Thu, February 24th, 2005 by bradknapp
Yes, I stole this link from Kottke, but it's very interesting and relevant. Ken Rockwell has an interesting diatribe on why Your Camera Does Not Matter and how even the most primitave camera can outshine a $10,000 lens. Something that I've been thinking about lately. It's not the camera, it's the eye. Read. Discuss
February 24th, 2005 at 11:51 am
the eye sees things and the camera facilitates the image in your head being turned into a photo, photoshop then transforms that photo further. Eye is important but equipment equally so. I think this is bull in all honesty. I saw a great shot of a kid with a sledge running after her mother the other day when i was out but I had a wideangle on and couldn't get the shot. I saw the picture yes but we're photographers because we don't just see the pictures, we actually take them and it takes specialist equpiment at times to do this (wideangle /telephoto) regardless of how good your eye is.
February 24th, 2005 at 11:59 am
That's all hogwash -- get out there and buy a new Hassey or Leaf digital back -- post some images so I can see them.
February 24th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
Man, someone seriously needs to stop Ken Rockwell. I'm disappointed in Kottke for linking him up. Ken's site is a tar pit of misinformation and hypocrisy. The guy has so many "reviews" of lenses he's either (admittedly!) never tried or only used for 10 seconds at a trade show. He rants constantly about how you only need the cheapest, most plastic fantastic stuff, and then can't seem to come up with a decent explanation for why he then owns the top-shelf "professional" gear he's railing against. Doesn't that annoy anyone else? The self-serving links to Adorama and Amazon are a nice smack in the face, too.
February 24th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
While I won't go so far as to say equipment doesn't matter, I will say that it doesn't matter as much as people might think. I take a great deal of my shots with a Cybershot (point and shoot) digicam, because it's small enough to carry with me everywhere, everyday. And I would put some of my shots against anyone else's in terms of quality.
Still, rather than say that equipment doesn't matter, which makes it sound like you're wasting your money on nice stuff, I would venture to say that you *can* accomplish great photos on cheaper equipment.
Ultimately, these are tools; if the nicer equipment more readily enables you to create your art, then there's no faulting that approach. I personally enjoy the challenge of pushing the Cybershot to be all that it can be.
February 24th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
The gear is linked to the artist's vision, but is mostly irrelevant to viewers. Knowing what one used to make an image won't necessarily make the audience understand the work any better. Often quite the contrary.
February 24th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
I agree with Zach. People seem to underestimate the power of 'consumer grade' cameras. I often get a lot of questions and comments about the gear I use to create my shots, but the truth is about 80% of my site was shot on a 4MP Canon S45. Eventuallly I purchased a 20D (which I love) but to be honest, besides low noise at high ISOs, the difference in quality between the two was less than I had expected. Again I'm not saying that I'm unhappy with the purchase, but it really goes to show how far a little effort can go in creating a great shot with any sort of equipment. It's always interesting to see how veteran photobloggers mature and improve over time with the same equipment they started out with. Let us also not forget that many famous photographs, while not necessarily technically sound, are visually stunning.
February 24th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
~someone I know from another photo community website always told me, "the image is everything", and IMO, content is king, no matter what you use to get it...~
February 24th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
pack of lies.
there is a direct correlation between the amount of money you spend on gear and the quality of your photography. this is so obvious, i can't even believe it is an issue anymore.
i'm going to let you all in on a secret: pros don't own hasselblads because they are pros - pros are pros because they own hasselblads.
the clothes make the man, folks. which is why i am currently naked.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
I personally think a "cheap" camera can take a fantasic photo. But a cheap camera will also make you miss that great shot becuase it couldn't focus, or zoom far enough, or have a good enough macro... I bought a consumer DSLR because I was tired of waiting for my digicam to get a focus, and using the manual controls wasn't convenient.
I can't say if a $2000 lens will take a better photo than my $200 75-300, but I'd sure like to find out.
February 24th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Saying that you can create a "good" image with a "bad" camera is not the same as saying you can create any image with any camera.
No one's saying that you don't need to know what you're doing. But part of my love of photography is the fact that I get to play with cool pieces of gear. That's the whole *point*.
It just sounds like insecurity to me. He wouldn't need to rant about it if he didn't worry deep down that he might be wrong.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
Spending multiple thousands of $$ on a Mark ID and the best lenses isn't going to make me a professional photographer. But at the same time, moving from a Canon S40 point-n-shoot to a 10D has improved my shooting, I think, because an SLR has more capability, better focusing, more flexibility to control the exposure, etc. The camera doesn't create the shot, but it does help you capture it exactly as you want to.
I think what rooks just posted is pretty accurate -- it's certainly true that you can get a great image with a bad camera, but the generalization that you can thus get *any* image with *any* camera doesn't wash for me...
February 24th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
Cartier-Bresson mused that the art of photography is "putting one's head, one's eye and one's heart on the same axis." THIS is the skill to honed, and it can be done with any reasonably functional tool. If you're all about your gear, you've totally missed the point.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
grrrr....
BE honed
this is the skill to BE honed
February 24th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
if hcb was still alive, he would get that new nikon d2x with a 300mm f2.8 w/ silent wave.
there was a man who understood that up to seven frames per second with focus track and lock meant not having to worry about catching that 'decisive moment' or whatever.
or maybe he'd own the new digital rebel. it's hard to say.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
I think it's possible to create great photos with poor equipment, look at the holga :), but in a lot of cases better equipment can create more opportunities, and in the end, if your aim is to take sharp and clear images, better glass is going to give you a better result.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
No Ian, you're wrong. If he were still alive he'd be sketching with a pencil, and even if he hadn't dropped photography for drawing he would never have switched from his scuffed and worn old Leica. He used the same tool for his entire career. This man was not concerned with toys.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
As a blanket statement it's suspect but if you frame it as a reaction to the fact that a lot of people are buying D SLRs and lenses when they have no clue how to shoot any camera off fully automatic, then it's more interesting.
I think it's certaily true that an experienced photographer who has a decent eye for composition can make good pictures with almost any equipment, including a pinhole camera (which an inexperienced photographer would not know how to deal with).
And, it's probably also true that an inexperienced photographer with high end equipment, even set on fully automatic will not do too well.
But, give an experienced photographer a good camera and a nice range of high quality lenses and he or she will do a lot more with all of it than someone with less experience.
Maybe the way to frame the question is, which is more important, equipment or experience? I'd say experience without a doubt.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
Sheeeesh Ian, Cartier-Bresson COINED the phrase "the decisive moment" as it relates to photography.
February 24th, 2005 at 2:59 pm
oh.
i learn something new almost every day.
hot recent work on your site, joe. i like what is going on with your eye. your sarcasm could use a little work, but your photos are excellent.
February 24th, 2005 at 3:32 pm
this (the rockwell diatribe) from a man who has posted a request on his how-to page looking to buy a "top drawer medium format system"...
February 24th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
No sarcasm intended, only my honest reaction to your inadvertent mischaracterization of HCB. To me, photoblogging is a means to improving the skills HCB wrote of so eloquently. It's not about my "cool camera." It's about "trapping life - preserving it in the act of living" (quoting HCB again...read The Mind's Eye).
I watch your site too. You have great technical prowess. I invite you to do a Luke Skywalker: abandon "seven frames per second with focus track," and trust your inner eye and act on instinct.
February 24th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
Yes, I agree, Richard.
I think the very banal point that Ken Rockwell is trying to make is that it is a poor workman who blames his tools.
Well duh! If only he could make that point without painting almost everyone except himself as an idiot.
Playing with a new piece of gear - whether new, old, expensive or cheap - is fun. Of course it's no substitute for skill. But no one should feel guilty for wanting to have fun.
February 24th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Ken Rockwell rants are directed towards the typical guy who spends his time in dpreview type forums. You know, those guys who buy cameras and lenses and only get to use them to make useless sharpness tests. He's trying to get a reaction from those guys and he succeedes at it, judging by the posts appearing frequently in dpreview bashing him. Sadly, these guys don't get his point and don't stop considering their cameras and lenses as fetishes.
February 24th, 2005 at 3:40 pm
I think, Joe, that Ian was pointing out that *he* was being sarcastic.
February 24th, 2005 at 3:41 pm
i don't come around here much, but i realized quickly that joe ain't so fast.
February 24th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
please, erica. hardly.
in fact i am wearing my 'please believe everything i say' t-shirt.
February 24th, 2005 at 3:57 pm
Wow, that was a loooong article. Can't say I read every word, especially once I realized that I half agreed with him, but only in the sense that people are describing here, that "Saying that you can create a "good" image with a "bad" camera is not the same as saying you can create any image with any camera" (rooks).
I'm interested in the topic, however, because I've only recently become more interested in photography and I don't have a fancy camera. I got a Canon PowerShot Pro1 to learn on, but it's currently out for repairs, so I've been spending a lot more time than I expected using a Canon PowerShot S30. I have to confess that I've enjoyed the small size of it and although I can't play around with DOF as much as I'd like and I can't zoom in as much as I want, often I can do a lot more with it than I originally expected. Certainly there is a lot of room for making good photos with this camera, even if I do long for my Pro1 to come home and for one day to own better equipment that will allow me to do even more. But I'm actually doing o.k. at the moment with my little camera!
February 24th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
The article definitely lacks context and perspective, but I think that's the fool's way out of any criticism. You can always justify any of those arguments by putting them in context. As Rooks said above it's basically 'the bad worker blames his tools' aphorism but stretched out into an incoherent article that will doubtless get him more attention than if he'd just said that in the first place.
February 24th, 2005 at 4:26 pm
I lost most of the 80s to 'disk' cameras. I didn't think of myself as a photographer then and still really only think of myself as a glorified snapshot photographer. But, Good Christ, man! One needs a decent tool. The only irony is that as my photos have 'improved' as I upgraded cameras, some of my most popular photos have been taken with the earlier cameras.
February 24th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Obviously Ian was being sarcastic about Bresson. If choosing to ignore that in order to make a critical point means I'm slow. Fine. I'll be slow.
February 24th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Let me throw a bone into this discussion as it seems most of us are coming into it from different places and it will be interesting to watch this bone get tossed around.
I found a situation where all things being equal, a particular piece of equipment made a big difference in my photography.
I got a fast (f1.4) 50mm lens for my 300D and it is now my favorite lens. Many of you who know more than I ever will about photoraphy I'm sure knew or know this but I had no idea a lens like this could be so amazing.
Some serious photographers use a fast 50 as their primary lens or only lens. I can now relate to this.
On typical DSLRs, a standard 50 is more like a 60-70 because standard lenses are built for film cameras not digital, but even with this, I think a photographer with a bit of experience who has not used a 50mm lens before could do amazing things with it. So, in this case, a piece of equipment can make a difference.
Once you get used to "sneaker zooming" (moving toward or away from your subject to frame a picture) the speed and depth of field possibilities of a simple lens like this can make a big difference in your photography.
So, I agree, without the experience to "get" what a lens like this is all about it will mean little, but a photographer with that experience but minus the lens might see an interesting effect on their pictures.
I know this is off topic but while I have the floor (comment field) I have to say that if you have a DSLR like a Canon 300D, 20D, or a Nikon D70 and you do not have a 50mm lens and you take pictures of people, get one, you will not be disapointed. And, if you have a choice of speeds and can afford it, get the fastest one you can (f1.4 instead of f1.8). A good friend of mine who's a serious amateur photographer recommended that I get one and this is as good a place as any to pay it forward.
February 24th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
im going to have to side with ian on this one. everyone knows that without the proper equipment your photos are going to look all fucked up. i cant afford a nice camera so im stuck shooting with a diana. and my fuji-400 is 6 years old! here i am at mardi gras and ive only got $12 worth of equipment around my neck...of course my photos are going to look all fucked up! like a five-year old took them! i wish i could afford a nice spanking new mark II, but i just cant. the whole film thing kinds of overwhelms me anyways, and i would just prefer to switch to digital. those chemicals are so messy! thank god for photoshop!
February 24th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
i bought the most expensive camera i could find, and i take some hot ass fucking pictures.
no doubt.
February 24th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
see? that's all i was i trying to say.
i can't improve on the points made by victor and ross.
now i need to wipe the beer off of my keyboard because i spit it out from laughing too hard.
February 24th, 2005 at 8:26 pm
In a lot of situations, a photographer's style adapts to the type of equipment he/she uses. I own a Holga and a Horseman LX 4x5 with a slew of Schneider lenses. The feel of the photographs I take with each is very different (when I take advantage of their inherent qualities). If the equipment you use is incapable of producing the sharpest of images, then super sharp isn't your style. If you like everything soft and blurry, then top of the line is a waste of money.
February 24th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
A bad photo taken with an $8,000 camera is still a bad photo. Owning an expensive camera won't make you a better photographer; shooting will. Whether it be with a Holga or a Mark II, you need to shoot to get composition, mise-en-scene, lighting, etc. Once you get the fundamentals, then you can better by learning more about the craft, which usually involves getting better equipment for results you can't achieve (because of lack of technology, not skill).
February 24th, 2005 at 9:59 pm
I think it's worth thinking about the examples which Rockwell offered as evidence that you don't need the most exensive camera in the world... He basically showed fairly static landscapes, and showed how much he was able to do with those situations. Now, my Olympus C3000 is not a very fast camera, and I've learned that if I'm going to try and cath people in natural settings I need to take a couple dozen shots of them and hope for one to turn out right. But give me something fairly static and I have a much higher hit rate. I will never be able to take shots like Travis Ruse or Joe Holmes with my equipment. And those I try to take in their settings genuinely stink.
What Rockwell hasn't done is discuss the process of selection, and how the equipment affects what you take and what you share.
Yes, I can take good shots with my camera, but they're going to have to be *my* good shots.
February 25th, 2005 at 12:02 am
This article was one of my main motivations when I first started shooting. While Rockwell can easily come off as a pompous and hypocritical ass, I think it helped me immensely to keep his main point in mind when first learning to control light.
As a newbie, it would have been so easy to just take those first few crappy shots and declare "these pictures stink because my camera is not good enough." But if you really take the article to heart, you find yourself thinking instead "hey, I need to learn how to use my camera better."
I've seen some horrible photos by people with 20Ds, and some incredible work by people using cameraphones. Sure, the right equipment can make a huge difference, but talent is always the bigger factor in my opinion.
February 25th, 2005 at 12:21 am
damn and here I thought it was the amount of Photoshop, or whatever image editing program, filters that were applied afterwards applied.
But seriously I think there is a gleam of truth in there. If you know what you are doing and how to achieve the shot you want, then the equipment is not going to stop you from taking good photos. Might hinder you in taking the quality you are looking for in the end though.
February 25th, 2005 at 6:59 am
I very much like this picture:
http://waferbaby.com/photos/projects/pet/j
I think the photographer has caught the essense of "puppy."
I doubt high end equipment was used and something tells me (although I would be happy to stand corrected) that the person who took this, "J" is not a professional photographer. However, he or she caught the essense of puppy amazingly well, mayby by accident, maybe by design.
If someone with more experience took a picture of this dog with a high end camera with a fast lens, fast shutter speed, no flash, blah blah blah would it be any better? I'm not sure.
I like everything about this picture, including the flash in the eyes of the dog, the dog at the bottom of the frame, the tilted frame, the blurred cabinet, etc. This picture gives me a small window on what it's like to be in the same room as this dog.
And, by most standards, it's nothing more than a nice snapshot. This will sound elitist and it's not meant that way but is this picture "folk art" or does it stand with all great pictures of dogs?
In other words, if the late Richard Avadon made a similar picture what would we say? Or, if a similar picture was produced by a pro with a high end camera what then?
February 25th, 2005 at 7:32 am
ian and joe,
HCB did not coin the phrase 'the decisive moment' although it will be forever linked with his name. 'The Decisive Moment' is the title of the English translation of his work 'Images a la Sauvette', which means literally 'images on the run'. I guess we can thank the translator for this snappy phrase.
February 25th, 2005 at 9:52 am
Damn, this thread filled up fast. I maintain that the cost & quality of equipment matters certainly but doesn't guarantee great photos... Great images can be made with all manner of equipment. I spend much of my online nerd time hanging out at toycamera.com because that more fits my personality. But I shoot old rolleis and look forward to the new Canon Rebel but I then some days pinhole is the tool of choice. I do some work professionally and sometimes get to trot out the plastic cameras for paying gigs as welll. Though they are limited somewhat, I love them. Anyway...
February 25th, 2005 at 10:13 am
Thanks for reminding me of toycamera.com, which is leaving half or more of the toy camera Universe out of the picture, by recognizing on film toys. Perfect example of an idiotic line in the sand...
February 25th, 2005 at 11:17 am
Michal, if you don't like the way toycamera.com runs their site, you have a couple of options:
1) Convince them to change their rules.
2) Start your own toy camera site with different rules.
Otherwise, it just sounds like you're wasting your time complaining. (At least, that's how I see it.)
February 25th, 2005 at 11:52 am
Love it, leave it, or get your own ball, huh, Brandon? One way of seeing it all. Another is to see, shrug, and walk on. Not everything must be dealt with. A lot of boneheaded stuff can be simply ignored.
February 25th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
"A lot of boneheaded stuff can be simply ignored."
Agreed. It's just that I'd prefer to hear shrugging rather than idle complaining.
February 25th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
If your camera does not matter, why else would you be shooting with a Holga? You are the one taking the pictures and I think your camera should make you happy...
February 25th, 2005 at 12:57 pm
LOL! Brandon, could be read where I was shrugging, you complained, I told you I shrugged and you complained again. Know what I mean?
I did bring up the whole "toycamera, why you leaving out half of them" issue with them way, way back. Didn't do anything. And I'm not interested enough to "start your own."
It is idiotic to that's all, shrug, moving on. That's all...
February 25th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
February 25th, 2005 at 1:57 pm
50.
February 25th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
robin is right, HCB's editor coined the phrase 'decisive moment'.
as for the article, you can make good photos with any camera, but a camera is a tool like any other. your personal vision will be limited if you don't have the tools to achieve it.
right now i'm shooting an environmental portrait project for school with a hand-me-down minolta and a 50mm lens. the past two nights of shooting i have been wishing awfully hard for a lens that's a little wider and mirror lockup since it was low light. the photos i've printed so far have come out pretty good, but they weren't exactly what i wanted to do since my equipment limits what is possible.
February 25th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
OK. The problem here is "linguistic". The word "important" and the phrase "does not matter" mean different things to different people, and have different meanings in different context. The ambiguity of that creates a lot more arguments than it's supposed to.
The article has a lot of truth in it but is poorly argued/presented. In cases like this, I usually blame the authors for not expressing it clearly. As readers, we should also read stuff like this with a critical mind.
Victor
February 25th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Michal... I am not into slinging mud around but you lost me with the 'which is leaving half or more of the toy camera Universe out of the picture, by recognizing on film toys." I don't get what you mean. In other words please? What do they do that offends?
If this is sensitive you can leave it alone. I merely want to understand your complaint. I don't have any complaints with them...
February 25th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
I found myself highly amused by the responses to the article (not just in this thread but in the other forums linked to as well) There was a great deal of "Thou doth protest too much" it seemed to me in a lot of counter arguments.
I think the whole idea of the article (however well or poorly it was worded...) was to prompt people to think about the creative process in photography - which it has certainly done! There is also a element of "stirring the pot" from Ken Rockwell, very similar in manner to a few contributers here :-)>
All this is very good, it helps us to think and to (hopefully) take ourselves less seriously.
Now, what were we talking about again?
February 25th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
GID, there is a mistake in my sentence, sorry! Should read, "toycamera.com is leaving half or more of the toy camera Universe out of the picture by recognizing only film toys." Meaning, digital toys are not recognized by them as toycams. Says so on their About page: "The toy camera photographer eschews the modern developments of camera technology, the reliance on computerized exposure systems, motorized film transport, PPI, TTL, CCD, DOF..." My point is simply that toycamera is a toycamera, film or digital. Simply put, if it's just film, call it filmtoycamera.com. M:-D
February 25th, 2005 at 10:02 pm
Yep, my original (4 years old) Agfa CL34 looks like a toy compared to most recent digital cameras these days...I guess it's all relative. I presume you are talking about things like pen-cameras (such as refered to in Heather's recent "crap cam contest") and the like Michal?
February 25th, 2005 at 11:33 pm
this is still being discussed?
spend on your equipment as much as you can afford or get a loan towards.
if that doesn't make you a better photographer, then the equipment is defective. keep sending it back until you get better.
February 26th, 2005 at 7:53 am
I use an EOS300D, a casio exilim for candids and a Konika Minilta Z2. I am not a camera snob and also have a variety of lenses.
I usually have a shot in mind, or find myself grabbing quickly to get a moment.
Photographers, like cameras, come in all shapes and sizes and it is the photographer who composes the pictures - the camera takes the picture. It is literally impossible to get the same quality pictures from the cameras above.
Thus, the camera is key regardless of photo shop etc. To separate the two elements of photographer and camera is absolutely absurd as they exist as one defining moment, which is what makes a photographer a PHOTOGRAPHER - the understanding of how to utilise the tools regardless of their limitations to affect that defining moment...
February 26th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
"I presume you are talking about things like pen-cameras (such as refered to in Heather's recent "crap cam contest") and the like Michal?"
Yes, Cameron, exactly.
February 26th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
There is great pleasure to be had in owning and using well made things. There's also great pleasure to be had in using a lesser tool to produce greater results.
February 27th, 2005 at 6:19 am
You can find good images that were taken with a pinhole camera! But your camera doesn't matter is a stupid assertion, everything about the medium matters. The point is to use what you are using to it's best advantage. Don't use a 4x5 to shoot race cars, don't use a Diana to get detail. Don't work against your medium work with it, that's the trick to making gear work for you. The same is true of subject, it's too much work to force techniques on your subject, let the subject define technique. Listen to your camera once in a while.
February 27th, 2005 at 8:17 am
I love my polaroid 680, and my contax T3, and my bessa R2, and if I could afford a new M series Leica + lenses I would love that too, but for now I can't afford it. I am going to have a cup of tea now
February 27th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
YOUR camera doesn't matter because YOU suck.
February 27th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
Hahhahaaha.
February 27th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
"I am going to have a cup of tea now"
Me too.
February 27th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
From a beginners perspective:
Going to the extreme in either direction is foolish.
To say that the tool means nothing or to say the tool is everything would be straight goofy.
I didn't have the time/patience to read the entire article but the few points I read were all pre-digital and pre-1980's.
A wicked camera can't offset someone who has no eye and the best photographer would reach some plateau in the quality of work they'd be able to put out. (and of course there are always exceptions to the rule in either case)
March 1st, 2005 at 7:42 pm
I really do think that the ability to recognize a good shot and to take it is more important than whatever you use to take it. But the equipment to use depends on what kind of photos you are taking. There is no way you can get a good shot of wildlife closeup without a good hella-zoom lense. Good equipments enable more possibilities of variety of good photos, but to actually capture them, you need the *eye*, let it be accidental luck, or professional experience. While with a limited camera it's also possible to capture great photos with the right *eye*. There you go, a good photo taken must have the *eye* behind it. and I think that's what's being stressed the most in the article.
March 2nd, 2005 at 1:36 am
THUD! THUD! THUD! Oh, that's the sound of a dead horse being beaten.
March 2nd, 2005 at 5:05 am
hmm was bit silly to post that. Didn't read all comments and it's pretty dead infact.
August 14th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
Ken Rockwell was right, after all, it seems.
April 6th, 2007 at 12:06 am
What Ken Rockwell says may be true in terms of a film SLR body. But:
1) A digital camera does influence the image quality as it develops in its sensor. Various digital bodies and/or compacts use various sensors to produce various quality pictures. Take, for instance, the same picture with a D70s and a D200 - the image quality by D70s is likely to be remarkably better (less noise, no banding, etc.).
2) A compact camera with fixed lens may not produce the type of pictures that require a different lens. For example, hardly can you take a fisheye picture with a 35-70 zoom compact camera.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I would have to agree. I've seen some of the best photos taken with mere disposable cameras. A hi-tech camera can help with taking photos, but ultimately it's the photographer that determines how good a picture is going to turn out.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:18 am
Well duh! If only he could make that point without painting almost everyone except himself as an idiot