A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses!?

[Jason Green]

The 'camera he uses' I take to be the one he uses by choice - his favourite. So how would you quantify being better than it, when it's the camera that produces the images too?

To me, it's a team-effort.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Words

It's a nonsensical statement, especially the first part. A good photographer is a good photographer irrespective of what equipment they're using; or even if they don't have a camera!

I have to strongly disagree with this.
If you properly consider what the first part of the statement says ("A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses") you cannot deny that it is a true statement. A good photographer cannot produce a photograph that is beyond the capabilities of the equipment that he is using - and I would like to see even the most proficient photographer in the world produce even a mediocre photo without some sort of photographic equipment (a child with a badly made pinhole camera would be able to produce a better photograph than an extremely talented proffesional photographer without any equipment).
Yes, a good photographer who doesn't have any equipment is still a good photographer, but the lack of any equipment severely limits his ability to actually produce anything.

Originally Posted by Words

What really irritates about the statement (in a social marketing page) is that it tries to imply you are a lesser photographer if you can't afford the most expensive lenses.

I can understand how this can be irritating, and there will certainly have been better ways of wording it, but I think that there is some truth in the suggestion that a good photographer will see an improvement in their results if they can get better equipment (even if this is only marginal). This doesn't make anyone who can't afford it a "lesser photographer", but it might be true that some of their results are limited by the equipment that they have (and it obviously doesn't follow that owning/using the best equipment that is available will make you a good photographer).

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Words

A good photographer is a good photographer irrespective of what equipment they're using; or even if they don't have a camera!

Ownership of, or access to, a camera is an essential part of being a photographer. If you have neither, you're not a photographer, good or bad! I guess though if the exercise is conducted intellectually, you could conceivably be a 'Virtual Photographer', and if you _really_ apply yourself to the task, a 'Good Virtual Photographer'!

Jim

[Words]

Originally Posted by RoyW

I have to strongly disagree with this.
If you properly consider what the first part of the statement says ("A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses") you cannot deny that it is a true statement.

I won't go on, but it is very obviously not a true statement. If you give.. let's pick someone good... award winning... like Andy Rouse. Give Andy a cheap point and shoot. Sure he probably won't get a killer shot of polar bear (actually he might), but he is no worse a photographer for using a cheaper bit of kit. He just has more limited options about what he can photograph with it. Have you seen what he can do with a G12!

A properly true statement is that 'a photographer is limited or constrained by the the equipment she (or he) uses'.

Clearly better equipment creates more opportunities, and generally better photos all else being equal; but this has no impact on the skill/expertise of the 'photographer', a flesh and blood human being. A good photographer is 'good', irrespective of equipment.

[Words]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

Ownership of, or access to, a camera is an essential part of being a photographer. If you have neither, you're not a photographer, good or bad!
Jim

True... but you don't become a worse photographer if you borrow a cheap camera. The quote was about the photographer, not the quality of the finished image. That was the marketing person's blunder. They should talk about the picture, not the person.

I'll shut up now!

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Words

I won't go on, but it is very obviously not a true statement. If you give.. let's pick someone good... award winning... like Andy Rouse. Give Andy a cheap point and shoot. Sure he probably won't get a killer shot of polar bear (actually he might), but he is no worse a photographer for using a cheaper bit of kit. He just has more limited options about what he can photograph with it. Have you seen what he can do with a G12!

A properly true statement is that 'a photographer is limited or constrained by the the equipment she (or he) uses'.

Clearly better equipment creates more opportunities, and generally better photos all else being equal; but this has no impact on the skill/expertise of the 'photographer', a flesh and blood human being. A good photographer is 'good', irrespective of equipment.

Ok, I see where you are coming from. It seems that your 'argument' is based entirely on the way that the statement was worded rather than what was actually meant (as understood by the vast majority of those who read it I would expect) - I should have quessed that from your profile name!
(I should also probably have written "If you properly consider what was meant by the first part of th statement..." in my earlier post.)


I still don't agree with you though.
If you want to 'play with the words' you need to take note of the fact that the original statement didn't say that "A photographer is only as skilled/talented as the equipment he uses" - that would be incorrect.

The fact is that how "good" a photographer someone is, is based solely on one thing - the quality and impact of the final images which they produce.
If a even a highly skilled photographer (such as Andy Rouse) was never able to use the best quality equipment available, then they would not consistantly produce such high quality images, so although they would undoubtably be considered highly talented they may well not be considered to be at the top of their proffession (and although they may sometimes win awards, they would struggle, and have to work far harder, to compete against equally talented photographers who did have better equipment).

When you say that Andy Rouse would still be a good photographer even if he was using a lower quality camera you are of course correct - but you are judging him as a top photographer based on the photographs that he has already produced (not on what he may produce).
Consider these two points:
(1) If Andy Rouse had never been able to use high quality photographic equipment would he still be considered one of the best wildlife photographers around?
(2) If he decided that he would now only ever use 'entry level' equipment, would he continue to be regarded as one of the best, even though he would now be limited in what he can produce?
Unless you can honestly answer 'yes' to both of these, without doubting your answer, then the statement that "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses" is correct.

The fact that a talented photographer is limited by the capabilities of his equipment is precisely what the statement is getting at!

[Words]

The fact that a talented photographer is limited by the capabilities of his equipment is precisely what the statement is getting at!

If only that was what they'd actually said no one would be digging at them.

Interesting thread here.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by Words

If only that was what they'd actually said no one would be digging at them.

Well as far as I'm concerned, what was actually said means exactly the same thing.
There would probably be almost as much dispute if they had worded the first part of the phrase differently though (especially as the second part isn't true).
I'm pretty sure that the statement was fully intended to provoke a reaction anyway - a statement that makes everyone say "Oh yes, that's true" doesn't get people talking about it, and won't get people checking out the Nikon page to see what the fuss is about.

[MetalMoth]

I think I could potentially throw some more light on this debate with this:

David Hockney is one of the most respected artists ever. He is well know to a be a good artist. He has recently started using the iPad to do some of his artwork. Now most would not conside the iPad to be an amazing bit of kit to produce art on, paintings. However he has produced some amazing work because he is a good artist. He knows how to get the absolute best out of the kit at hand.

In my opinion you can take amazing photos with lower kit if you are a good photographer. Photography is not just about the equipments capabilities. It is about imagination. Which is why give someone a camera phone who knows how to compose a photo and find a nice subject they can get something good.

I view photography like this. You can give the best camera and kit to an average photographer and it wont make much of a difference to their photo capabilites. They may still have too much in focus and compose poorly and miss good lighting. However give the best kit of a photographer who is already good then they will be able to get something above their current kit.

So you see you have to be good already to make good kit work. The kit is irrelevant if you dont have an understanding of how to use it.

I do however agree that to get the best photos in the world you do need very good kit. However to produce good wildlife photos that are genuinly good and interesting you do not need to have good kit. I use old kit that is not even mine, I borrow it. I use a D70 and an old Nikon Nikkor macro 55mm lens and have been getting some truly excellent photos. All old kit which some may say is nothing amazing.

I think it is ridiculous to say a photographer is only as good as the kit they have. Its not true, it places too much emphasis on kit.