The Truth

link I agree with every word

I wholeheartedly agree Ken.

If I could go back in time I would have spent the money on glass. I cant see me upgrading from my K-5 for a while

What goes around comes around

I don't agree with it at all. Of course the photographer needs the 'vision' and skills to do well with any camera, but a particular camera that shines in some technical aspect that emphasises a specific element of the capture (eg autofocus, high iso performance, practical photo capture aids such as low light af assist etc etc ... Well, those cameras will always be worth seeking out, they WILL lead to better photos.

The points about noise and grain are nonsense...digital noise does nothing in low light to enhance an image, its just a scourge to be reduced. Give a great photographer an even better camera and the photos will be even greater.

Yes - but most of us are not great photographers, so improving the organic bit behind the viewfinder often has a much greater effect on output than buying better hardware.

Andrew

Well that's a different question ... Will giving an average photographer a greater camera mean the photos will be a little less average?

I totally agree with this photoblog. Its the photographer not the camera that makes a great photo. And there just isn't a bad camera in production right now, at least among the SLRs. Of course some offer more high spec than others, the price tags reflect this.



I doubt it Nigel, but I know you like to stir up creative debate so well done in offering a differing opinion.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

I've been seeking-out high-speed film since 1980 just for the grain and now I routinely add noise to digital images that I feel are too clean.
The article is deliberately provocative, polarising the argument. 'All the gear, no idea' is very often the case, but there are still some shitty lenses and cameras which will make capturing your vision really painful, if not impossible. My current bête noire is the WG-3 - simply incapable of doing what I want (I've just thrown away 4 day's worth of holiday images where it has either missed the action, bleached out the highlights, washed out the colours, missed the focus... etc. Not one decent picture. I definitely had the vision and I gave it so many chances; it definitely didn't have the capability.
If I was in a war zone, the subject would be so powerful, it wouldn't matter and I would be glad of a robust little device, but my children playing in the waves with the sun glistening on the curling breakers should be a similarly poignant image for me; an image I can forgive a few technical deficiencies, but the camera failed to capture anything but a mess.

I think that a good photographer will often take better photos than a mediocre one with pretty much any camera available today. A mediocre photographer will improve with practice and by learning from others - not by buying a "greater camera".

Andrew

Once again - can I ask for a bit of info about what it being linked to?

Stupidly, I expected better from one of the moderation team...

Ray, have you actually clicked the link?

Yes, but that's irrelevant. I've asked before if people can give a bit of info so that we can make an informed choice as to whether we click or not. In the spirit of the post forum-war era I really had hoped people would have the courtesy to do so.

Apparently not.

I'm not sure why you think the moderation team or anyone else is being discourteous.
Just double click with your mouse over the red word 'link' in Ken's post and the item will come up automatically. I'm not sure why you think the moderation team or anyone else is being discourteous.
David

PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

Its true. An average shooter will take average photos that are better exposed and sharper with a great camera. People forget Cartier Bresson and the like often shot with just one 35mm lens using a film with a fixed iso. Their kit was primitive compared to a K3.

Think what RayB means is that Kens OP is too cryptic, not giving any clue as to the content of the link