No question ever raised by a human being that contains even a single abstraction is ever settled. There are still people arguing in favour of a flat earth
(although with how much tongue in cheek I can't say).
Each proposition like "it's the photographer, not the camera", as this thread proves, is not cherished for it's ... OK: I have to say it ... truthiness
, but for it's catalytic efficiency in that most human of all human endeavours - the bar stool debate. I can well understand Michael's exasperation when an old chestnut like this is dragged into an equipment purchasing thread. But even if someone could
settle the issue, he'd be doing photographers everywhere a profound disservice in removing one of a limited number of photo-related conversation-starters from the photo forum, pub, camp fire, and coffee house repertoire.
How many megapixels does it take to equal film?
How far can you enlarge a [fill-in-the-blank]-megapixel image?
Is photography an art form?
Nikon vs. Canon.
Who makes the best tripod?
German lenses are superior to Japanese lenses.
Primes are better than zooms.
SLRs are superior to rangefinders.
A simple old all-manual SLR is better than a modern, fully automated, whizz-bang wonder-cam.
Large formats are superior to smaller ones.
All the thousands of frames you young-uns shoot now-a-days just proves you don't know how to use a camera.
Film is dead.
Yes: the list goes on - but not forever. We need to cherish every one of these debate-provokers, not destroy them ... otherwise we'd have to listen to yet another discussion on who makes the best luxury car or which political candidate will win the next election or which team will make the play-offs.