Why do people kept repeating "Its not the equipment but the man behind the cam"?

[zoossh]

Than if you buy the same set up as his, so you can take same kind of photos.. am I correct to say that?

i believe he means at least there is a chance of obtaining the same working distance and focal length, and probably similar optical quality if exposure if proper.

neither user or tool can replicate everything, for at least the subject (including timing/light) should be the same - if an unlucky or unresourceful guy always goes to the wrong matches, he may never get that kind of shots even if he has the same skill and tools.

 

[zoossh]

i think we can find a middle ground, isn't it? whether professional or amateur, or how good or bad any one of us are, or whether arguing for or against the statement, provided we have some basic understanding.

yes, i do agree the poll options is taking offensive and is rather discriminatory, but the issue itself is of genuine concern.

no, most people dun think equipment can solve all the issues, including those who talks about gear a lot or wanting an upgrade. but the same argument goes also that user cannot solve all the issues if his tool and his subjects are limited. of cos that really depends on how limited the tool and subjects are, becos to some extent user can improvise to get around some but not around all issues.

there are many issues that varies in the ability of user coping with tool and subject, be it a person who manages to be just 10m away from the lion in the wild, or an official photographer who gets to be within metres from the event participators. other issues are countless and again user being the dominant or less dominant role varies with respect to his tools and situations.

i believe that one of few most common situations that causes the above statement to be made include
1. upgrade to a lens of better optical quality
2. upgrade to a sensor with better SNR and resolution
3. upgrade to a newer camera for simple mistakes, e.g. handshake
4. a new DSLR user simply considering a more advanced camera than a entry level, e.g. D300 versus D40, either when he has no idea about DSLR, or has been thinking that a better camera will translate proportionally to good photos.

i'm sure most will agree that the above statement becomes appropriate to #4 with an addition of a most often prefix. but i also see similar remarks in other situations, which either may not be relevant or could be better targetted on actual issues. sometimes, wanting a better camera is not all about toys, ego and ignorance. apart from the impact on the photo, some people also care about the impact on the photographic process - an easier camera to handle, a camera with more latitude to errors, and something that makes things easier and more fun and less taxing on the mind, and just decent results without having to go through the manual way and the long years of practice. without the extra mile, the photos may not be comparable to hard work professionals put it, but if amateurs prefer the easy way out if they can afford that, so be it and to each his own. if they wanted their photos to be better, they will eventually comes to understand of how the statement becomes more true than before, though for now in some of their situations, not as true.

what the propose of starting this thread/poll??

thinking of equipment can solve all the issues, OK, than stand up for what you believe, say it out loud.

I'm asking racoon31e does he think that with better equipment he can produce superb picture? if yes, why not, that's his believing, which line that I wrote ever "hoot" him??

you are the one say I wrote sarcastically! and I'm not happy.

 

[bousozoku]

What an amusing poll, to have no reasonable options to select! Add to that the bit about "man" and you've got some inbuilt controversy. :bsmilie:

I think it's one part equipment, one part art, one part instinct, and one part luck.

I've seen a lot of people who buy the most expensive equipment they can and they still can't turn out the quality of compelling photos that the mother of three down the street gets with her point and shoot camera.

Professionals should know what they're doing in most situations, especially if they're being paid, but I've seen a lot who don't. These days, anyone can hold a camera with auto exposure, auto focus, and auto flash and get a sharp photo, but is it worth anything because of the lack of viable content? Seeing someone from the rear isn't exactly an award-winning photo, is it?

Some people just don't have the instincts to get what we want to see. It's not that they're unknowledgeable or can't work the equipment. It's that they're thinking so much about the equipment and light, etc., that they forget the real reason they're taking photos.

It doesn't take the most expensive equipment to get the greatest photos. If it was, we wouldn't hear bragging about anything but medium format cameras, would we? There isn't anything wrong with discussing equipment but to hold it up and praise it as the holy icon that gets the compelling photos by itself is ridiculous.

 

[peapilot]

I don't know about you guys, but getting better equipment for me helps me get better shots.

If you don't believe me you're welcomed to hand me your equipment and I'll show you my shots.

 

[night86mare]

I know, but maybe someone with superb skill who does not need any fancy nancy equipment can make it happen? Perhaps even with a pin-hole or lomo? :devil:

to be fair to catchlights, just look at your poll options

this is called.. worming your way out with ridiculous counterarguments

it's like i punched someone and in so doing, prevented him from being knocked over by a car

then later on, i claim that i was trying to save him from being knocked over, so i punched him :dunno:

 

[night86mare]

i believe that one of few most common situations that causes the above statement to be made include
1. upgrade to a lens of better optical quality
2. upgrade to a sensor with better SNR and resolution
3. upgrade to a newer camera for simple mistakes, e.g. handshake
4. a new DSLR user simply considering a more advanced camera than a entry level, e.g. D300 versus D40, either when he has no idea about DSLR, or has been thinking that a better camera will translate proportionally to good photos.

the key point though, is that

1) people don't even know why they want better optical quality
2) people don't even know why they want better snr and resolution
3) people don't even know what shake reduction encompasses

based on the amount of threads pouring into clubsnap recently with all these obsessions with lenses.. all the newcomers who know that they want to do photography but don't know anything about it except that they think that they need expensive cameras..

i think it is more than a fair statement to declare that the majority of people out there are guilty of equipment coveting more than not.. i.e. getting equipment for the sake of having it rather than using it.

some will claim that this value judgement on their actions being ludicrous or ridiculous is none of my bloody business. then i will have the standard reply ready, that in that case, their value judgement on my value judgement is none of their business either.

 

[wind30]

errr.... I just want a camera so I can play with it.

seriously, I find it as interesting taking photos of trees outside my bedroom with a NEW camera as taking nice photos on my travel trips.

Since I don't have the time/money to go on trips all the time, I change camera lor so the trees outside my bedroom becomes more interesting :bsmilie:

don't you guys like to play with a NEW TOY? I mean like getting a new transformer and you wonder how it is going to transform, etc.

The point I am trying to make, even for GEARHEADS like me, we KNOW that getting new/better equipment will not automatically give better pictures..... so it is REALLY kind of irritating to hear the statement in question when EVERYONE knows it...

 

[wind30]

i think it is more than a fair statement to declare that the majority of people out there are guilty of equipment coveting more than not.. i.e. getting equipment for the sake of having it rather than using it.

"guilty" is such a strong word what is wrong with equipment coveting? I don't see nothing wrong with it. People enjoy different things. Some people like taking pictures, others like owning cameras.... no big deal.

 

[night86mare]

"guilty" is such a strong word what is wrong with equipment coveting? I don't see nothing wrong with it. People enjoy different things. Some people like taking pictures, others like owning cameras.... no big deal.

?

okay, so if your kid wants a computer that he never touches
a piano that he never plays
a pair of shoes that he never wears

you'd be happy for him, and it is no big deal?

expand this to a very fundamental level of morals, that something is being wasted on somebody.. assuming that when you talk about owning cameras, meaning, just store in dry cabinet for display.

now, compare this to the complaints that in the past that a mrt station is built but isn't open. no big deal lor, then maybe we should build mrt stations everywhere but not use them, it is no big deal.

why can't i judge? anything can be judged, and without remorse so long as it has nothing to do with factors not under your control, e.g. race, physical defects from birth

i do not deny that my views on this are very strong, i like to ensure that every piece of equipment i have is used and not collecting dust.. but i'm sorry, i have a brain and mind, and i have to use it too.. so i have to have a view, and i have fingers to type it so i shall use them too. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: no offense meant, this post is not directly at you personally, if you catch my drift.

 

[night86mare]

The point I am trying to make, even for GEARHEADS like me, we KNOW that getting new/better equipment will not automatically give better pictures..... so it is REALLY kind of irritating to hear the statement in question when EVERYONE knows it...

i'm pretty sure.. there are more things to take in your life..

than trees outside your bedroom

the argument does not seem very convincing to me, at least

 

[vince123123]

i do agree you cant cause the kit lens is just too short.

i did capture these kind of shots before, using m42 mount manual focus 300mm f4 on my eos-d60. though its only 50% hit rate.

when people say the statement, i doubt "They think they are like Ansel Adams who can make brillant pics even from a pns or cam hp."

also, i doubt they mean you can achieve a 300mm lens close up using a 18-55mm kit lens. but rather, given a good old m42 mount manual focus 300mm lens, with practice, you can take sport photo as you would with a 300mm auto-focus lens (now dslr, cheaper lar, not like doing film days) though the hit rate may be lower.

also, can anyone advice me what kind of eqpt are needed if i want to freeze the moment when a dart burst a balloon filled with water? modern day high tech camera and flash? i garentee u, answer is no.

So if the answer is no, then what is the way?

 

[chngpe01]

This thread will go on and on and the poll points to a generally 50 50 situation.

It is also beginning to become a koptiam thread.

It's time to close this thread