The Battle Is Joined...
...and the debate rages on: Does your camera make you a good (or bad) photographer?
Some of the web photo-pundits that I respect have differing opinions. Ken Rockwell says your camera doesn't matter; Michael Reichmann says it does; and Scott Bourne wishes we'd all just shut up about it already!
And I agree. With all of them.
I believe that, regardless of the type of camera used, anyone who takes the time to understand exposure, composition, camera basics - i.e., one who can call himself or herself a photographer - will take better (by which I mean more interesting) photos than the average schmoe who owns a camera (cheap or expensive), uses it for pictures of kids and dogs and what-not, but doesn't pursue photography as a hobby or vocation - i.e., a snap-shooter. I am confident that, armed with a $150 point-and-shooter, I could take better photographs than any number snap-shooters I know even if they had a top-end Canon or Nikon with $10,000 worth of glass attached to it. And I'm equally confident that any of my favorite photographers, armed with the same $150 cheapo, could create far better photos than me no matter how much I spend on equipment. My photos might come out sharper, have better color balance and more megapixels, but in the end all that really matters is what the eye sees. Frankly, I'm just beginning to learn how to see and I've been doing this for 25 years. Spending $25,000 on equipment isn't going to make me Paul-Henri Cahier or Art Wolfe.
On the other hand, having better equipment without question enables me to take better photographs. Not necessarily better than you, but certainly better than me with inferior equipment. My composition skills won't improve; that's all between the ears. To be sure, some of my favorite photographs are ones I took with a point-and-shoot (as illustrated below), but I'm certain those same photos would have turned out better had I used my current DSLR system. This point is clearly proven when I look at my photos from my Banff trip in 2000, in which almost every photo taken with my 35mm SLR was duplicated with a 2.1 megapixel PowerShot A50. Compositionally, the digital and film images are identical. However, very few of the digital images look better than the 35mm prints; they are less sharp, the color isn't as vivid, the tonal range is not as wide. The occasional digital image that did turn out better than its film counterpoint was without question due to a poor exposure choice on my part. Bottom line: There's a reason pros don't use PowerShots!
On the other other hand... the reason some of my favorite photographs were shot with a PowerShot is that I had it with me. There are times I won't have (or won't want to have) a DSLR body and all of the lenses and filters and other gear handy when the photo-op presents itself. But I almost always have my S40 in my pocket or glove box, ready for whatever Pulitzer Prize-winning moment comes my way. Case in point: The Ulster American Folk Park in Ireland. It was raining, I didn't feel like lugging around my DSLR case and certainly wasn't going to carry my new 300D around in the wet without a case... so I slipped the S40 into a pocket and was ready for action when it came time to take one of my favorite photos during the entire trip:
Wagon Wheel | Ulster American Folk Park | Omagh, Northern Ireland
Canon PowerShot S40 | 1/13 @ f2.8 ISO ???
Some of the web photo-pundits that I respect have differing opinions. Ken Rockwell says your camera doesn't matter; Michael Reichmann says it does; and Scott Bourne wishes we'd all just shut up about it already!
And I agree. With all of them.
I believe that, regardless of the type of camera used, anyone who takes the time to understand exposure, composition, camera basics - i.e., one who can call himself or herself a photographer - will take better (by which I mean more interesting) photos than the average schmoe who owns a camera (cheap or expensive), uses it for pictures of kids and dogs and what-not, but doesn't pursue photography as a hobby or vocation - i.e., a snap-shooter. I am confident that, armed with a $150 point-and-shooter, I could take better photographs than any number snap-shooters I know even if they had a top-end Canon or Nikon with $10,000 worth of glass attached to it. And I'm equally confident that any of my favorite photographers, armed with the same $150 cheapo, could create far better photos than me no matter how much I spend on equipment. My photos might come out sharper, have better color balance and more megapixels, but in the end all that really matters is what the eye sees. Frankly, I'm just beginning to learn how to see and I've been doing this for 25 years. Spending $25,000 on equipment isn't going to make me Paul-Henri Cahier or Art Wolfe.
On the other hand, having better equipment without question enables me to take better photographs. Not necessarily better than you, but certainly better than me with inferior equipment. My composition skills won't improve; that's all between the ears. To be sure, some of my favorite photographs are ones I took with a point-and-shoot (as illustrated below), but I'm certain those same photos would have turned out better had I used my current DSLR system. This point is clearly proven when I look at my photos from my Banff trip in 2000, in which almost every photo taken with my 35mm SLR was duplicated with a 2.1 megapixel PowerShot A50. Compositionally, the digital and film images are identical. However, very few of the digital images look better than the 35mm prints; they are less sharp, the color isn't as vivid, the tonal range is not as wide. The occasional digital image that did turn out better than its film counterpoint was without question due to a poor exposure choice on my part. Bottom line: There's a reason pros don't use PowerShots!
On the other other hand... the reason some of my favorite photographs were shot with a PowerShot is that I had it with me. There are times I won't have (or won't want to have) a DSLR body and all of the lenses and filters and other gear handy when the photo-op presents itself. But I almost always have my S40 in my pocket or glove box, ready for whatever Pulitzer Prize-winning moment comes my way. Case in point: The Ulster American Folk Park in Ireland. It was raining, I didn't feel like lugging around my DSLR case and certainly wasn't going to carry my new 300D around in the wet without a case... so I slipped the S40 into a pocket and was ready for action when it came time to take one of my favorite photos during the entire trip:
Wagon Wheel | Ulster American Folk Park | Omagh, Northern Ireland
Canon PowerShot S40 | 1/13 @ f2.8 ISO ???
Note handheld exposure at 1/13-second. Without Image Stabilization! Must not have had my 10th coffee of the day yet. But I digress...
My point is, were it not for the S40, this photo doesn't get taken. And honestly, folks - how many DSLR owners do you know that don't also own a point-and-shoot?
The argument (if you could call it that) over whether your camera does or doesn't make you a better photographer is simply a byproduct of leisure time and the internet, a highly combustible combination. People love to bicker, point to meaningless specifications to prove that they made a smarter choice than you or me, talk about things like chromatic aberration and dynamic range as if they understand it themselves, and basically repeat a lot of stuff that others say or write. That's fine, it's a free country. But if, as some claim, this is causing newbies all sorts of anxiety if they hear that their camera doesn't have as wide a dynamic range as a 5D or D300, or that their Sigma lens isn't as sharp at the edges as a Canon L of the same focal length... well, they need to relax a bit and just have some fun with whichever camera they have or can afford. As Scott says, learn to see. You can always buy a better camera (or lens or flash or tripod), but you can't buy, at any price, the basic skills you can (and must) develop with any camera if you want to take more interesting and creative photographs.
My point is, were it not for the S40, this photo doesn't get taken. And honestly, folks - how many DSLR owners do you know that don't also own a point-and-shoot?
The argument (if you could call it that) over whether your camera does or doesn't make you a better photographer is simply a byproduct of leisure time and the internet, a highly combustible combination. People love to bicker, point to meaningless specifications to prove that they made a smarter choice than you or me, talk about things like chromatic aberration and dynamic range as if they understand it themselves, and basically repeat a lot of stuff that others say or write. That's fine, it's a free country. But if, as some claim, this is causing newbies all sorts of anxiety if they hear that their camera doesn't have as wide a dynamic range as a 5D or D300, or that their Sigma lens isn't as sharp at the edges as a Canon L of the same focal length... well, they need to relax a bit and just have some fun with whichever camera they have or can afford. As Scott says, learn to see. You can always buy a better camera (or lens or flash or tripod), but you can't buy, at any price, the basic skills you can (and must) develop with any camera if you want to take more interesting and creative photographs.
posted by Paul @ 11:19 PM
<< Home