Is It Really the Photographer and Not the Equipment?

MLKstudios wrote: Yes, you can.

photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-telephoto-lens/

They're only tools.

Imagine showing up to a wedding photography job with just that and acting all serious?!

Probably best used as a second camera. I know some very good wedding photographers who use Holgas for their effect.

I used to shoot weddings with a Yashica TLR, that cost me $100.

Conner wrote:

MLKstudios wrote: Yes, you can.

photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/iphone-telephoto-lens/

They're only tools.

Imagine showing up to a wedding photography job with just that and acting all serious?!

Justified Bridezilla?

Kai's done this in one of his videos, and the pro with a P&S did pretty well, but it was a lot of extra work.

I really think that it is both, the camera is an extention of the photographer. Like anything else we do it takes practice and an ever growing knowledge to take consistantly quality photographs. If you gave the right person that camera, you could help create a super photographer. In the wrong hands it would collect dust and become a paperweight

Proof here.................
news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/nas...aturn-144133480.html

NASA rocks their nifty-fifty! They are THAT good.

The tools are more important to some than to others. It depends on the requirements of the situation, and the personal style and preferences of the photographer. Some photographers are better at getting around the limitations of the gear than others. Some don't even want to try. I don't think that's a bad thing. People should find and use the tools that suit their style the best, and help them achieve the results they need. Tools that are easy to use are often the best.

If you can't get close to the subject then longer focal lengths are required. If you need to shoot in low light then good high ISO quality and fast lenses are handy. IMO on-camera flash shot directly at the subject looks lousy. I require a flash that can be bounced or used off camera, or some other light source. When I want shallow DOF when using fill flash for bright daylight portraits I want a high flash sync speed. Another photographer may get around this by using an assistant holding a reflector for the fill light.

I've found that people (experienced photographers) cannot tell the difference between large, landscape prints I shot with my old 20D (8mp) and a Sigma lens ($350ish), and those shot with my 5DII (21mp) and a Canon L lens ($1200ish). They also seem to be unable to sort those prints from my hand printed silver gelatin prints from 4x5 film. Yet the common internet belief is that there should be significant differences between all three. I think I could get good results with entry level DSLRs, but some people feel those cameras would be inadequate. I think if you believe something to be true it effectively is. The photog who truly believes they need the latest and greatest, or specialized gear to achieve decent results is not going to be satisfied with a Rebel, even if other folks get great results with the cheaper gear.

In the end generalizations such as "it's the photographer not the gear" or the other way around tend to be too general for the real world.

"Photography appears to be an easy activity; in fact it is a varied and ambiguous process in which the only common denominator among its practitioners is in the instrument." -HCB