How Big of A Difference
 

How big of a difference is there between the camera, and an experienced photographer? Does there have to be a good combination of both, to get a good picture?

Well, it certainly helps to have a camera with which you're familiar and one that you feel comfortable using. Then you can concentrate on taking the photo which should, in theory at least, help to make for the best shot.

A bad photographer will take lousy pictures, irrespective of which equipment they are using. A good, experienced photographer will be able to take good photos with the most minimalist equipment under the right conditions. A lot depends on the intended medium of display. If all you do is take pictures for web display or 7"x5" prints to pass around amongst family then you really don't need any high end equipment.

There's far too much emphasis on the minutiae of equipment in most forums. Thankfully WPF seems to be concentrating on composition and general technique which will make far more difference in the long run.

Duncan.

I would say it's 80% photographer & 20% camera. On my last business trip to South Korea I took my wife's camera a fuji 5000 instead of my 20D. It's 50 - 50 if I get the chance to take photographs on these trips. You never quiet know where your going to be, if the customer wants to be with you 100% of the time or if there are going to be problems so that you have to work late. The main factor was I did not want to lug the weight. Well I managed to get 3 or 4 hours to myself and at the time wished I had taken the 20D instead for the better quaility image from the 20D resolution and lens. I was using the fuji camera as a point and shoot as I am not used to using it. But having said that I did manage to get some decent shots with the fuji, it is just that I cannot blow the size up as far.

I think this comes back to that age old question again "What is a good picture?", everyones opinions will differ.

Certainly you may need to understand the basic principles of using the camera and composition but after that it's very much dependant on the subject and who's viewing it.

My avatar was taken using a fuji s7000, a larger version can be seen in my gallery - I like it, I like the detail, the tone and the subject therefore to me it's a good picture, others may quit rightly disagree. However this picture was contrived, I set it up in my back garden and could have been taken on an even less sophisticated camera and still produced a good picture - in my opinion!

In contrast I bought my 14 year old son a digital camera for Christmas - he used it to take a few shots (snaps) of the family and I consider some of them to be good pictures also.

One of the TV channels here in the UK (BBC2 I think) ran a programme early last year in which they gave professional photographers some very low end cameras, even down to a camera phone, and set them the challenge of using these cameras for a day. Seem to remember they did far better than I could hope to do no matter what equipment I use. :mad:

Some of it is down to the subject. A good photographer can take good pictures on the most minimal equipment, of certain subjects [with the proviso of less quality/smaller size of results] - candids, street scenes, landscapes etc.. Try to capture action like sport or wildlife/birds etc. and it becomes harder - yes they'll no doubt find a good interpretation of the theme but without the equipment it will be limited. For most of us it's a case of getting the best equipment we can afford because it makes it easier to photograph what we want - and more fun. The difference being,give a top photographer my budget DSLR/lenses and he/she will come up with top class results. Give me their pro gear and, with a bit of practice, my results should improve a bit but still lack their experience and flair.
The moral is - get the best you can afford for the particular type of photography you aspire to.

I think Greypoint has the answer. In a nutshell buy the best you can afford in every thing you buy from can opener to car

Ian