Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Phil66, Mar 11, 2012.
Was it worth me buying a Panny G3?
Your Camera Doesn't Matter
If you enjoy using it and are pleased with the results it gives you...then YES.
What surprised me about photography is that there are actually a trio of hobbies involved...
One is taking pictures.
Second is post processing them in Lightroom.
And the third is this forum -member which is to say that the looking up and learning about the gear...
To a certain degree I tend to agree that the camera does not matter in that the photographer probably has the greatest impact on the image (as opposed to the camera or even lens). That said choice of camera is more than that. For instance I love the Panasonic G2. It has nothing to do with it having better specifications of sensor (because it is generally not well thought of) but because I find it incredibly comfortable and fun to use. Because I enjoy using it so much I use it a lot more.
So, was it worth you buying the G3? Do you like it? If so, then YES!!!
This is such typical Ken Rockwell drivel...
Okay, so let's get over this "a good photographer takes good photos and a bad photographer takes bad photos" thing, and consider that the SAME good photographer can take much BETTER photos using a real camera and not a camera phone. Who cares what the bad photographer is using?
What does it matter to you that some schmuck is shooting bad photos on a D3X? That doesn't change the fact that what YOU shoot with still makes a difference to YOUR photos.
Ken Rockwell is a hack trust fund baby who set up a website. He says ridiculous things like this so that people post it and discuss it, driving traffic to his website and lining his already-full pockets with even more money. He wrote that nonsense, yet he owns a D3, D3x, and has the D800 on preorder (minutes before claiming to everyone that it's not a worthwhile upgrade to his D700, no less). Every one of his outlandish statements is contrary to his actions. Every time you click on his website, he laughs to the bank. Every time you link to his website, he laughs to the bank and back. In another photo forum, I just had to explain to a newbie why the D3000 is NOT Nikon's "worst camera ever" (according to Rockwell, because it has no bracketing), even though the D40 is Rockwell's favorite camera ever (even though it's a last-gen D3000 and also has no bracketing).
If you want some real, objective, educated views on this subject (and others), then visit some respected photographers such as Thom Hogan (at bythom.com and sansmirror.com), Michael Reichmann (at luminous-landscape.com), etc. Thom is actually a large proponent of Olympus cameras, and Reichmann is a pretty large proponent of Panasonic, and is probably the most respected reviewer online that has championed it.
You beat me to it. A good photog with a good camera will consistently capture better images than a good photog with a crappy camera. Generally, the better than the camera the easier to consistently capture the exceptional image.
Any photog with any camera can get the occasional 'exceptional image' every now and then (monkeys and typewriters). It is the good photog, (professional in my mind), which can consistently capture the exceptional image.
PS- Ned is on the spot that it doesn't matter what some other schmuck is shooting ... the photo quality some other schmuck is creating doesn't matter either ... the only thing that matters is the photo quality that is contained in your images.
Other schmucks' equipment and images are important as a comparison gauge to your skill level. As in "Man, he/she shot that with an iPhone!!! ...". Other schmucks' images and equipment are good for self-criticism and inspiration. Both self-criticism and inspiration go a long long way to self-improvement.
I have a standing rule, before I assume/adopt/accept the photographic opinion of others, I look at their photo-site. If the photog displays good stuff in her/his photo-site, then I think she/he knows what they're talking about. If their stuff is crap, then ...
Rockwell's stuff is pretty much crap.
Well, I've seen some shooters results with a Nikon D3s that were nothing spectacular....And on the other hand, I've seen some shooters results with an iPhone that were stunning....
So equipment doesn't matter? If I took your Contax from you and made you shoot with this:
Amazon.com: Disney Princess 35mm Flash Camera Kit: Toys & Games
I assume your photos would be just as good? Funny how it's the guys with either the most expensive equipment or the cheapest equipment downplaying the role of gear.
Lance Armstrong could still kick my ass if he were riding a Huffy, but that doesn't mean that there's no reason for anything better to exist.
I didn't say that
All I made was an observation.
But since you're challenging me - I'll also say this. :smile:
I've seen some Nikon D3s shooters shots that are absolutey stunning - and I've seen some iPhone shooters who have shots that are marginal at best.
So to answer your question, - it is a combination of both.....shooter and equipment...
Gary hits the nail right on the head.
On most forums there are on average 60% of the members who do not post images for all to see and these tend to be the most outspoken "self proclaimed" experts on all things technical and aesthetic - usually they are the trolls of the site.
I have to say in defence of this site and the sister site that there appears to be a higher percentage of genuine photographers than "armchair critics" - luckily!
That does still not take away the fact that like Gary, I judge credibility on the photographic results a person posts (that are of their own making) rather than on what they say.
Since I got my Photo qualifications many years ago I have learned even more from other photographers and their images about seeing and capturing good images, it has proved the greatest source of inspiration and development ever.
Posting your images not only serves as encouragement to others but allows feedback and suggestions that can make us all better photographers, that is the joy of forums and sharing and the old saying still stands true today - "actions speak louder than words".
what's the saying? life is a journey, not destination? well, I feel photography is as much about end product as about the experience. it's true that my pics are gonna suck no matter what, but I can at least enjoy the process, and having a fast lens makes me feel pretty good.
this pretty much applies to anything in life, i mean, cars, TVs, hamburgers. sure we can get by and even get the same results from cheaper and less full feature things, but I am pretty sure that's not how we got out of the stone ages.
I don't post because I am not good enough, I don't comment because it would be a valuless comment ... I do look at everyone else's photos and am learning ... so, thank you all those of you who do post photos, and please, in my own defence, not everyone who doesn't post is a self proclaimed expert
Your camera does matter…sometimes.
I take most of my shots walking around my suburb. I go out with my E-P3 with only the lens I choose before leaving home. That choice determines what I tend to shoot and what I can't. I miss a lot of bird shots when I don't have the 40-150 on the camera. I've made a number of shots where I caught a bird in flight with the 45 or the 17, even the 12, and they're useless because if I crop enough to show just what I want the picture looks crappy at any reasonable size. Substitute camera type (large or medium format, full frame, slr, camera phone) for lens in those comments and the same applies—the choice of tool is important for what you can and can't do.
Over and above what the particular camera can do, there's the intangibles of feel and involvement. I carried a Panasonic LX-3 in my bag for a couple of years before getting the E-P3 and rarely took a photo. I never "bonded" with it. I got the E-P3 and suddenly started taking photos again. The LX-3 takes reasonable photos and I could shoot anything I shoot with the E-P3 apart from what I shoot with the 40-150 with the LX-3 but I didn't. The camera makes a difference if choosing one over another means you start or stop taking photos.
I could even say the camera that encourages you to take photos makes you a better photographer because you get to be a better photographer by taking photos. Anything that helps you take more photographs, or be able to take the photographs you want to take, makes you a better photographer and why should cameras be excluded from that list?
And of course a camera can make you a worse photographer if it doesn't let you make the photographs you want to make, or erodes your passion because it simply "doesn't feel right" so you slowly stop picking it up.
Still, the camera isn't a magic wand. Picking one camera over another won't automatically help you or make you better. You've got to put in the work if you want to be better and you have to pick a tool that not only can do the work you want to use it for but that you'd like to use to do that work, and it has to be good enough to deliver the sort of result you want. If all you want to do is e-mail photos to friends, a camera phone may be more than enough but if you want to produce large prints of small subjects taken at great distances it most certainly won't be good enough.
All cameras aren't equal and there are lots of reasons why camera A can be better than camera B for person X and the reverse can be true for person Y. If the camera didn't make a difference, both people could use either camera equally well and be equally happy. That's obviously not the case.
No, Gary... It's FART... quoting Ken...
"I take my best pictures when I FART first. FARTing helps us remember to make a strong, meaningful photo instead of just snapping away and winding up with a lot of boring, thoughtless snapshots... If you forget to FART first, as most people do, your photos will usually be boring. FART first, and you'll make better pictures."
I kid you not. FART for Fantastic Photos
I have never been a fan of Ken Rockwell, nor of anyone else who "reviews" cameras that he or she has never used. But these words from his article have been said before by others, most of whom are much wiser than Ken:
"It's always better to spend your time and money on learning art and photography, not by spending it on more cameras."
It is all too easy to be seduced by the latest camera, lens or accessory, when the best way to improve your photography is to learn more.
If there's one very important lesson to learn about photography, it's to ignore Ken Rockwell.
Rockwell has his place - his site was invaluable when I was first starting out. He's good at explaining certain concepts in a way that beginners can understand, and he writes articles like this one to stop beginners from just giving up or thinking they'll never be good enough until they have some awesome equipment. I found his lens reviews fair and pretty spot-on while I was a Nikonian.
Equipment doesn't matter more than the photographer's eye and mind, but it still matters quite a bit in the enjoyment of the hobby/profession, and the good shot to bad shot ratio. So no, your G3 was not a bad investment unless you don't like it, and even if you don't, it keeps value better than most electronic equipment.
Separate names with a comma.