Q: Do you need a $10,000 camera system to shoot like a pro? A: No, I don’t think you do. A camera is essentially a tool, just like a hammer. You can take pictures whether it’s just a simple point-and-shoot or a serious professional camera. It’s just a matter of knowing what to shoot, when to shoot and how to shoot it…Having better equipment can give you better control over how to take the photo, but I don’t think it necessarily makes you a better photographer. Someone who’s a good photographer can take a photo with their telephone nearly as good as they could with a professional camera.
Lubo
on 21 Oct 09I shoot professionally and I agree with the comment, but I also think if you use inferior equipment that’s limiting, it’ll wind up frustrating you.
A point and shoot can be used to great effect, but the limits of the focal length and controls are “limiting” to that of a pro SLR with a great lens and greater control options.
Eric
on 21 Oct 09Equipment doesn’t matter, until it does. While the best tool/camera may be the one you have on you, it’s often wise to get the right tool/camera for the job rather than frustrating yourself with inappropriate tools.
I use a dSLR for my own personal shots. The moments I have captured more than outweigh the cost of the gear.
Michael Long
on 21 Oct 09Good gear isn’t going to make a bad photographer good.
But bad gear can severely limit a good photographer.
Whether it’s no shutter lag, ultra-wide lenses, ultra-long ultra-bright lenses, instant focusing, the low-light capabilities the come with high ISOs and f/1.2 lenses, or 35MP and up medium format cameras, high-end camera systems give you the tools needed to consistently get the job done.
Then there’s lighting. Why everyone focuses [sic] on the camera I don’t know, but the owner of one commercial studio where I once worked had four times as much money invested in lighting gear (strobe heads, power packs, boxes and stands) as he did in cameras.
And his cameras were Nikons, Hassies, and Sinar 4×5s and 8×10s…
Randall Hunt
on 21 Oct 09Having “better equipment” often has less to do with having more control, and often has more to do with durability.
The majority of controls on a high-end pro camera are also available on consumer-grade models. The biggest difference is that a consumer-grade camera body is less rugged, and the shutters are less reliable. Often, consumer-grade shutters are rated at 10,000 clicks, which is more than adequate for a hobbyist, but a pro will need something that can stand up to the 100,000 photos he expects to snap before replacing or upgrading his equipment.
Chad Wright
on 21 Oct 09I completely agree. I refuse to upgrade cameras until I hit the absolute technical limit of what my current gear will do. If I can’t produce beautiful images with what I have, upgrading cameras won’t help.
As a challenge this year I’ve been taking a ton of iPhone photos to prove you can make beautiful photos with a crappy camera. I’ve been very pleased with how it’s gone. It trains you to look for great photos everywhere, and not just ones that you have to have a high-end DSLR to capture.
Marcello
on 21 Oct 09I think Eric kind of summed it up:
“Equipment doesn’t matter, until it does.”
As a musician and gearhead, I need to remind myself that more better gear isn’t going to help me write more better songs. On the other hand, even the best songs won’t get much airplay if the lead vocal is being drowned out by the sound of the neighbor’s microwave leaking through the electrical wires.
So gear isn’t all that matters. But it does matter!
David S
on 21 Oct 09Same principle in this musical example:
My cello teacher in grad school owned a Stradivarious cello (worth a cool $2M back in 1984!). Now, as he was a truly great cellist-teacher at major music school, soloist with orchestras like the NY Phil, recording artist, etc.-he could play my cello and make it sound great. Having already achieved a high level of accomplishment, the equipment he played on didn’t necessarily limit what he could communicate musically.
However, when I had a chance to play his cello (the Strad), it was just phenomenal: what a cello! The thing seemed able to play itself, and it was much easier to play certain passages on than when using my own cello.
So, great equipment can help a gifted person to progress in their quest for greater proficiency, but is not necessary for one who has already acquired that proficiency.
Daniel Von Fange
on 21 Oct 09For commercial work, it really boils down to how much you and the photos are worth. Often enough the price of the equipment is negligible compared to everything else going into the shoot. You wouldn’t make 10in netbook your primary programming machine because you save a $1000.
And yes, can take some great pictures with poor equipment. But that does not mean that EVERY great picture could be taken with poor equipment. As Michael Long said, some photos simply require something expensive. I was shooting a wedding reception at night, in an open courtyard illuminated only by candles on the tables and christmas lights strung two stories overhead. I was able to photograph the first dance without using a flash and capturing the couple, the surroundings, and the blue night sky. I could not have taken that picture without a camera capable of good photos at 6400 ISO and a F1.2 prime lens.
Brian
on 21 Oct 09The limitations of a tool sometimes force artists into ingenuity and creativity they wouldn’t have achieved otherwise if they had had a tool that easily overcame these limitations. This goes not just for photography, but for any art form—think of the fabulously creative works of art achieved by poets within the strict limitations of the sonnet form or by musicians within the limitations of the concerto or symphonic forms.
It’s often too easy to get caught up in the technical rush of salivating over high-end gear and to forget about the passion and vision side of things.
Marcus Blankenship
on 22 Oct 09Taking great photographs is about seeing, about looking in the right direction at the right time, about waiting for the right light. It’s about the creator, not the camera.
Same as software. Getting a better IF statement doesn’t make great software.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
Marten Veldthuis
on 22 Oct 09You can give a great photographer a point’n’shoot camera and he’ll still take great photos. It however won’t be the same photos he’d have taken with a pro dSLR. A good artist will simply acknowlege the limitations of his tool, and work around them. It might be frustrating for him, but it won’t show in the end result.
fre
on 22 Oct 09I’ve always compared a camera to a pen. What matters is what you write, and not what you write with…
Stephen Jenkins
on 22 Oct 09There is a great saying that goes something like:
“Amateurs talk about cameras, pros talk about lenses, masters talk about light.”
I tend to agree, I have taken some amazing photos with my old Nokia 3650, it’s size allowed for candidate and in-the-moment shots.
Morley
on 22 Oct 09For those of you who say a good camera doesn’t make a bad photographer good: have you seen images taken by top-of-the-line dSLRs? They’re gorgeous. They’re good enough that they can sometimes wash out poor framing or bad lighting.
I agree with your basic premise that the basic principles of good photography can be applied without expensive equipment, but goddamn are dSLR photos pretty.
Nicolo' Borghi
on 23 Oct 09Alex Majoli, one of the most gifted Magnum photographers, shot for many years with a point-and-shoot camera. Read this interview http://bit.ly/iZPcc
Kim Siever
on 23 Oct 09Can you take photos with good contrast, composition and lighting with a generic, no-name point and shoot? Absolutely.
Can you take photos that can be used on a billboard with a generic, no-name point and shoot? Not likely.
David O.
on 25 Oct 09Professional Photographers use a $10,000 camera because it’s the best equipment for a particular job. If you’re a professional shooting landscape, interiors, products, and architecture you’ll use a medium format or large format camera because they capture a lot more detail than the standard point and shoot camera. If you’re making art, shooting fashion, you could shoot with whatever camera you want.
Justin Bell
on 25 Oct 09As someone interested in landscape photography, the camera can still be just as important. If the camera/lens isn’t capable of delivering what you have envisioned for a particular scene, not much is going to make up for it.
Noel Jackson
on 26 Oct 09Terry Richardson uses a Yaschica/Kyocera point-and-shoot. He shoots multi-million dollar ad campaigns with it. To answer Kim Siever – yep, you definitely can. American Apparel is a nice example of this.
Ryan Michael Kelly will openly admit to using a Canon G10 (~$400) for several editorials he’s shot for Vanity Fair etc.
But, both of those photographers use top-notch equipment for producing their prints and/or processing their film/digital files.
BTW – Most medium-format systems are running ~$20k these days.
I’ve always found that great equipment makes you realize the deficiencies in your own work much much quicker. That’s setting aside the fact that you might need to be great to even realize those deficiencies.
This discussion is closed.