camera or person behind camera?

Do you think the camera or the person behind the camera is producing good photos?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Well I believe that foremost its the person behind the camera is the one producing the good images, since the camera is a "dead" thing and it is up to the photographer to compose the image etc. However, I also feel that the camera is an important aspect for good photos, as a good camera can give the good photographer the advantage and leverage to produce even better pictures.

As an analogy, a soldier armed with a .303 bolt action rifle (think WW2 era) would be at some disadvantage compared to say a soldier armed with a M-16 rifle, in terms of rate of fire etc etc. This would be similar for a photographer and his camera.
 

Give you a Ferrari F1 car, and Michael Schumacher the same car. You start ten cars length ahead of Michael Schumacher. Guess who win?
 

.... Just get whatever you want if you have the monies, then sell to the students and people who r cash tight who are gonna really cherish them?

All of the equipment I own are little gems to me, and a god-sent blessing. Rather than waste your time thinking about what better camera to get next, why not think about how you can maximize what you already have?

The question itself, is a sick joke. :(
 

Give you a Ferrari F1 car, and Michael Schumacher the same car. You start ten cars length ahead of Michael Schumacher. Guess who win?

If the race is over 2 metres, then I can say I'll win.

Honestly, analogies are overused.

This is a simple question that requires no analogy to answer. Camera is just one of the factors behind a good photograph and all of these factors are in the hands of the photographer.
 

this is still going on?

to be honest, who cares - just take bloody good pictures, and the rest, as they say, is just history.
 

this thread just refuse to die.
 

Last edited:
Maybe we're in some Evil Resident movie? :faint:

Anyway I also think, it's neither the camera nor the person behind the camera. It's actually the monitor and the paper...
 

It is actually the light

without light there would be no pictures

bad light will give you bad pictures
good light will give you good pictures
 

It is actually the light

without light there would be no pictures

bad light will give you bad pictures
good light will give you good pictures


best answer for long thread.. just shoot pics ...
 

Well I believe that foremost its the person behind the camera is the one producing the good images, since the camera is a "dead" thing and it is up to the photographer to compose the image etc. However, I also feel that the camera is an important aspect for good photos, as a good camera can give the good photographer the advantage and leverage to produce even better pictures.

As an analogy, a soldier armed with a .303 bolt action rifle (think WW2 era) would be at some disadvantage compared to say a soldier armed with a M-16 rifle, in terms of rate of fire etc etc. This would be similar for a photographer and his camera.

Ooh, i like using the gun analogy too :bsmilie:


In response to your statement, guess what? Both the rifles you mentioned can kill, no? lol
 

Last edited:
It is actually the light

without light there would be no pictures

bad light will give you bad pictures
good light will give you good pictures

Light...and using your head too :bsmilie:



So a good photo needs good light and good brain. Equipment ain't in the equation.
 

I tend to believe that its the man, not the equipment!

You can read this book:
How To Shoot Great Photographs With Any Camera
by Bryan Peterson.

I heard a BBC program introducing a picture travelogue
(in September last year) published by a famous photographer
using only a handphone camera. The title of the book sounded
something like "0.3 Megapixel".

Cheers!
 

its the goat behind the camera .......
 

good grief......not again.......
 

as in all answers, it's both the camera and the person. Camera/Lens is important to capture a specific shot in a specific lighting condition. For example, if I want to capture a face with the background blurred and the person and the background is close together, I need at least a F2 lens, better yet, a F1.4. You can't capture this with a point and shoot camera with their small sensors and high aperture lens. You can forget about bokehs with point and shoot. Yes, maybe if the subject is positioned far away from the background and you use a long end of a zoom lens on a point and shoot, you can get some bokeh, but in most candid situations, you just have to take the shots as and when you can.
If on the other hand, you can control the situation, then yes, you can come up with lovely pics regardless of the camera.

As for all those lovely macros with the insect's eyes in clear focus and the rest of the body is blurred ? well, try taking that with any point and shoot camera. Those kind of shots are very, very dependent on the lens.

Well, there are extremes as well. If you use a 2Megapixel handphone camera and trying to capture a sunset scene, you're not going to capture the brilliant colors.
Of course, if you're thinking of capturing night shots, without flash, using handphone cameras, then good luck. You need at least the current generation of point and shoot cameras for that.

So the short answer is, define what kind of pictures you want to shoot, daylight candid, nighttime candid, night shot of cityscapes, day time landscapes, macro shots of insects, flowers, sports, children, concerts, etc.... and choose a camera/lens appropriate for those kind of shots. Some pictures are very, very camera friendly, like a day time shot of a person posing. A handphone camera can be used.
 

Last edited:
Back
Top