Better gear equals better photos...

clicknimagine Avatar
clicknimagine Plus
13 1.3k 105 India
8 Jul 2020 6:14PM
Can you share your which side you are...
capto Avatar
capto Plus
11 7.4k 34 United Kingdom
8 Jul 2020 6:22PM
I think the answer is 'sometimes', it depends in whose hands it is in. Give me a grand piano and I would produce an awful noise.
Techno Avatar
Techno Plus
15 7.7k 8 England
8 Jul 2020 6:34PM
No photographer is as good as the simplest camera.

Edward Steichen
SlowSong Avatar
SlowSong Plus
15 11.1k 30 England
8 Jul 2020 6:37PM
It depends. Landscape images will have a better technical quality using a full frame dslr than if using a m43 compact. If you want gritty street shots, an unobtrusive m43 with a fast short zoom would be good. If you're talking about artistic quality, it depends upon the eye and imagination of the photographer.
pink Avatar
pink Plus
20 7.4k 11 England
8 Jul 2020 7:49PM
It can do, a faster lens can give you a more out of focus background or stop the action, a wide angle can give you a different view and can give you a different perspective.
However it still demands creative input from the photographer, in knowing what the gear can do and exploring its qualities.
I find a new lens inspires me much more than a new camera, it makes me go out and take pictures, and if you are taking pictures you will improve with experience.
justin c Avatar
justin c 19 5.2k 36 England
8 Jul 2020 8:06PM
Better gear certainly equates to better photos in some situations, but on the other side of the coin there's plenty of photographers with deep pockets who are fortunate to have the best camera's and lenses money can buy and struggle to get anything worthwhile.
Tianshi_angie Avatar
8 Jul 2020 8:08PM
I would say that it is a person who takes the photo, not the camera.
mattw Avatar
mattw 19 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
8 Jul 2020 10:28PM
Better gear certainly gives you more opportunities to capture the picture you have in your mind's eye.

It also gives a better technical quality.
But while we can all admire good technical quality (and it is critically important for professional photography) - never loose sight that what really makes a great image stand out is the emotional connection a viewer makes with an image - and this has little to do with technical quality or 'better gear'.
thewilliam2 Avatar
thewilliam2 6 1.7k United Kingdom
8 Jul 2020 11:29PM

Quote:I think the answer is 'sometimes', it depends in whose hands it is in. Give me a grand piano and I would produce an awful noise.

Some years back, we photographed the moving of a Steinway Concert Grand into a venue and when the piano tuner had finished, he invited me to have a go. Even though I was sat down at a quarter of a million quid's worth of piano, I couldn't get anything remotely resembling a tune. Cameras are much the same in that they need the hands and eye of a skilled user!
Carabosse Avatar
Carabosse Plus
20 44.3k 270 England
9 Jul 2020 1:16AM
Better gear can mean worse photos if it not a good match for the photographer and his/her abilities, especially if they are used to all-automatic smartphone photography.
hobbo Avatar
hobbo Plus
12 1.8k 4 England
9 Jul 2020 3:59AM
My current £400 second hand and vintage lens set up is producing work very close to that from a Leica monochrome kit costing Circa £8000 new. My recent posts demonstrate this.

I am extremely happy.... a photographer with a good eye behind the camera helps a lot too....

seahawk Avatar
seahawk 16 1.4k United Kingdom
9 Jul 2020 10:07AM
I suggest that David Thorpe's thoughts on this issue are worth reading here.
altitude50 Avatar
altitude50 19 23.9k United Kingdom
9 Jul 2020 10:33AM
For sharpness, contrast, detail, versatility an expensive camera might produce results with those attributes, but it cannot choose the subject yet.........

My own example is that about 5 years ago I entered an A4 print in my local camera club competition judged by a qualified person. She gave it 10/10 she made some very good remarks about it. The original was taken on a Pentax Optio 30 3.2 mp camera which I bought in about 2004 from Argos for £139.99.
My wife also uses a £49, new Nikon L30 Coolpix 20.1 mp camera and the results from it astonish me with the quality.
Having said that they could not be used for the high speed flash photos I am doing now, nor the infrared but it (they) would still be fine for undemanding daytime street or landscape if I chose to use them (but I am not allowed to use the Nikon!).
JJGEE Avatar
JJGEE 18 8.1k 18 England
9 Jul 2020 10:38AM
maybe better gear allows you to get a particular shot but not necessarily, in general, better photos.

I am thinking of say sports photography for example where a good telephoto lens & camera body allows excellent & fast autofocus and frames per second ?

But for a static, say architectural shot, one may not get a better photo than a so named kit lens on a low specification camera.
dark_lord Avatar
dark_lord Plus
19 3.0k 836 England
9 Jul 2020 11:44AM
It depends on what you mean by 'better'. You have to define the properties.
For example, a camera with reduced noise at high ISO will potentially give a 'better' image as it's smoother or allow you to take pictures in lower light than before without a solid support. But the viewer won't be bothered about that (unless they're a camera nerd rather than a photographer). Only if you can make (good) use of an improved specification or feature will there be a chance of improvement.
It depends on what lies a few centimetres behind the viewfinder...


You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join for free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.