Mixing
Does the camera matter?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
A while ago I came across this post:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
And also found this one:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm
My first reaction was "what a load of nonsense, I can think of a hundred situations where a professional DSLR will blow away an entry level one". But after a few days I realized that he actually has some reasonable arguments, and that most pictures I enjoy looking at are not taken under one of the 'hundred' situations.
So, now my question is; how much does it matter if you use a cheap or an expensive DSLR? And when does it really matter?
Update on possible duplicate:
The linked question is certainly related, but very different. The related question gives specific advice for this user, and his equipment. I am looking for a more general answer, applicable to all users.
equipment-recommendation
asked 8 hours ago
Orbit
1859
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
A while ago I came across this post:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
And also found this one:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm
My first reaction was "what a load of nonsense, I can think of a hundred situations where a professional DSLR will blow away an entry level one". But after a few days I realized that he actually has some reasonable arguments, and that most pictures I enjoy looking at are not taken under one of the 'hundred' situations.
So, now my question is; how much does it matter if you use a cheap or an expensive DSLR? And when does it really matter?
Update on possible duplicate:
The linked question is certainly related, but very different. The related question gives specific advice for this user, and his equipment. I am looking for a more general answer, applicable to all users.
equipment-recommendation
asked 8 hours ago
Orbit
1859
1
Related (as in: the same question - but from a different point of view): How to know you've outgrown your equipment?
– flolilolilo
8 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of When should I upgrade my camera body?
– Philip Kendall
7 hours ago
1
"Professional" is also different from better. Consider a "professional" car driven by a taxi driver vs. what a car enthusiast might be into vs. what's actually practical for commuters or families.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
3
We probably will get better results if we make this focus on the question and not on Ken Rockwell.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
1
Professional simply describes an occupational classification for trade. When applied to equipment, it is a marketing term for branding. Choose the equipment for its design capability. It can be capably handled by either amateur or professional. Is a pinhole camera professional equipment when used by a person earning their living with it? Is a Hasselblad professional equipment when used by the amateur who is a surgeon on vacation?
– Stan
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
A while ago I came across this post:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
And also found this one:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm
My first reaction was "what a load of nonsense, I can think of a hundred situations where a professional DSLR will blow away an entry level one". But after a few days I realized that he actually has some reasonable arguments, and that most pictures I enjoy looking at are not taken under one of the 'hundred' situations.
So, now my question is; how much does it matter if you use a cheap or an expensive DSLR? And when does it really matter?
Update on possible duplicate:
The linked question is certainly related, but very different. The related question gives specific advice for this user, and his equipment. I am looking for a more general answer, applicable to all users.
equipment-recommendation
asked 8 hours ago
Orbit
1859
A while ago I came across this post:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
And also found this one:
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/not-about-your-camera.htm
My first reaction was "what a load of nonsense, I can think of a hundred situations where a professional DSLR will blow away an entry level one". But after a few days I realized that he actually has some reasonable arguments, and that most pictures I enjoy looking at are not taken under one of the 'hundred' situations.
So, now my question is; how much does it matter if you use a cheap or an expensive DSLR? And when does it really matter?
Update on possible duplicate:
The linked question is certainly related, but very different. The related question gives specific advice for this user, and his equipment. I am looking for a more general answer, applicable to all users.
equipment-recommendation
equipment-recommendation
asked 8 hours ago
Orbit
1859
asked 8 hours ago
Orbit
1859
edited 7 hours ago
asked 8 hours ago
Orbit
1859
asked 8 hours ago
Orbit
1859
asked 8 hours ago
Orbit
1859
1859
1
Related (as in: the same question - but from a different point of view): How to know you've outgrown your equipment?
– flolilolilo
8 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of When should I upgrade my camera body?
– Philip Kendall
7 hours ago
1
"Professional" is also different from better. Consider a "professional" car driven by a taxi driver vs. what a car enthusiast might be into vs. what's actually practical for commuters or families.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
3
We probably will get better results if we make this focus on the question and not on Ken Rockwell.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
1
Professional simply describes an occupational classification for trade. When applied to equipment, it is a marketing term for branding. Choose the equipment for its design capability. It can be capably handled by either amateur or professional. Is a pinhole camera professional equipment when used by a person earning their living with it? Is a Hasselblad professional equipment when used by the amateur who is a surgeon on vacation?
– Stan
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
1
Related (as in: the same question - but from a different point of view): How to know you've outgrown your equipment?
– flolilolilo
8 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of When should I upgrade my camera body?
– Philip Kendall
7 hours ago
1
"Professional" is also different from better. Consider a "professional" car driven by a taxi driver vs. what a car enthusiast might be into vs. what's actually practical for commuters or families.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
3
We probably will get better results if we make this focus on the question and not on Ken Rockwell.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
1
Professional simply describes an occupational classification for trade. When applied to equipment, it is a marketing term for branding. Choose the equipment for its design capability. It can be capably handled by either amateur or professional. Is a pinhole camera professional equipment when used by a person earning their living with it? Is a Hasselblad professional equipment when used by the amateur who is a surgeon on vacation?
– Stan
3 hours ago
1
1
Related (as in: the same question - but from a different point of view): How to know you've outgrown your equipment?
– flolilolilo
8 hours ago
Related (as in: the same question - but from a different point of view): How to know you've outgrown your equipment?
– flolilolilo
8 hours ago
1
1
Possible duplicate of When should I upgrade my camera body?
– Philip Kendall
7 hours ago
Possible duplicate of When should I upgrade my camera body?
– Philip Kendall
7 hours ago
1
1
"Professional" is also different from better. Consider a "professional" car driven by a taxi driver vs. what a car enthusiast might be into vs. what's actually practical for commuters or families.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
"Professional" is also different from better. Consider a "professional" car driven by a taxi driver vs. what a car enthusiast might be into vs. what's actually practical for commuters or families.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
3
3
We probably will get better results if we make this focus on the question and not on Ken Rockwell.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
We probably will get better results if we make this focus on the question and not on Ken Rockwell.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
1
1
Professional simply describes an occupational classification for trade. When applied to equipment, it is a marketing term for branding. Choose the equipment for its design capability. It can be capably handled by either amateur or professional. Is a pinhole camera professional equipment when used by a person earning their living with it? Is a Hasselblad professional equipment when used by the amateur who is a surgeon on vacation?
– Stan
3 hours ago
Professional simply describes an occupational classification for trade. When applied to equipment, it is a marketing term for branding. Choose the equipment for its design capability. It can be capably handled by either amateur or professional. Is a pinhole camera professional equipment when used by a person earning their living with it? Is a Hasselblad professional equipment when used by the amateur who is a surgeon on vacation?
– Stan
3 hours ago
 |Â
show 4 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Note: Here, I will rephrase my answer to How to know you've outgrown your equipment?, as it covers this topic quite well.
If we only account for exposure-relevant environmental factors, then there is not much of a gap between entry-level cameras and pro-grade cameras - and most of the difference would be due to ergonomics.
Even the most basic DSLR / MILC of today offers better low light- and AF-performance than any professional SLR did.Exaggerated, not empirically proven statement!.
Of course, there are situations that require professional equipment: The easiest way is to become a professional whose financial situation is entirely dependent on getting every shot right. If you are a sports photographer, then 6 fps probably will not be good enough (well, it is, but double the fps and you double the chance for a perfectly timed photo in your burst) and you will want the best AF system you can afford. If you are into landscapes, then perhaps you want the highest resolution you can afford (though a good tele lens and a good tripod can do the same with any camera - if you have time for stitching). If you are a travel photographer, then a light, universal setup might be the best choice. If you are a war reporter, then you will want the sturdiest camera there is. Etc.p.p..
A good photographer could do any shot at any time with any camera of today - 5-6 fps are not a serious limit if you know what you are doing, and sensor- and AF-performances are getting closer and closer.
But maybe you have to shoot no matter the weather: Would you rather use an entry-level, unsealed camera in rain - or a pro-grade, sealed camera? Maybe you want a bit of a safety margin: With 10fps+, you may get shots that you would have lost at 6fps even with the best technique. Maybe you need file redundancy: If our camera supports writing to two cards at the same time, then one card can fail without you losing anything.
answered 3 hours ago
flolilolilo
3,81111231
Some folks think the only thing they need to take better action photos and catch the decisive moment is a camera that can shoot at a higher frame rate. Never mind that some of the greatest action photos ever taken happened in times when 2-3 fps was considered blazingly fast if not outright impossible! To catch action at an exact instant one needs timing that can correctly anticipate such a moment while having a familiarity with the equipment one is using so that the camera can be triggered just far enough in advance of that moment that the shutter is open when that instant in time occurs.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
@MichaelClark No argument here - Your answer that had the same nessage inspired me to directly address the fps.
– flolilolilo
1 hour ago
Or to put it another way, a camera's fps specification is not a limitation with regard to capturing a perfectly timed single frame. Consistency in how long it takes the camera between the time the shutter button is fully pressed and the picture is taken could be an issue for timing a single frame. High fps is useful when one desires to catch a series of frames showing action as it progresses in smaller time increments.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
While it is true that better gear won't make you a better photographer, it is equally true that any photographer is limited by the capabilities of the gear being used.
There's an old saying that has been around photography for a very long time:
Gear doesn't matter.
It's certainly true, but it is only half the truth. The rest of the truth is this:
Gear doesn't matter - until it does.
When the technical capabilities of your gear are not up to the task for the shots you want to capture, then and only then will the gear matter.
When your gear does matter, you'll know. It will matter because the gear you are using will limit you from doing work that you wish to do and that you have the skill and knowledge to pull off. Until you reach that point, the gear you are currently using is perfectly fine for you.
For more, please see: When should I upgrade my camera body? The answer there is just as equally applicable to lenses or entire systems.
Additional reading:
What features would cause a portrait photographer to choose a DSLR over Mirrorless?
Should I buy a new DSLR or spend the money on a photography course with my point & shoot?
Will I see enough improvement moving from EF-S to "L" lenses to warrant the cost?
How does focal length relate to macro magnification?
the best way to improve image sharpness on Canon 700D
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
121k7137336
As a bit of emphasis: I have a fancy old SLR film camera that I've used for a long time, and of course my phone has a gazillion-MP digital camera (which these days is really extremely good). I have taken phone photos that were fine for their purposes. I have also occasionally wanted to put the phone into Tv mode so as to get a good stop-action photo without using flash, and it just doesn't have this mode, and that's when I wish I had brought the fancy film camera with me (well, these days it's the fancy DSLR).
– torek
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
My personal ordering of importance of the various parts of the camera system are 1) photographer 2) lens and 3) camera.
A good or great photographer can take the limitations of the other components of the system into account and generate wonderful images within those restrictions. Interesting examples can be found here.
Add a selection of lenses, and our photographer can start playing with perspective, DOF, distortion, and other effects that might not be easily done (or done at all) otherwise.
A camera is the least important component of the system. There are particular categories of photography that might emphasize particular camera characteristics such as sports (frame rate, focus speed) or low light (ISO) landscape (resolution) or event (shutter noise) or combat (all of the above plus durability) but for general photography the cheaper camera bodies in a manufacturer's lineup will perform satisfactorily most of the time.
answered 8 hours ago
BobT
3,708822
I like your answer, especially the link in it. You are basically saying, first one should focus on becoming a decent photographer, then think about getting some more lenses, and then maybe a new camera. I suppose that makes sense unless you are in to something special that requires a special camera function that basic camera's don't have.
– Orbit
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
Note: Here, I will rephrase my answer to How to know you've outgrown your equipment?, as it covers this topic quite well.
If we only account for exposure-relevant environmental factors, then there is not much of a gap between entry-level cameras and pro-grade cameras - and most of the difference would be due to ergonomics.
Even the most basic DSLR / MILC of today offers better low light- and AF-performance than any professional SLR did.Exaggerated, not empirically proven statement!.
Of course, there are situations that require professional equipment: The easiest way is to become a professional whose financial situation is entirely dependent on getting every shot right. If you are a sports photographer, then 6 fps probably will not be good enough (well, it is, but double the fps and you double the chance for a perfectly timed photo in your burst) and you will want the best AF system you can afford. If you are into landscapes, then perhaps you want the highest resolution you can afford (though a good tele lens and a good tripod can do the same with any camera - if you have time for stitching). If you are a travel photographer, then a light, universal setup might be the best choice. If you are a war reporter, then you will want the sturdiest camera there is. Etc.p.p..
A good photographer could do any shot at any time with any camera of today - 5-6 fps are not a serious limit if you know what you are doing, and sensor- and AF-performances are getting closer and closer.
But maybe you have to shoot no matter the weather: Would you rather use an entry-level, unsealed camera in rain - or a pro-grade, sealed camera? Maybe you want a bit of a safety margin: With 10fps+, you may get shots that you would have lost at 6fps even with the best technique. Maybe you need file redundancy: If our camera supports writing to two cards at the same time, then one card can fail without you losing anything.
answered 3 hours ago
flolilolilo
3,81111231
Some folks think the only thing they need to take better action photos and catch the decisive moment is a camera that can shoot at a higher frame rate. Never mind that some of the greatest action photos ever taken happened in times when 2-3 fps was considered blazingly fast if not outright impossible! To catch action at an exact instant one needs timing that can correctly anticipate such a moment while having a familiarity with the equipment one is using so that the camera can be triggered just far enough in advance of that moment that the shutter is open when that instant in time occurs.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
@MichaelClark No argument here - Your answer that had the same nessage inspired me to directly address the fps.
– flolilolilo
1 hour ago
Or to put it another way, a camera's fps specification is not a limitation with regard to capturing a perfectly timed single frame. Consistency in how long it takes the camera between the time the shutter button is fully pressed and the picture is taken could be an issue for timing a single frame. High fps is useful when one desires to catch a series of frames showing action as it progresses in smaller time increments.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
Note: Here, I will rephrase my answer to How to know you've outgrown your equipment?, as it covers this topic quite well.
If we only account for exposure-relevant environmental factors, then there is not much of a gap between entry-level cameras and pro-grade cameras - and most of the difference would be due to ergonomics.
Even the most basic DSLR / MILC of today offers better low light- and AF-performance than any professional SLR did.Exaggerated, not empirically proven statement!.
Of course, there are situations that require professional equipment: The easiest way is to become a professional whose financial situation is entirely dependent on getting every shot right. If you are a sports photographer, then 6 fps probably will not be good enough (well, it is, but double the fps and you double the chance for a perfectly timed photo in your burst) and you will want the best AF system you can afford. If you are into landscapes, then perhaps you want the highest resolution you can afford (though a good tele lens and a good tripod can do the same with any camera - if you have time for stitching). If you are a travel photographer, then a light, universal setup might be the best choice. If you are a war reporter, then you will want the sturdiest camera there is. Etc.p.p..
A good photographer could do any shot at any time with any camera of today - 5-6 fps are not a serious limit if you know what you are doing, and sensor- and AF-performances are getting closer and closer.
But maybe you have to shoot no matter the weather: Would you rather use an entry-level, unsealed camera in rain - or a pro-grade, sealed camera? Maybe you want a bit of a safety margin: With 10fps+, you may get shots that you would have lost at 6fps even with the best technique. Maybe you need file redundancy: If our camera supports writing to two cards at the same time, then one card can fail without you losing anything.
answered 3 hours ago
flolilolilo
3,81111231
Some folks think the only thing they need to take better action photos and catch the decisive moment is a camera that can shoot at a higher frame rate. Never mind that some of the greatest action photos ever taken happened in times when 2-3 fps was considered blazingly fast if not outright impossible! To catch action at an exact instant one needs timing that can correctly anticipate such a moment while having a familiarity with the equipment one is using so that the camera can be triggered just far enough in advance of that moment that the shutter is open when that instant in time occurs.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
@MichaelClark No argument here - Your answer that had the same nessage inspired me to directly address the fps.
– flolilolilo
1 hour ago
Or to put it another way, a camera's fps specification is not a limitation with regard to capturing a perfectly timed single frame. Consistency in how long it takes the camera between the time the shutter button is fully pressed and the picture is taken could be an issue for timing a single frame. High fps is useful when one desires to catch a series of frames showing action as it progresses in smaller time increments.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
Note: Here, I will rephrase my answer to How to know you've outgrown your equipment?, as it covers this topic quite well.
If we only account for exposure-relevant environmental factors, then there is not much of a gap between entry-level cameras and pro-grade cameras - and most of the difference would be due to ergonomics.
Even the most basic DSLR / MILC of today offers better low light- and AF-performance than any professional SLR did.Exaggerated, not empirically proven statement!.
Of course, there are situations that require professional equipment: The easiest way is to become a professional whose financial situation is entirely dependent on getting every shot right. If you are a sports photographer, then 6 fps probably will not be good enough (well, it is, but double the fps and you double the chance for a perfectly timed photo in your burst) and you will want the best AF system you can afford. If you are into landscapes, then perhaps you want the highest resolution you can afford (though a good tele lens and a good tripod can do the same with any camera - if you have time for stitching). If you are a travel photographer, then a light, universal setup might be the best choice. If you are a war reporter, then you will want the sturdiest camera there is. Etc.p.p..
A good photographer could do any shot at any time with any camera of today - 5-6 fps are not a serious limit if you know what you are doing, and sensor- and AF-performances are getting closer and closer.
But maybe you have to shoot no matter the weather: Would you rather use an entry-level, unsealed camera in rain - or a pro-grade, sealed camera? Maybe you want a bit of a safety margin: With 10fps+, you may get shots that you would have lost at 6fps even with the best technique. Maybe you need file redundancy: If our camera supports writing to two cards at the same time, then one card can fail without you losing anything.
answered 3 hours ago
flolilolilo
3,81111231
Note: Here, I will rephrase my answer to How to know you've outgrown your equipment?, as it covers this topic quite well.
If we only account for exposure-relevant environmental factors, then there is not much of a gap between entry-level cameras and pro-grade cameras - and most of the difference would be due to ergonomics.
Even the most basic DSLR / MILC of today offers better low light- and AF-performance than any professional SLR did.Exaggerated, not empirically proven statement!.
Of course, there are situations that require professional equipment: The easiest way is to become a professional whose financial situation is entirely dependent on getting every shot right. If you are a sports photographer, then 6 fps probably will not be good enough (well, it is, but double the fps and you double the chance for a perfectly timed photo in your burst) and you will want the best AF system you can afford. If you are into landscapes, then perhaps you want the highest resolution you can afford (though a good tele lens and a good tripod can do the same with any camera - if you have time for stitching). If you are a travel photographer, then a light, universal setup might be the best choice. If you are a war reporter, then you will want the sturdiest camera there is. Etc.p.p..
A good photographer could do any shot at any time with any camera of today - 5-6 fps are not a serious limit if you know what you are doing, and sensor- and AF-performances are getting closer and closer.
But maybe you have to shoot no matter the weather: Would you rather use an entry-level, unsealed camera in rain - or a pro-grade, sealed camera? Maybe you want a bit of a safety margin: With 10fps+, you may get shots that you would have lost at 6fps even with the best technique. Maybe you need file redundancy: If our camera supports writing to two cards at the same time, then one card can fail without you losing anything.
answered 3 hours ago
flolilolilo
3,81111231
answered 3 hours ago
flolilolilo
3,81111231
answered 3 hours ago
flolilolilo
3,81111231
answered 3 hours ago
flolilolilo
3,81111231
3,81111231
Some folks think the only thing they need to take better action photos and catch the decisive moment is a camera that can shoot at a higher frame rate. Never mind that some of the greatest action photos ever taken happened in times when 2-3 fps was considered blazingly fast if not outright impossible! To catch action at an exact instant one needs timing that can correctly anticipate such a moment while having a familiarity with the equipment one is using so that the camera can be triggered just far enough in advance of that moment that the shutter is open when that instant in time occurs.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
@MichaelClark No argument here - Your answer that had the same nessage inspired me to directly address the fps.
– flolilolilo
1 hour ago
Or to put it another way, a camera's fps specification is not a limitation with regard to capturing a perfectly timed single frame. Consistency in how long it takes the camera between the time the shutter button is fully pressed and the picture is taken could be an issue for timing a single frame. High fps is useful when one desires to catch a series of frames showing action as it progresses in smaller time increments.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Some folks think the only thing they need to take better action photos and catch the decisive moment is a camera that can shoot at a higher frame rate. Never mind that some of the greatest action photos ever taken happened in times when 2-3 fps was considered blazingly fast if not outright impossible! To catch action at an exact instant one needs timing that can correctly anticipate such a moment while having a familiarity with the equipment one is using so that the camera can be triggered just far enough in advance of that moment that the shutter is open when that instant in time occurs.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
@MichaelClark No argument here - Your answer that had the same nessage inspired me to directly address the fps.
– flolilolilo
1 hour ago
Or to put it another way, a camera's fps specification is not a limitation with regard to capturing a perfectly timed single frame. Consistency in how long it takes the camera between the time the shutter button is fully pressed and the picture is taken could be an issue for timing a single frame. High fps is useful when one desires to catch a series of frames showing action as it progresses in smaller time increments.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
Some folks think the only thing they need to take better action photos and catch the decisive moment is a camera that can shoot at a higher frame rate. Never mind that some of the greatest action photos ever taken happened in times when 2-3 fps was considered blazingly fast if not outright impossible! To catch action at an exact instant one needs timing that can correctly anticipate such a moment while having a familiarity with the equipment one is using so that the camera can be triggered just far enough in advance of that moment that the shutter is open when that instant in time occurs.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
Some folks think the only thing they need to take better action photos and catch the decisive moment is a camera that can shoot at a higher frame rate. Never mind that some of the greatest action photos ever taken happened in times when 2-3 fps was considered blazingly fast if not outright impossible! To catch action at an exact instant one needs timing that can correctly anticipate such a moment while having a familiarity with the equipment one is using so that the camera can be triggered just far enough in advance of that moment that the shutter is open when that instant in time occurs.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
@MichaelClark No argument here - Your answer that had the same nessage inspired me to directly address the fps.
– flolilolilo
1 hour ago
@MichaelClark No argument here - Your answer that had the same nessage inspired me to directly address the fps.
– flolilolilo
1 hour ago
Or to put it another way, a camera's fps specification is not a limitation with regard to capturing a perfectly timed single frame. Consistency in how long it takes the camera between the time the shutter button is fully pressed and the picture is taken could be an issue for timing a single frame. High fps is useful when one desires to catch a series of frames showing action as it progresses in smaller time increments.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
Or to put it another way, a camera's fps specification is not a limitation with regard to capturing a perfectly timed single frame. Consistency in how long it takes the camera between the time the shutter button is fully pressed and the picture is taken could be an issue for timing a single frame. High fps is useful when one desires to catch a series of frames showing action as it progresses in smaller time increments.
– Michael Clark
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
While it is true that better gear won't make you a better photographer, it is equally true that any photographer is limited by the capabilities of the gear being used.
There's an old saying that has been around photography for a very long time:
Gear doesn't matter.
It's certainly true, but it is only half the truth. The rest of the truth is this:
Gear doesn't matter - until it does.
When the technical capabilities of your gear are not up to the task for the shots you want to capture, then and only then will the gear matter.
When your gear does matter, you'll know. It will matter because the gear you are using will limit you from doing work that you wish to do and that you have the skill and knowledge to pull off. Until you reach that point, the gear you are currently using is perfectly fine for you.
For more, please see: When should I upgrade my camera body? The answer there is just as equally applicable to lenses or entire systems.
Additional reading:
What features would cause a portrait photographer to choose a DSLR over Mirrorless?
Should I buy a new DSLR or spend the money on a photography course with my point & shoot?
Will I see enough improvement moving from EF-S to "L" lenses to warrant the cost?
How does focal length relate to macro magnification?
the best way to improve image sharpness on Canon 700D
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
121k7137336
As a bit of emphasis: I have a fancy old SLR film camera that I've used for a long time, and of course my phone has a gazillion-MP digital camera (which these days is really extremely good). I have taken phone photos that were fine for their purposes. I have also occasionally wanted to put the phone into Tv mode so as to get a good stop-action photo without using flash, and it just doesn't have this mode, and that's when I wish I had brought the fancy film camera with me (well, these days it's the fancy DSLR).
– torek
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
While it is true that better gear won't make you a better photographer, it is equally true that any photographer is limited by the capabilities of the gear being used.
There's an old saying that has been around photography for a very long time:
Gear doesn't matter.
It's certainly true, but it is only half the truth. The rest of the truth is this:
Gear doesn't matter - until it does.
When the technical capabilities of your gear are not up to the task for the shots you want to capture, then and only then will the gear matter.
When your gear does matter, you'll know. It will matter because the gear you are using will limit you from doing work that you wish to do and that you have the skill and knowledge to pull off. Until you reach that point, the gear you are currently using is perfectly fine for you.
For more, please see: When should I upgrade my camera body? The answer there is just as equally applicable to lenses or entire systems.
Additional reading:
What features would cause a portrait photographer to choose a DSLR over Mirrorless?
Should I buy a new DSLR or spend the money on a photography course with my point & shoot?
Will I see enough improvement moving from EF-S to "L" lenses to warrant the cost?
How does focal length relate to macro magnification?
the best way to improve image sharpness on Canon 700D
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
121k7137336
As a bit of emphasis: I have a fancy old SLR film camera that I've used for a long time, and of course my phone has a gazillion-MP digital camera (which these days is really extremely good). I have taken phone photos that were fine for their purposes. I have also occasionally wanted to put the phone into Tv mode so as to get a good stop-action photo without using flash, and it just doesn't have this mode, and that's when I wish I had brought the fancy film camera with me (well, these days it's the fancy DSLR).
– torek
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
While it is true that better gear won't make you a better photographer, it is equally true that any photographer is limited by the capabilities of the gear being used.
There's an old saying that has been around photography for a very long time:
Gear doesn't matter.
It's certainly true, but it is only half the truth. The rest of the truth is this:
Gear doesn't matter - until it does.
When the technical capabilities of your gear are not up to the task for the shots you want to capture, then and only then will the gear matter.
When your gear does matter, you'll know. It will matter because the gear you are using will limit you from doing work that you wish to do and that you have the skill and knowledge to pull off. Until you reach that point, the gear you are currently using is perfectly fine for you.
For more, please see: When should I upgrade my camera body? The answer there is just as equally applicable to lenses or entire systems.
Additional reading:
What features would cause a portrait photographer to choose a DSLR over Mirrorless?
Should I buy a new DSLR or spend the money on a photography course with my point & shoot?
Will I see enough improvement moving from EF-S to "L" lenses to warrant the cost?
How does focal length relate to macro magnification?
the best way to improve image sharpness on Canon 700D
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
121k7137336
While it is true that better gear won't make you a better photographer, it is equally true that any photographer is limited by the capabilities of the gear being used.
There's an old saying that has been around photography for a very long time:
Gear doesn't matter.
It's certainly true, but it is only half the truth. The rest of the truth is this:
Gear doesn't matter - until it does.
When the technical capabilities of your gear are not up to the task for the shots you want to capture, then and only then will the gear matter.
When your gear does matter, you'll know. It will matter because the gear you are using will limit you from doing work that you wish to do and that you have the skill and knowledge to pull off. Until you reach that point, the gear you are currently using is perfectly fine for you.
For more, please see: When should I upgrade my camera body? The answer there is just as equally applicable to lenses or entire systems.
Additional reading:
What features would cause a portrait photographer to choose a DSLR over Mirrorless?
Should I buy a new DSLR or spend the money on a photography course with my point & shoot?
Will I see enough improvement moving from EF-S to "L" lenses to warrant the cost?
How does focal length relate to macro magnification?
the best way to improve image sharpness on Canon 700D
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
121k7137336
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
121k7137336
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
121k7137336
answered 1 hour ago
Michael Clark
121k7137336
121k7137336
As a bit of emphasis: I have a fancy old SLR film camera that I've used for a long time, and of course my phone has a gazillion-MP digital camera (which these days is really extremely good). I have taken phone photos that were fine for their purposes. I have also occasionally wanted to put the phone into Tv mode so as to get a good stop-action photo without using flash, and it just doesn't have this mode, and that's when I wish I had brought the fancy film camera with me (well, these days it's the fancy DSLR).
– torek
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
As a bit of emphasis: I have a fancy old SLR film camera that I've used for a long time, and of course my phone has a gazillion-MP digital camera (which these days is really extremely good). I have taken phone photos that were fine for their purposes. I have also occasionally wanted to put the phone into Tv mode so as to get a good stop-action photo without using flash, and it just doesn't have this mode, and that's when I wish I had brought the fancy film camera with me (well, these days it's the fancy DSLR).
– torek
16 mins ago
As a bit of emphasis: I have a fancy old SLR film camera that I've used for a long time, and of course my phone has a gazillion-MP digital camera (which these days is really extremely good). I have taken phone photos that were fine for their purposes. I have also occasionally wanted to put the phone into Tv mode so as to get a good stop-action photo without using flash, and it just doesn't have this mode, and that's when I wish I had brought the fancy film camera with me (well, these days it's the fancy DSLR).
– torek
16 mins ago
As a bit of emphasis: I have a fancy old SLR film camera that I've used for a long time, and of course my phone has a gazillion-MP digital camera (which these days is really extremely good). I have taken phone photos that were fine for their purposes. I have also occasionally wanted to put the phone into Tv mode so as to get a good stop-action photo without using flash, and it just doesn't have this mode, and that's when I wish I had brought the fancy film camera with me (well, these days it's the fancy DSLR).
– torek
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
My personal ordering of importance of the various parts of the camera system are 1) photographer 2) lens and 3) camera.
A good or great photographer can take the limitations of the other components of the system into account and generate wonderful images within those restrictions. Interesting examples can be found here.
Add a selection of lenses, and our photographer can start playing with perspective, DOF, distortion, and other effects that might not be easily done (or done at all) otherwise.
A camera is the least important component of the system. There are particular categories of photography that might emphasize particular camera characteristics such as sports (frame rate, focus speed) or low light (ISO) landscape (resolution) or event (shutter noise) or combat (all of the above plus durability) but for general photography the cheaper camera bodies in a manufacturer's lineup will perform satisfactorily most of the time.
answered 8 hours ago
BobT
3,708822
I like your answer, especially the link in it. You are basically saying, first one should focus on becoming a decent photographer, then think about getting some more lenses, and then maybe a new camera. I suppose that makes sense unless you are in to something special that requires a special camera function that basic camera's don't have.
– Orbit
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
My personal ordering of importance of the various parts of the camera system are 1) photographer 2) lens and 3) camera.
A good or great photographer can take the limitations of the other components of the system into account and generate wonderful images within those restrictions. Interesting examples can be found here.
Add a selection of lenses, and our photographer can start playing with perspective, DOF, distortion, and other effects that might not be easily done (or done at all) otherwise.
A camera is the least important component of the system. There are particular categories of photography that might emphasize particular camera characteristics such as sports (frame rate, focus speed) or low light (ISO) landscape (resolution) or event (shutter noise) or combat (all of the above plus durability) but for general photography the cheaper camera bodies in a manufacturer's lineup will perform satisfactorily most of the time.
answered 8 hours ago
BobT
3,708822
I like your answer, especially the link in it. You are basically saying, first one should focus on becoming a decent photographer, then think about getting some more lenses, and then maybe a new camera. I suppose that makes sense unless you are in to something special that requires a special camera function that basic camera's don't have.
– Orbit
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
My personal ordering of importance of the various parts of the camera system are 1) photographer 2) lens and 3) camera.
A good or great photographer can take the limitations of the other components of the system into account and generate wonderful images within those restrictions. Interesting examples can be found here.
Add a selection of lenses, and our photographer can start playing with perspective, DOF, distortion, and other effects that might not be easily done (or done at all) otherwise.
A camera is the least important component of the system. There are particular categories of photography that might emphasize particular camera characteristics such as sports (frame rate, focus speed) or low light (ISO) landscape (resolution) or event (shutter noise) or combat (all of the above plus durability) but for general photography the cheaper camera bodies in a manufacturer's lineup will perform satisfactorily most of the time.
answered 8 hours ago
BobT
3,708822
My personal ordering of importance of the various parts of the camera system are 1) photographer 2) lens and 3) camera.
A good or great photographer can take the limitations of the other components of the system into account and generate wonderful images within those restrictions. Interesting examples can be found here.
Add a selection of lenses, and our photographer can start playing with perspective, DOF, distortion, and other effects that might not be easily done (or done at all) otherwise.
A camera is the least important component of the system. There are particular categories of photography that might emphasize particular camera characteristics such as sports (frame rate, focus speed) or low light (ISO) landscape (resolution) or event (shutter noise) or combat (all of the above plus durability) but for general photography the cheaper camera bodies in a manufacturer's lineup will perform satisfactorily most of the time.
answered 8 hours ago
BobT
3,708822
answered 8 hours ago
BobT
3,708822
answered 8 hours ago
BobT
3,708822
answered 8 hours ago
BobT
3,708822
3,708822
I like your answer, especially the link in it. You are basically saying, first one should focus on becoming a decent photographer, then think about getting some more lenses, and then maybe a new camera. I suppose that makes sense unless you are in to something special that requires a special camera function that basic camera's don't have.
– Orbit
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
I like your answer, especially the link in it. You are basically saying, first one should focus on becoming a decent photographer, then think about getting some more lenses, and then maybe a new camera. I suppose that makes sense unless you are in to something special that requires a special camera function that basic camera's don't have.
– Orbit
7 hours ago
I like your answer, especially the link in it. You are basically saying, first one should focus on becoming a decent photographer, then think about getting some more lenses, and then maybe a new camera. I suppose that makes sense unless you are in to something special that requires a special camera function that basic camera's don't have.
– Orbit
7 hours ago
I like your answer, especially the link in it. You are basically saying, first one should focus on becoming a decent photographer, then think about getting some more lenses, and then maybe a new camera. I suppose that makes sense unless you are in to something special that requires a special camera function that basic camera's don't have.
– Orbit
7 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f101665%2fdoes-the-camera-matter%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Related (as in: the same question - but from a different point of view): How to know you've outgrown your equipment?
– flolilolilo
8 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of When should I upgrade my camera body?
– Philip Kendall
7 hours ago
1
"Professional" is also different from better. Consider a "professional" car driven by a taxi driver vs. what a car enthusiast might be into vs. what's actually practical for commuters or families.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
3
We probably will get better results if we make this focus on the question and not on Ken Rockwell.
– mattdm
5 hours ago
1
Professional simply describes an occupational classification for trade. When applied to equipment, it is a marketing term for branding. Choose the equipment for its design capability. It can be capably handled by either amateur or professional. Is a pinhole camera professional equipment when used by a person earning their living with it? Is a Hasselblad professional equipment when used by the amateur who is a surgeon on vacation?
– Stan
3 hours ago