I have also had some people who get mad and frustrated when they ask for my settings and I give them my settings, then they insist that they already use the same settings and don’t get the same results. So then I go into more detail as to how I go about shooting a set of pictures and I seem to loose them or make them more mad and frustrated. I have to remind myself that they are not getting mad at me, even though sometimes it seems that way, but that they are just frustrated with themselves.

The reason for this is that currently I don’t have the means to afford a “decent” camera, or so they say.
I also have my chances to shoot with an old sony cybershot compact camera(7mp) that is lying inside the family drawer but I didn’t bother to use it because it was pink in color. It will be awkward for me to use it in the streets. haha.

In late 2009 to 2010, I started shooting “mobile photography” with my Nokia N70.
Try to search up mobile photography, iphoneography.

Starting with the analogy, the same guitarist will be able to make the same melody on ANY guitar – provided it’s of the same type (i.e. acoustic vs electric). The difference comes in that the music will sound better on a higher quality guitar. This is because the better guitar has better tonality, resonance, etc. The melody, though, will be the same. You can’t play better because you have better gear (your skill is the same), but your playing will sound better with better gear.

On guitars of similar quality, the difference will not be as noticeable, but it will be there. The trained ear will pick it up more than the untrained ear. Of course, different guitars will offer anyone the capacity to do different things, which might not be possible on other types of equipment. For example, you cannot do high distortion pitch-bending heavy metal squeals on an acoustic, while that is possible on an electric guitar.

So… the analogy holds true. In photography terms, the same photographer, with two cameras of the same basic type (i.e. not one with a 600mm zoom compared to one with a 35mm), though different quality (i.e. one with top glass as opposed to one with entry level glass or a poor sensor), will be able to take the same photograph under similar conditions. However, the higher quality gear will generally make the photo ‘look’ better, even if they’re compositionally the same. Again, the differences may be less noticeable to the untrained eye, but they will be there.

When all is said and done, though, if someone says that’s a great photo, isn’t that what matters? As photographers we try to capture something we see (usually) so that we can show it to others. If it inspires the sort of reaction we want, I’d say that’s the point, not what camera someone thinks so have.

From some comments, there seem to be folks on here who take it personally when someone compliments their camera. WAKE UP CALL: they have complimented your shot! The concept of second level sarcasm is probably not what they intended, so get over yourself, keep shooting and keep getting people to say nice things about your images.

See you in the viewfinder….
Rob

So of course if someone told me I drive well because I have a “nice driver” it would be a little insulting considering the effort and commitment I put into honing my skill but I prefer to let my game play be my voice and not some negative comment in return. Much like golf manufacturers camera makers try to develop products that help the average amateur and weekend warrior shoot better. If they think buying a brand new 1500.00 dollar camera or club will make them shoot better then by all means go for it, it isn’t my money. Why should I care? If my skill is better than theirs I will beat them regardless of how much their equipment costs, if they are better than me they will beat me regardless of how much my equipment costs, within reason of course. But better technology helps all players/photographers shoot better. If it didn’t we would see all professional photographers using folding film cameras and all professional golfers using persimmons drivers and wooden shafts. The undeniable fact is that higher end technology is better technology, if it wasn’t why aren’t more of us out there shooting with D40s? After all we can produce the same quality images regardless of camera right?

Yes, I got some excellent shots with my cheap camera, before I upgraded to a DSLR. It’s not impossible, and a skilled photographer could doubtless do much better than me. However, I have gotten a lot more nice shots, and the nicest of my shots have gotten much nicer since I upgraded my equipment. With my point-and-shoot, I got a lot more bad shots than good. Now that I have a DSLR, I get a lot more good shots than bad (framing/subject may still be an issue, but at least the quality is there). So yes, my DSLR DOES take nice shots – at least relative to my point-and-shoot.

This post holds absolutely no weight. .. what exactly is trying to be said?

“You can spend all your money in professional equipment, but if you don’t have the skill to use it, it’s pretty much worthless” … ok this is true ( and common sense so what’s the point .. other than to be negative)

“Likewise, even if your equipment isn’t top notch, you can still accomplish wonderful things, as long as you know what it is capable of.” … the key phrases here are “wonderful things” .. what is defined by that? I’m guessing not professional quality because otherwise it would make sense to say you could accomplish professional quality … but you cannot produce the same quality with low-end gear and so we have … wonderful things.
Second part to look at is “what it is capable of” … in other words you can take “nice pictures” (snapshots) when you are confronted with the perfect conditions that the equipment can handle ….. This doesn’t even need to be explained .. Come on now … This type of thinking is a joke (especially after making cracks about pros compensating a lack of skill with expensive gear)

As for the wildlife professor story … Maybe that was a sign that the professor wasn’t doing his job. And Again … what level are we talking about … “nice pictures” or professional quality?

To be perfectly honest I’ve been hearing this same basic statement for over 20 years and I’m sure it was being said long before that …. it’s not the camera it’s the photographer. The interesting fact is that in almost every case it is said by a non-working professional who cannot afford to purchase the equipment they are saying a photographer does not need. This is just an age old justification used by people who don’t have pro equipment and are bothered by it. If you’re happy with a low-end camera then that’s great .. enjoy photography and have fun with it. However, don’t be negative against professionals who are using high-end equipment and shooting top-end clients on a daily basis.

Which makes more sense .. pros spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on professional equipment because that is what is needed to successfully compete on a professional level and produce a higher level of quality.

or

pros are spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to cover up the fact that they don’t know what they are doing .. because somebody who cannot afford to buy all that cool equipment said so.

So what are my thoughts on this post? … Extremely non-professional thinking .. but it produced “nice comment numbers”