fraga
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
thw2 wrote:
The stats prove that despite having just a single cross AF sensor, the 5D2 is still a highly capable camera that can be used in high stress situations. Despite all the banding, limited dynamic range talk, Canon gear is still good in the right hands. No, it's not about gear... it's about photos and the person behind the camera.
thw2, please note this is not directed specifically at you, though I used a quote from your post.
It's generally directed at all the people who claim it's ALL about the man behind the camera, like if the gear does not matter (not saying you claimed that).
Of course canon gear is still good in the right hands.
That does mean that in some cases, some canon gear has some shortcomings (like all the other brands do).
In these cases, the photographer will have to work harder to work around the shortcomings.
If they weren't there in the first place, it would be easier for him.
It won't make him a better photographer, but it will make it easier for him to get better results.
And, in some cases (though rare they may be), to get results that lesser gear would not allow HIM to achieve in a SPECIFIC situation.
Yes, we all acknowledge that a better photographer can and will in most situations take (far) better pictures with lesser gear than a lesser photographer with better gear.
But what matters to the individual is... the individual itself.
Case in point: I have camera X. Camera Y comes out and it's better AND easier to use (being better does not mean it's easier to get better results from it, sometimes it's even the opposite in fact).
So if camera Y is better AND easier to use, won't MY results likely improve in some situations? At least a little?
Taking brands out of the equation (so as to not to open a can of worms), if you (let's assume an average level amateur photographer) shoot sports with a 5DII and than upgrade to a 5DIII, shouldn't YOU come out with more perfectly in focus pictures, specially if you don't always use the center AF focus point exclusively??
Or if you shoot available low light portraits using very fast primes with off-center AF points (eyes not in the middle of the frame)?
I guess it's safe to assume that yes.
You are not a better photographer (your knowledge and skill does not improve), but in some cases the results do improve, even if slightly.
I'm not saying a better photographer won't be able to better you with a rebel and a kit lens, I'm saying the better gear can help YOU, specifically, improve YOUR own results.
So in the end yes, what matters the most is the man behind the camera.
I guess we all agree with that.
But come on, the camera/lens helps.
It does.
The "combo" (photographer's skills + gear) is really what will determine the quality of the picture.
As an analogy, it's like racing: is the driver/rider the most important?
Yes!
But I'm pretty well convinced that the car/motorcycle can and in some or many cases does influence the results as well.
If anyone is into motorcycle racing, take as an example the simply disastrous last two seasons from Valentino Rossi, considered the greatest rider of all times, as he changed to a different manufacturer.
P.S.
yes, investing in yourself by taking photography courses will always beat better gear, no need to invoke that argument.
|
