What is more important the camera or the operator?

[joyjoy]

In cycling many people argue it isn't the bike the makes you fast but the engine (the rider). I have been wondering if the same applies to photography. Is it all about the equipment or the person wielding it?

When I head out to take photos, I am often struck with camera jealousy. But I wonder how much of it is misplaced. I have a great camera and have taken a few amazing pictures, but sometimes I wonder if my pictures wouldn't be better if I had a better camera. With cycling I know if I put the time in the saddle, I will become a better rider. I am worried the same isn't necessarily true with photography. Is it something you do or you don't have, like the ability to draw or paint? I would love to know others thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Joy

[Xia_Ke]

It's the operator, NOT the camera. Example, I can remember years ago watching the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit shoot tv special. One of the photographers, I can't remember his name, used only a little P&S 35mm camera, that cost him like $100, for his photography and said he never used anything else. His pics were every bit as good as the other photographers using their big $$$ medium format set-ups.

[mn shutterbug]

IMO opinion, it's more about the photographer than the equipment. I've seen some awesome photos, here and on other forums, taken with advanced point and shoots. On the other hand, I've seen some pretty poor photos taken with higher priced dslr's. Every now and then I get camera envy. Then I go out and take a few pictures and think, what I have is capable of most of what I want to do. But, unlike drawing or painting, photography can be learned and perfected thru reading and practice. A person is not born with photography skills. It is a learned process.

[another view]

Just like almost anything else, the equipment is secondary. Big heavy cameras and lenses can make tough shots either possible or more likely due to the speed of the auto focus, lack of shutter lag, etc. It takes a lot of work to be a good sports or concert photographer and those are two situations that really can take advantage of top of the line equipment. It takes time to really understand how the camera can work to your best advantage, but it's time well spent.

It can be possible to get excellent action shots with a pocket-sized camera - it's just not as likely, and when you're hired to get the shot any advantage can help. No excuse for not trying though...

Proof of excellent shots with inexpensive cameras? Search here for "Holga" and look at look at some excellent shots by a few here who love those $20 cameras.

[Photo-John]

I ride and take pictures. Better equipment always helps. But just as buying the same bike Lance or Lopes races won't make you ride like them, buying the newest, bestest camera won't make you a great photographer. There are a lot of photographers and lots of discussion on the Web that will mislead you on this subect. Speed, camera build, and image quality are all swell. But they don't make the pictures - you do. And people have been taking wonderful, wonderful photos for a long time without the benefit of an EOS-1Ds Mark II or D2X. Use what you have, Take more pictures, experiement, look at other photos, participate on the Photo Critique forum, and be your own toughest critic. Those are the things that will make you a better photographer.

For what it's worth, most of the photos I've taken in the last year have been taken with Canon's cheapest digital SLR. I could buy something better but the XTi/400D just keeps taking care of business. Better to spend my money on travel, lenses, and new bike parts

[mtbbrian]

I think it's both.
The photographer has to make the decisions as to what camera or shall we say tool, to use, as well when to click the shutter, what f/stop to use and whatever other techniques he or she want to use.
Then because of the choice of camera that the photographer decided on the camera will do the rest.
So it's both!
I don't know if cycling is a good comparison to photography, because there are many different disciplines in cycling and you would choose the appropriate tool for that particular discipline.
In photography, no matter what your intent is you are still just making photographs.
Brian

[deckcadet]

The photographer creates the image and tells the camera what to do to capture it.

The camera and lens simply determine how closely the results follow the photographer's vision.

[Mr Yuck]

I'll say the operator, I did pretty well with a Canon A510 for years, I ran into limitations, worked around them, upgraded to a higher resolution A570 before I finally had the $$ and urge to pick up my Rebel XTi. I have been able to produce good images with all 3 of the cameras, as well as my 20 year old Canon AE1 35mm SLR.

Different equipment will help, but photographer is certainly more important.

Just like cycling, better equipment will help. A friend of mine rode a Huffy for a while and he just couldn't keep up with me when I was on my Giant, but one day I let him ride my Giant while I road a loaner (high end) Diamondback, and he kept up with me no problem.

[JETA]

Most definitely the operator, but there are times you need certain types of equipment to get specific shots. Like shooting football at night. I couldn't do it without my lens and my camera does help some too. I for sure could get good shots with a lesser body, but not lens. All imo of course.

[joyjoy]

Thank you for the responses. I don't aspire to being a professional photographer, but I am happy to know that taking photos I can be proud of is well within my reach.

[freygr]

In cycling many people argue it isn't the bike the makes you fast but the engine (the rider). I have been wondering if the same applies to photography. Is it all about the equipment or the person wielding it?

When I head out to take photos, I am often struck with camera jealousy. But I wonder how much of it is misplaced. I have a great camera and have taken a few amazing pictures, but sometimes I wonder if my pictures wouldn't be better if I had a better camera. With cycling I know if I put the time in the saddle, I will become a better rider. I am worried the same isn't necessarily true with photography. Is it something you do or you don't have, like the ability to draw or paint? I would love to know others thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Joy

The most important thing about photography is the operator not the equipment. But if the operator goes to a poor lighted area without a fast lens, it's not his equipment it was the choice of the operator. The photographer alone makes the equipment choices not the camera.

[Skyman]

It would be wrong to say that the photographer is not influenced by their equipment. for me photography is as much about me undertanding why a photo didn't turn out how i wanted it to as it is the appeal of the image i have just captured. sure having a more technologically advanced camera will mean i don't have to worry so much about backlighting etc but i probably still need to be aware of how it could potentially effect the shot i want to take. how i deal with any specific photographic challenge will depend on how i can deal with it given the equipment i have. do i use some fill flash. do i apply exposure compensation. do i manually overexposure the image. do i meter for the darker areas of the picture. do i reduce the contrast of the image. all these things are bounded only by your understanding of the issue. however how you respond will be shaped in part by your equipment and the way it uses you and as much as how you use it. for example (sticking with our backlighting situation) if exposure compenation is more easily accessed on your camera than spot metering (assuming it has either option) then you would most likely use that feature. I have seen great photos made with "terrible" equipment and no i am not talking about holgas. and terrible photos can still make great prints. it is a case of approaching what you want with what you have and trying and learning until it starts to become intuitive. getting back on topic now. the ability to paint and or be otherwise creative can be learnt true some come by it more naturally than others but this is also true of writing and arithmetic etc. a few good guides and lots of practice and nobody will care that you didn't use the gold mamiya.

[Asylum Steve]

I can't imagine too many people even debating this. There are tons of great photographers with mediocre equipment, and tons of mediocre photographers with great equipment...

[mjs1973]

I can't imagine too many people even debating this. There are tons of great photographers with mediocre equipment, and tons of mediocre photographers with great equipment...

Well said Steve.

[readingr]

This is a facinating debate.

I used a compact digital camera (Fuji 4700zoom) bought in 2000 for six years before I thought I needed to upgrade the camera and got some really good results from it. The upgrade was purely because I couldn't take photos I wanted at night. So I then bought a Canon Powershot Pro1 which was great for night shots but the lag caused problems when trying to capture wildlife which then got me to buy my current camera.

I think I am in the category of moderate photog with great kit who sometimes gets lucky in getting it right.

I am positive that its the photographer not the kit that makes a photograph. In the UK we had a program called 'Photographing Britain' where Tom Ang took renowned photographers and gave them everything from mobile phones to Hasselblads. Some of these didn't even own a digital camera and the outcome from all the kit was astounding, once they got used to it.

Roger

[walterick]

Hey, I was born and raised in Fairfax

The answer to your question is "yes."

The camera and the photographer are both essential. So invest wisely in both!

[I_Fly]

I can't imagine too many people even debating this. There are tons of great photographers with mediocre equipment, and tons of mediocre photographers with great equipment...

I agree with you also Steve.

[megan]

Well, the camera can't take the photos by itself... so the operator behind it is the one tripping the shutter to create the images with the camera. I'm one of those insane people creating with $20 Holgas, though for pro work I do use a digital.

[WesternGuy]

joyjoy, I must say I agree with the others here that it is the operator. You choose the setting to capture the image and most importantly you compose it (the image) in the viewfinder (or display) and you choose whether to use things like the rule of thirds, etc., or not. I also agree with those that have said you can learn to be a good photographer. Buy a couple of well-illustrated photo mags and go through them and pick out the photos you like and maybe don't like. Try and figure out why you like some better than others and why you don't like some of the ones that you don't.

I would compare photography to learning to play a musical instrument - you have to know all the things it does, how to do them and you get better, the more you practice. I have been capturing images for more years than I care to admit to. I used 35 mm for many years before moving to digital a couple of years ago. I knew if an image was good or not - I am own worst critic and I suspect you are too. Sometimes an image that I didn't particularly care for will be seen by some else and they think its great...so part of what makes a good image is in the eyes of the beholder as well. HTH :thumbsup:

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[Overbeyond]

Cameras, Guitars Stuff.
Photo John has covered it.
So I say the man and the time in the pub afterwards.

[Greg McCary]

The Photographer. I have taken pictures side by side, one with a digital camera and one with a 30 year old Rangefinder and the Rangefinder picture turned out better. But being digital has given me the chance to practice without wasting time, film and money.

[Mule]

The competitor in me feels a certain additional pride when competing in triathlons and I pass someone riding the best bike someone can buy and I'm only pushing a mid-priced Trek. At the end of the day a high end bike only buys you a few seconds - maybe minutes depending on the distance. Great photography gear will make a difference over poor equipment but the benefit may only reflect a small fraction of the overall quality (depending on conditions). Which is why I am in awe of the great photographers of the early 1900's. Think about the equipment they had to contend with, the obstacles they had to overcome to transport and set up this equipment and then consider their end result.

[Dstrickland]

I was just at a BBQ a couple nights ago and a few of us guys were discussing photography in general and cameras specifically. These guys looked at me like I had antlers growing out of my head when I said I still shoot film. They have all the digital lingo down pretty well and I didn't have a clue of half of what they were saying unless it had to do with exposure or fill flash or panning or some other skill. I still think I can take a pretty decent photgraph with film and manual focus cameras.

We (and I think men especially) take great pride in our machines. We feel they reflect our status, values, etc. My dad always told me when I was playing baseball and I blamed my glove for an error, he would correct me with "it ain't the glove, it's you". Unless the gear is broken, doesn't fit or something of that nature, "it ain't the camera". Like it was stated earlier, there are a lot of great photographers with mediocre equipment, and a lot of mediocre photgraphers with great equipment.

[jkriminger]

I think the composition in photography is very much an art. Some will never get it no matter how much they study. I think this forum has provided enough evidence of incredible pictures created because somebody had a different view..vision..of ordinary everyday stuff. And of course a little PP don't hurt

[GB1]

The more photography I do, the more I realize that it's the operator.

Gb