Although this is an age old question, I think it's one that moves with the times as the level of technology advances.
I've recently been thinking a lot about the question and would be interested to know what your opinion is.
For this question, use your own definition of 'better equipment' e.g. more expensive, more features, more robust, etc.
I suppose you'll have to use your own definition of 'better photographer' too!
What a person can do with a better camera does increase but it takes a good photographer to recognize those situations. Imo, camera does not make the photographer.
Claude Monet, Leonardo Da Vinci, Picasso all were very poor and had the cheapest of materials and tools. In many cases their tools were improvised (home made).
I don't think the quality of the equipment had an effect on their skill or talent. A determination to express yourself and attention to the important details is a mark of success in any endeavor.
Better equipment equips the photographer to take better shots, he gets much wider range to play with & it can shine his skill but its the photographer who takes the shot, so that doesn't mean it will make a bad photographer good. It can only make good photographer better!
I can take bad photos with better equipment just as easily as I can take bad photos with mediocre equipment.
Better equipment may help you accomplish more, but learning and implementing things like the rule of thirds, tension, and leading lines is what will truly make you a better photographer.
absolutelly agree with you!!!
just look at the photos before digital era and the same now, I saw a lot of great shots made on simple cameras and I saw tons of poor photos made on top cameras that costs thousands.
to be a great photographer you have to look at the world from another corner and camera is only a tool!
I'm on the side of better equipment has some value, but without knowledge and skill learnt, it will do you no good.
A certain person I know recently (not so recently actually, when I got my first non-SLR bridge camera) said to me that they had just bought an high-end Cannon SLR!! I'd never known them to take any interest in photography, barely taking pics with their phone. I didn't imagine then , nor has it happened, that I would see awesome pictures from them. To me, it appeared at the time as a complete waste of money for their needs...
What I have now in my Fujifilm S9600 is perfect for what I need to learn. It could have better qualities true, but it has been an invaluable tool so far in the learning experience.
A professional or prof-amature photographer would prefer to have the best equipment to suit their knowledge, while those of us who know next to nothing can do OK with what works. Each to their own necessity.
I bought better equipment (entry-level DSLR) and my photographing got better.. Better is the word, not good. I think most who replied here missed the point. You wont be a Davinci but a better Joe-photograhper if I may say so.. definitely.
I don't disagree, WDG, but it is important to point out that you (as an example) were already a very good photographer.
Many of us read the survey in the sense (to paraphrase a famous expression), "The equipment makes the photographer" (as in 'the clothes make the man')
Certainly, better tools allow you to exercise your talent/skill more freely. In many fields beginners strive to have "the perfect tools", hoping it can compensate for lacking talent.
You know Terry Richardson shoots with disposible point-n-shoot sort of things and he is famous famous famous photog based in New York. Does alot of advertising and editirial stuff.
So that's a no...
Well, it probably does not make you a better photographer, I agree, but it saves much time for you so you may devote it more to build your skills, than to fight with noise, chromatic aberrations, etc. so at the end, it makes you a better photographer.
I think, any artist with good equipment SHOULD try to make good shots with point-n-shoot cameras - just to feel the difference.
It gets better I have to agree. But the pictures you might take will still look dumpy as you need your own style, which you can create even with a crappy camera.
Armchair summed it up the best so far, Better equipment will do nothing but improve on the skills you already have. If you have none, Wont do you much good.
Here's an interesting thread over at DPR, on the top of 'better' equipment.
I had a teacher once that said a camera is just a tool, like a hammer and you can still build a great house with an old beat up hammer.
Having said that, I agree technology does play a role and I think learning to be a better photographer is going to help more than new equipment.
Better equipment does allow you to take better photos but it does not necessarily make you a better photographer. It is not as obvious for landscapes but a fast tele lens for low light sports, a good macro lens with a nice flash setup for close-ups, a long lens for birds and wildlife, etc can be very beneficial.
Lars Leber hit the nail on the head. Equipment helps take better photographs but it does not help you be a better photographer.
Photography is an art, and if you don't have an "artistic eye" the camera is not going to give you one
Take a look at the microstock photo sites and you can see the differences.
Better camera makes better files NOT better images/photographs.
not necessarily but yes i think a good camera and accessories add to your art of clicking images...
It really depends.. I learned how to take photos w/ my cannon sti, if i had anything less it wouldnt have had manual. At some point better equipment can enhance your skills but dosnt make them.
next page →