Good photography is about much more than technical quality of the image.
I have used a wide range of camera equipment over the years, from the most basic full-auto 35mm compact film cameras to high end dSLRs with a wide array of diferent lenses. I even got an antique Leica III that i do some BW photography with once in a while.
The quality of my photos are in no way determined by which equipment I have used.
Yes, sometimes when using a compact digital, I could have wished for the longer zoom or ability to work in a wider light-range than the compact allows, but the motive itself have always been my main focus. And even with low end equipment, I'm able to get good shots, with no less ease than what the bigger models allow.
Of course, manual controls are important if I want to take more channelging photos. This is something rarely provided by compacts, and for this reason you can end up blaming the limitation of the techonolgy on the camera itself.
These days, I mainly use a compact, because I will then carry it with me more often, than what I would with a mid-range (Canon G-series) or an dSLR, and in the end, the best camera is the one you have with you
Of courseif you are willing to carry bigger equipment with you, you can increase you capabilities with better equipment. Of two equal skilled photographers, the one using the best equipment is of course more prone to take the better shots. But it still comes down to the skills of the photographer, and not the techincal equipment used.
I have seen so many unskilled photographer carry equipment around for in excess of 10k£ and still not being able to get a real good shot.
What low-quality equipment and world-class skills can produce:
(by Ansel Adams)
I have used a wide range of camera equipment over the years, from the most basic full-auto 35mm compact film cameras to high end dSLRs with a wide array of diferent lenses. I even got an antique Leica III that i do some BW photography with once in a while.
The quality of my photos are in no way determined by which equipment I have used.
Yes, sometimes when using a compact digital, I could have wished for the longer zoom or ability to work in a wider light-range than the compact allows, but the motive itself have always been my main focus. And even with low end equipment, I'm able to get good shots, with no less ease than what the bigger models allow.
Of course, manual controls are important if I want to take more channelging photos. This is something rarely provided by compacts, and for this reason you can end up blaming the limitation of the techonolgy on the camera itself.
These days, I mainly use a compact, because I will then carry it with me more often, than what I would with a mid-range (Canon G-series) or an dSLR, and in the end, the best camera is the one you have with you
Of courseif you are willing to carry bigger equipment with you, you can increase you capabilities with better equipment. Of two equal skilled photographers, the one using the best equipment is of course more prone to take the better shots. But it still comes down to the skills of the photographer, and not the techincal equipment used.
I have seen so many unskilled photographer carry equipment around for in excess of 10k£ and still not being able to get a real good shot.
What low-quality equipment and world-class skills can produce:
(by Ansel Adams)
