Originally posted by: iamtrout
The ability of a good photographer to get the shot that he wants depends almost entirely on his equipment.
Want to take breathtaking pictures of a race? You need a camera and lens with fast enough autofocus servo to keep up with the subject.
Want to take natural light shots of animals at dusk or football games under weak stadium lighting? You need an expensive, bright lens to get the shutter speeds necessary.
Want to take pictures that will be printed to a very large scale? Then you need a camera with a high pixel count and a lens that's sharp enough that can RESOLVE that fine detail, and give it to the sensor.
With cheaper, less sharp, less bright, and slower lenses these shots would be IMPOSSIBLE. It doesn't matter how good the photog is when he's fighting against the laws of physics.
Photography is 90% the photographer under ideal situations. Under not-so-ideal situations (and there are many, MANY non-ideal situations) , quality equipment pulls its own weight and the photographer's weight.
All those situations assume the photographer is trying to create a stereotypical image. Go outside of the box, and used a slow shutter speed to show the color of the cars as they zip by. Or use a pan to make that football player sharp. Use grain to your advantage (or simply interpolate.)
Remember, photographers got nice, tack sharp photos of all of these things 50 years ago. With no autofocus, no 400 2.8 lenses, and no 8 frames per second. Technology has evolved but a good photographer can adapt to what is available.
Your words are typical of one who believes the equipment makes the photograph. Sure, there are situations where specific photos dictate the use of certain equipment. But photography is vision, not the newest EOS digital rebel 5D mark II blah blah blah.
(Spoken by one who just bought a D200, not for what it produces, but for how it enables to to more comfortably and easily create the image I want to make.)
Facebook
Twitter