The Truth

Agree completely Yves. There are a very few situations where a poor quality (technically) image might enhance a capture, as a sort of retro effect, but that's now the domain of instagram and the likes. Lets not restrict this to sensor performance either. There are plenty of practical photo taking aids built into high spec cameras that make a huge difference to 'bagging the shot'. Referring back to Marks comments about the beach action shots an the glistening water ... Not something that's ever tripped up the K7, and in that situation I'm definitely a better photographer as a result of using my K7.

Ken, its well and truly time to change the title of this thread ...

Nigel, for the sake of what this thread was originally about would you care to name a bad dslr, a bad sensor, a bad lens or even a bad camera bag currently in production?

Of course tools make a difference, but limitations spur creativity.

Only have a wide-angle lens and want a portrait? Innovate.

Only have your phone to shoot a scene? Innovate.

Limitations force us to think in different ways and not to just take the shot in the first way that comes into our heads, which will likely only work if we have everything with us, time to prepare and a dose of luck, and that doesn't happy too often.

If your equipment doesn't do what you'd like then do something else that you know it can do.

But the more sophisticated the tool the more options and creative choices become available, and realizable. A better camera doesn't stifle innovation, it frees the creative spirit ... You need to read the manual though. Better to have as many possibilities as you can on hand in a single camera ... That will help to take greater shots.

Ken, I didn't see the article as primarily saying there was no bad equipment now, I saw it as saying that the tools come second and a better camera won't help anyone take better images. I can't accept that at all, its nonsense, and it depends how we define 'bad', but really there still are designs that are less effective, or not effective at all and should be avoided...I won't know any of those because I chose Pentax (lol). But that little compact has been spoken of here negatively, and really, my own K7 is frequently derided right here on this forum... You'd think it couldn't be switched on in anything less than bright sunshine! But its a superb image making tool, and has made me a better photographer undoubtedly.

I would it sum up in so far as I still have my K10D.

(But I'd buy a K3 like a shot if I had the money.)

He says 'No one is making a bad camera or a bad lens or a bad light or a bad camera bag or a bad sensor' and 'Now, more than any other time in history, it is possible for you to create a better image.'

The article is not about a sophisticated modern camera vs, say, a box brownie.

It's about how all sophisticated modern cameras are excellent, and there's not as much difference between them as the forum chatter would lead you to believe: 'If you want better pictures, just go out and get a camera and a lens and whatever you need to create the scene that you want. You know why? Because no one is making bad products anymore.'

Nigel

The 'fact' that you have older gear and, If I remember, were quite opposed to my buying of the K5 iis, shows that you actually subscribe to the concept that old gear and lenses are just fine thank you!

I love an argument too- but your argument is lost in the foundation of your equipment. I take reasonable photographs with any gear- from the Canon Ftb to the K5 iis. Regular shooting is all.

There's no reason for 'old' to equate to unsophisticated. I don't see old lenses as limited technically really.... Today I was out in the streets of swanage with the 'A' 28mm f2.8, using auto-exposure in Av mode, exposure compensations and flicking instantly between catch-in-focus mode and normal shooting instantly with the af.s m lever on the K7, a great example of the marriage of 30 year old and modern technologies helping and enabling greater shots more efficiently. Its not really about the age of any items, more their effectiveness for us now. Simon, I sure I was not specifically telling you or anyone not to get an 's' model ... It was about seeing where the effect would be most obvious given anyone's personal processing style and workflow. Bye the way, why did you choose the K5IIs? Did you feel it would help you take better shots?

Will, I take your points, but really, once we get beyond the very limiting meaning of 'bad' ...we all know there's plenty of gear out there that we wouldn't waste our money on!

The K10 is still a good camera used within its limitations, I just bought one deliberately when I could have had a later Pentax for just a little more. I'll concede action pictures might be challenging on it!

I chose the 's' because I could as I had just been made redundant and it was a lot cheaper than the K3! I have always wanted a body for 'feel'. THis camera did that for me....!

So it was for the feel ... Ergonomics are an important part of what a camera offers, so that's a perfectly valid reason, although it wouldn't explain a choice between 's' or non 's'

So the question is then, dies the feel of the camera, a good a d valuable quantity to you, help you get better shots and therefore be a better photographer?

Our cameras today (and I mean any DSLR from about 6 or 7 years ago up to today) are wonderful sophisticated machines - even the most basic entry level DSLR - they are really over kill - for most people it's a bit like buying a Concord and just using it to go down the shops and back.

We all agree that the photographer is important but to assert that the tools are not an equally significant factor is absolute drivel to put it mildly. It's a bit like trying to claim that the Red Baron would have still be a WW1 Ace if he was fighting Spitfires in his Fokker Triplane!

Regards
David

Yep I hate when folk do that - click on this but I'm not giving you a clue what it is - winds me right up

Photographers were taking superb photographs long before the Red Baron took to the sky!