be a completely different story though.

What I need for different situations changes though and the .

One of the best "features" of my Toyo 4x5 or RB67 is that people in front of it darn well know it isn't a "normal" camera, it is special. It changes their attitudes.

Sit me down in front of a 12x20 with a big brass lens and I'm going to behave differently than I will if you point a Nikon at me.

The "features" we need aren't all technical.

 

[removed account4]

What I need for different situations changes though and the .

One of the best "features" of my Toyo 4x5 or RB67 is that people in front of it darn well know it isn't a "normal" camera, it is special. It changes their attitudes.

Sit me down in front of a 12x20 with a big brass lens and I'm going to behave differently than I will if you point a Nikon at me.

The "features" we need aren't all technical.

i like that mark, and it is extremely true.
years afo when i was working for a newspaper
i brought 2 cameras with me specifically on this one assignment photographing
a guy who was raising grubs for some reason ...
i photographed him with a me super and a roll of tmy and it was ok and fun
but then i grabbed the speed graphic and the photographs were COMPLETELY different.

it was a nice feature
john

 

[David Brown]

what I need now is a camera with automaticsubject finder,applying all rules of composition,why not?How tough can it beNikon,Canon;anybody?:confused:

We already have face recognition. How about one that you can show a picture that you like, and the camera software develops an algorithm from that picture and looks for more just like it ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

i like that mark, and it is extremely true.
years afo when i was working for a newspaper
i brought 2 cameras with me specifically on this one assignment photographing
a guy who was raising grubs for some reason ...
i photographed him with a me super and a roll of tmy and it was ok and fun
but then i grabbed the speed graphic and the photographs were COMPLETELY different.

it was a nice feature
john

Which is the end of your argument that one should do buy a more expensive camera.

 

[ntenny]

We already have face recognition. How about one that you can show a picture that you like, and the camera software develops an algorithm from that picture and looks for more just like it ...

You're joking, but I bet it could be done. Develop an algorithm for evaluating images compositionally in some reasonable way; seed the camera with a bunch of "known good" images. From then on, its "viewfinder" monitors what it "sees", and when the image is sufficiently similar to the seed images, capture.

You could give each result a thumbs-up or thumbs-down and feed the results into a Bayesian filter, so it continued to refine its criteria.

The tragedy is that I bet the results would be pretty good. I already did my hard time building smart-arse expert systems to imitate art; someone else needs to do this one. But I honestly don't think it would be a hard coding project for someone with good image-processing and machine-learning chops.

-NT

 

[OptiKen]

One of the biggest misconceptions about photography is the belief that the better the camera is, the better the photographs are.
People seem to think that the camera makes the picture.
The camera only records what it sees....what everyone sees when looking at the same thing.
The photographer makes the picture. The camera cannot create art nor can it convey feelings or emotions.
The photographer does.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am holding out for the film camera that automatically corrects not only the technical aspects, but also improves the composition as the shutter is released. That would show that more expensive equipment can make an improvement.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I am holding out for the film camera that automatically corrects not only the technical aspects, but also improves the composition as the shutter is released. That would show that more expensive equipment can make an improvement.

you and a million others

 

[John Koehrer]

I am holding out for the film camera that automatically corrects not only the technical aspects, but also improves the composition as the shutter is released. That would show that more expensive equipment can make an improvement.

At that point it should also be a really good salesman. It should have a command of "artspeak"* so you can deal successfully deal with gallery owners and curators.

*"Artspeak" If you don't know what it is, it translates as "baffle them with Bullshit"

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

what I need now is a camera with automaticsubject finder,applying all rules of composition,why not? How tough can it be Nikon,Canon;anybody?:confused:

We already have face recognition. How about one that you can show a picture that you like, and the camera software develops an algorithm from that picture and looks for more just like it ...

One problem with that is, no algorithm could possibly know when to bend or break the rules because algorithms have no soul... they can't feel anything.

 

[NedL]

yet

 

[Nuff]

One problem with that is, no algorithm could possibly know when to bend or break the rules because algorithms have no soul... they can't feel anything.

Give it some time, soon enough your phone or camera will do the thinking for you. All you will have to do in the future is seat and drool... the camera will go to a place for you, take a photo and bring it back
Dead Link Removed

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Give it some time, soon enough your phone or camera will do the thinking for you. All you will have to do in the future is seat and drool... the camera will go to a place for you, take a photo and bring it back
Dead Link Removed

That's digital computing. The human brain is an analog computer... FAR better.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

I am holding out for the film camera that automatically corrects not only the technical aspects, but also improves the composition as the shutter is released. That would show that more expensive equipment can make an improvement.

There was once a camera or two that talked to you:

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Polaroid_636_Talking_Camera

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPVEJUd7bZo

 

[Nuff]

That's digital computing. The human brain is an analog computer... FAR better.

Ah... back to analog and digital Anyway, the cpu is made to mimic neurons and synapses. The current design should be enough to replace most politicians :munch:

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Ah... back to analog and digital Anyway, the cpu is made to mimic neurons and synapses. The current design should be enough to replace most politicians :munch:

Baboons could replace most politicians.

 

[analoguey]

analoguey

too bad they don't have a film camera like that, it is the
kind of thing that will tune my ukuele, cook my dinner and tie my shoes
definitely the camera of the future ... who needs to focus anyways, focusing is for chumps.

Re focusing, Absolutely!
Of course, needs to br backward compatible w 35mm, my Lf and mf lenses.

Sent from Tap-a-talk