Your Camera Does NOT Matter

[lovell]

This isn't a very good argument.  What if his composition was top notch to begin with?  Then improving his image quality may very well improve his work.  Blanket statements from either side in this argument aren't very helpful.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suspect you misunderstood my point, and I think you might find that we actually agree ;-)

You should agree sir, that if the comp is craap, then the higher image quality will also be craap.  This is true every single time.

Now if the comp is great, then the higher IQ makes it even better.  This is true too, every single time too.

Two blanket statements that are true every single time ;-)

Here's a 3rd blanket statement that is true:  A better kit will not improve one's compositional skills.  If it did, then I'd replace my two 5D's with one 1DS Mark III...wish it were that easy ;-)

Photography is a subjective art, that is build on the foundation of some objective methods, truisms, and blanket statements ;-)

What may well be subjective is the term "better camera".  For a given vision, result a $30 Holga with a plastic lens might be the "better camera" because it offers the less then perfect look that the $8,000 1DS Mark III might not be able to provide, if that look is what one is wanting.

[Slough]

A new camera "improved" your photography?  What do you mean by improve?  You mean to say it improved the image quality of your shots?  Well then, image quality is NOT composition, and really, the ONLY way to improve one's photography where it matters is in composition.  The improvement of image quality simply means one's craap work is just sharper, less noise, and cleaner, but at the end of the day, it's still craap.

In other words, a better kit has never improved one's photography where it matters, and that is composition.

Don't get me wrong, as I am in the "the kit matters" camp, but at the same time I think the only way to improve one's pictures is when one improves their vision, their ability to compose.

On the other hand, image quality is just that, and has NOTHING to do with composition, as IQ only supports the composition and not is the composition.

Another way to say it:  Take the cheapest digital point & shoot, and you will find that that camera will compose no worse then the most expensive digital DSLR available for purchase.  The only really big advantage of the expensive DSLR is that it provides better image quality, but what good is better IQ if the composition is craap?

Kit does matter, but for reasons that might be different from yours. ;-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Without meaning to be rude, what you say is rather obvious. It can be rephrased as "Good equipment will not a good photographer make" or "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear"

As far as I am concerned a poorly composed image has poor image quality. (You are probably defining image quality in a manner that suits your statement.) And in my book an image that is well composed but very soft is (usually) crap. Image quality is a combination of factors: sharpness, colour, lighting, shapes, composition, emotional pull, and so on. Sometimes an image should be soft, or have muted colours. Most of these factors are dependent on the photographer's skill and vision, not the camera, though in some disciplines, such as sports photography, a certain level of equipment is needed to allow the photographer to realise their vision. But to make a blanket statement as Ken does that the camera does not matter is crass and ignorant.

Anyway most of the points made in this thread, including my own, are rather obvious and trite.

But the key point that I have tried to make is that Ken's article is badly written, badly articulated, confused, and plain wrong. But that is not of concern to Ken. What he wants to do is generate publicity and get advertising clicks to generate his income.

[mrleonard]

Anyway most of the points made in this thread, including my own, are rather obvious and trite.

But the key point that I have tried to make is that Ken's article is badly written, badly articulated, confused, and plain wrong. But that is not of concern to Ken. What he wants to do is generate publicity and get advertising clicks to generate his income.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190561\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes...but it was not in fact Ken's article that was so much in question as MR's rebuttal. I  also don't subscribe to the convoluted idea that there is a calculated intention in KR's 'essay'. I think it's just his opinion. Ideally he may want more clicks ,generate revenue etc....but if that was his only intention, he'd probably just write porn.

Yay! It's back! Is it? Please?