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

[Ukwildlifeo]

Not sure if anyone else saw this from the official Nokon Facebook page:

A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses, and a good lens is essential to taking good pictures! Do any of our facebook fans use any of the NIKKOR lenses? Which is your favorite and what types of situations do you use it for?

Unsurprisingly the response was not good - 1800 comments, very few positive!

[johnf3f]

For a really good photographer the equipment is almost irrelevant. I now have some of the best gear available - so now I take very high quality mediocre images as opposed to the mediocre quality mediocre images I took previously!
However I enjoy myself much more so it wasn't a complete waste of money!

[RoyW]

There is actually some truth in the first part of the statement (a good photographer is only as good as the equipment used), but not the second part (a good lens is essential for taking good photos).

A good photographer will be able to get the best out of any camera, and will be able to get good shots even from lower quality equipment by making allowances for any deficencies (eg. even if a camera doesn't focus properly it may be possible to get good photos by using the 'blur' artistically).
Good quality equipment will not necessarily help bad photographers take good photos, but there can be a noticeable difference with differences in equipment quality when the photographer knows how to take good shots.

[Geoff F]

In general, I would tend to agree with that statement.

But there are degrees of what constitutes a good photograph and professionals are usually far more critical than average photographers.

The 'traditional' argument goes something like 'a pro photographer will be able to take better photos with cheap gear than an amateur with good equipment.

Well lets put this another way. Which would be fastest, a racing car driver on a bicycle or a cyclist driving a racing car.

Many years ago, much the same was told to us eleven plus failures at the Secondary Modern Schools. 'You will be better at digging trenches or mixing cement than the Grammar School pupils'. We weren't convinced then and nothing has happened to change my opinion since.

Although, if I had gone to the Grammar School I would probably be able to type this without referring to my trusty dictionary.

But let's get back to that photographic equipment question. The initial hypothesis lacks a 'control experiment'.

For example, you would need to take two people of roughly equal photographic talent then give one £10,000 of equipment and the other a basic £100 camera.

I would be willing to bet that the first one would consistently produce better work. Therefore good equipment gives better results.

The talent outweighs equipment argument is comparing people (and their personal talent) not equipment.

Have my photographs improved since being able to purchase a couple of 'L' lenses instead of the cheaper alternatives? Well the answer is a resounding yes! And I have ditched quite a lot of my previous work simply because it didn't measure up to what I can now achieve.

But you can prove anything with this sort of argument. For example, 40% of road accidents are caused by drunk drivers. Therefore 60% are caused by sober drivers. So the accident rate would reduce if we only drove while drunk.

[KentYeti]

Originally Posted by johnf3f

For a really good photographer the equipment is almost irrelevant. I now have some of the best gear available - so now I take very high quality mediocre images as opposed to the mediocre quality mediocre images I took previously!
However I enjoy myself much more so it wasn't a complete waste of money!

Yeah. I keep coming back with blurred, dark and out of focus shots too,

But at least in the digital age I don't have Kodak processing scratches on them as well.

Instead I get dust on the sensor to clone off the image. LOL!

[pressld2]

I've always said it's a mixture of talent and gear that gets the results.

If equipment really didn't matter then Andy Rouse would be using a D50 with a bigma and throwing a party with the ten grand he's just saved. There's a reason why he isn't. But that doesn't mean you can hand a D3 with a 500mm prime Nikkor to just anyone and expect them to get the same results as Andy.

I agree completely with Roy. The top photographers will get the best out of the equipment that's in their hands, but the better that equipment is the better their results will be.

Dave P.

[Ukwildlifeo]

I agree with the above about having the better equipment will help with getting better shots, certainly in wildife and sports photography.

But in some other types of photography I would not say "a good lens is essential to taking good pictures!" Seems like another big company slip up on social media to me! Im not having a dig at Nikon (I still lust after a D3s and 200-400mm combo), I just find it amusing that they let something that many people find upsetting be posted on an official page by an employee

[Meta menardi]

I have some books with photography by Herbert Ponting, fron Scott's last and fatal expedition. He could get a photo in a freezing enivironment and with equipment I wouldn't like to contemplate, develop them in a very crowded hut and produce something that is still very moving. Give him a modern camera, and I think it would show that he was a marvellous artist, without regard to his equipment.

[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! Also not true that a good lens is essential to a good picture. It helps, and the best combination is probably a great photographer with great (and appropriate) gear. Lesser equipment places limitations on what you can (in theory) achieve; but that's quite a different argument.

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.

[KentYeti]

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! Also not true that a good lens is essential to a good picture. It helps, and the best combination is probably a great photographer with great (and appropriate) gear. Lesser equipment places limitations on what you can (in theory) achieve; but that's quite a different argument.

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.

Best response so far, IMHO. Especially the last para. That to me is similar in some ways to those shops that used not to price their merchandise, "If you have to ask the price, you can't afford it". I never went in such places often, and it would only ever be once. And I would never, ever buy anything from them.

Bryan