# Nikon's FB Page "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses..."



## Canon 14-24 (Sep 28, 2011)

Apologize if wrong sub-forum thread to upload this, but this was made an hour ago by Nikon on their facebook page:


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 29, 2011)

The converse is 
equipment can only capture images as good as the photographer, and I can assure you that I am much more of a limiting factor than my equipment. 

The only time I feel truly limited by my equipment is photos in low light situations where additional lighting is not allowed, and even in low light, my equipment is much more capable than only a few years ago. There are lots of camera and lens features that would make life easier, but are not truly limiting.


----------



## dash2k8 (Sep 29, 2011)

I agree with the poster above me. You can hand a 1DsM3 to a noob and that will not turn him into Ansel Adams. But you could put a point-n-shoot in Adams' hands and get a very respectable (albeit not masterpiece) picture.

I once ran into someone who bought a 7D + 85mm f/1.2 L + 580EX II as his FIRST ever kit. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and took a lot of stuff that more experienced photog's could take with an iPhone.

I would only go as far as saying the equipment should match the skill level of the user. Both are equally important.


----------



## dr croubie (Sep 29, 2011)

I have absolutely no doubt that with my P&S, i could take a better photo than my gf (with no photographic skill) could using my 7D and any combo of my lenses.

but then i'm sure some here could use an iphone to get a better shot than i could with full access to any canikonelblad equipment.

good equipment helps, but the real skill is in using the equipment you have...


----------



## Dave (Sep 29, 2011)

> A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses...



rubbish... I bet you... A 600D with the kit lense in the hand of a good photographer will result in much(!!!) better photos than a 1D with an L lense in the hand of someone who never touched a SLR


----------



## dmills (Sep 29, 2011)

I totally agree with all of the above, and that you can take great photos with cheap equipment. Just to play devil's advocate though...

What if you took a photographer that takes pretty good photos with a 600D + Kit lens and handed them a 1ds with an 85 1.2? I've gotta say that the quality of my images went up dramatically when I bought my first DSLR 

Of course, the rub of the whole statement is "only as good as", when there are many tricks you can do with lighting/post production to squeeze better images out of devices that weren't designed with those uses in mind. I've seen many examples of studio photographers using their iphone to take great pictures. On the other hand, they used thousands of dollars worth of studio lighting + makeup artists, so to me, it kind of undermines their point. 

All things being equal, the same photographer will take better pictures with better equipment 9 times out of 10. We all know this or we wouldn't even bother buying more equipment (except of course to show off our new equipment)  

Anyway, in a general sense, I agree with all of you, but I think there is still a grain of truth in Nikon's statement.


----------



## recon photography (Sep 29, 2011)

every1 read this incorrectly, doesn't look like much thought was put into the comment but they are just saying you cant paint a house correctly if you have a brush and some black paint and your client wants yellow


----------



## pinnaclephotography (Sep 29, 2011)

Well, Nikon is trying to sell it's equipment, so it is hardly an unbiased source of information. I agree with those who posted before; the photographer is (almost always) more important than the gear he is using. On the other hand, I have certainly encountered situations where my gear was insufficient for the task at hand.

For kicks, here are a few old point and shoot shots I took, 4 years ago:



Mount Cannon and Bird Woman Falls [explore 08/29/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr




reflections by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr




into the storm by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr




wild wool factories by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr


----------



## Meh (Sep 29, 2011)

Dave said:


> rubbish... I bet you... A 600D with the kit lense in the hand of a good photographer will result in much(!!!) better photos than a 1D with an L lense in the hand of someone who never touched a SLR



You're statement is true but I don't think that's what the Nikon FB post is saying. While you're suggesting two different photographers each with different equipment the statement from Nikon is comparing one photographer using different equipment... the implication being higher versus lower quality equipment in the hands of the same person Question then is if any given photographer would take better pictures with better equipment. I don't think that's necessarily true... depends whether the photographer or the equipment is the limiting factor (i.e. the weakest link). If the person has never used anything other than a camera phone they might not even be able to turn a DSLR on and attach the lens so they won't get a picture at all. In the hands of a pro, it might be fair to say that a he/she will almost always get a better picture with a better camera and lens (better meaning better suited to the type of picture being taken of course).


----------



## gmrza (Sep 29, 2011)

Meh said:


> You're statement is true but I don't think that's what the Nikon FB post is saying. While you're suggesting two different photographers each with different equipment the statement from Nikon is comparing one photographer using different equipment... the implication being higher versus lower quality equipment in the hands of the same person Question then is if any given photographer would take better pictures with better equipment. I don't think that's necessarily true... depends whether the photographer or the equipment is the limiting factor (i.e. the weakest link). If the person has never used anything other than a camera phone they might not even be able to turn a DSLR on and attach the lens so they won't get a picture at all. In the hands of a pro, it might be fair to say that a he/she will almost always get a better picture with a better camera and lens (better meaning better suited to the type of picture being taken of course).



You reminded me about a comment which is often made in cycling: it's "90% rider and 10% bike". Putting me on a fancy Colnago will not make me win the TdF. However, in a pro race, that 10% counts, and it counts for a lot, because races are determined on seconds or less.

Yervant (or name your favourite pro photog) would be able to do produce some very good photos with a 600D and a kit lens, I am sure, but to compete in the market at the level which he does, he needs the very best equipment.
There is no substitute for skill, as others have pointed out, but at the highest levels of performance, equipment can make that small (even minute) difference that separates one photographer, or cyclist, or racing driver, etc. from another.
Put the other way around - putting me on an expensive Colnago is, right now, about as useful as putting lipstick on a pig.


----------



## UncleFester (Sep 29, 2011)

gmrza said:


> Meh said:
> 
> 
> > You're statement is true but I don't think that's what the Nikon FB post is saying. While you're suggesting two different photographers each with different equipment the statement from Nikon is comparing one photographer using different equipment... the implication being higher versus lower quality equipment in the hands of the same person Question then is if any given photographer would take better pictures with better equipment. I don't think that's necessarily true... depends whether the photographer or the equipment is the limiting factor (i.e. the weakest link). If the person has never used anything other than a camera phone they might not even be able to turn a DSLR on and attach the lens so they won't get a picture at all. In the hands of a pro, it might be fair to say that a he/she will almost always get a better picture with a better camera and lens (better meaning better suited to the type of picture being taken of course).
> ...



Don't forget the EPO, for heaven's sake!


----------



## dgsphto (Sep 29, 2011)

The way I interpreted it, it seems Nikon wanted to say that No matter how good a photographer is, the equipment is one of his/her limiting factors. Isn't that why we all make choices with what gear we pick? I don't see anything wrong with that statement!


----------



## Blaze (Sep 29, 2011)

> The way I interpreted it, it seems Nikon wanted to say that No matter how good a photographer is, the equipment is one of his/her limiting factors. Isn't that why we all make choices with what gear we pick? I don't see anything wrong with that statement!



Yeah, equipment can indeed be limiting. I don't care how good of a photographer you are, you won't be able to get acceptable images in the situations I frequently shoot in (e.g. fast sports in poorly lit gyms with no flash allowed). My 7D with f/2.8 glass wide open is barely good enough sometimes. I can't wait to get a 5DIII and some fast primes!


----------



## NotABunny (Sep 29, 2011)

Obviously, the people who get annoyed by that comment are those who have not exploited their gear at the maximum. Which means that they have wasted money on their current equipment.

Remind me, why are you waiting for 5D3 / 1Ds 4? Is it because you think it will include magic that's going to make more artistic photos, or is it because you're thinking that it will include hardware that's going to allow you to go farther with your skills (which, contradictorily, you think are below the capacity of the current cameras)?

I wonder how many of these people would say that a rock climber's skills are more important than the rope, when the rope breaks.


----------



## kirillica (Sep 29, 2011)

What I'm mainly like in Nikon is that their adv pics were bought in photostocks and actually shot with Canon ;D


----------



## nikkito (Sep 29, 2011)

Well, what Nikon is clearly saying is that we who use Canon are way better than then 8)  ;D


----------



## elflord (Sep 29, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> Obviously, the people who get annoyed by that comment are those who have not exploited their gear at the maximum. Which means that they have wasted money on their current equipment.



If this is true, we could all spend a life time with a point and shoot, and still fail to produce better images than those who truly mastered using one. 

Thankfully, it isn't true. They've only "wasted money" if the added utility of the more expensive equipment is less than the utility (to them) of the extra money they spent on it. 

If I get $1500 worth of joy in jumping from a Rebel to a 5D Mark II (and what constitutes $1500 worth depends entirely on my subjective preferences) then it is not a waste to buy one. There is no rule that says that I have some obligation to spend a certain amount of time using cheaper equipment and maximizing the results obtained from it to acquire skills that make me "worthy" of a more expensive camera. 

Of course those who want to maximize the results from a point and shoot before buying a more expensive camera are welcome to do so. But those people will never own an SLR (and never upgrade their point and shoot)



> Remind me, why are you waiting for 5D3 / 1Ds 4?



I'm not in the class of people who have to own a camera that doesn't exist but I did buy a full frame and I'm pretty sure that there are some much better photographers using much cheaper equipment. The reason was that I really enjoy using it for taking the types of pictures that I take. I don't see it in terms of "going further with my skills". I am not a pro and I don't participate in photography contests, so have no interest in "going further". Indeed, I think one could "go further" with a point and shoot, and if "going further" were truly the goal, one might be better served by using a variety of very inexpensive cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2011)

[quote author=Nikon/Facebook]
Do any of our facebook fans use any of the NIKKOR lenses?
[/quote]

What the heck kind of disingenuous question is that? A Nikon fan page with 800,000+ likes, and they wonder if any of those 800,000 people have a Nikon lens? I suppose if they have to wonder about that, they're completely slamming their own lens quality, and maybe they think all their customers buy Sigma lenses instead? :

It's ok, though, they apologized for being offensive...


----------



## K-amps (Sep 29, 2011)

dash2k8 said:


> I once ran into someone who bought a 7D + 85mm f/1.2 L + 580EX II as his FIRST ever kit. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and took a lot of stuff that more experienced photog's could take with an iPhone.
> 
> I would only go as far as saying the equipment should match the skill level of the user. Both are equally important.



I agree both are important:

But unless this guy took a loan out from his kid's college fund, I find nothing wrong in his choice or his purchase. Looks like he did his research, zoned in on a prime lens (most noobs like me would try and get max coverage from 15mm to 400mmm regardless of the speed of the lenses...) that is fast and sharp. 

Why should he be asked to buy a rebel kit lens when all of us would not... The only wrong thing I can see is if he thinks he can shoot like an Art or Ansel or any great guys on this forum without learning how to shoot. 

I gave my 350d and kit lens to my 12 year old daughter trying to get her into this wonderful hobby... She might take 100 pics and have 10 turn out really great... but the limitations of the kit lens then comes into play... if she had better gear, those could have been even better.... 

I just got my first L lens a month ago... my skills are still the same as a month ago, but my successful rate has gone up significantly. For example: Pictures with L lens dont burn out highlights as much as kit lens do, I don't know why but no one told me this would be one reason to get an L lens...

I am not saying gear is more important than skills, but gear WILL make a difference, so kudos to that guy to get decent gear.


----------



## akiskev (Sep 29, 2011)

"A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses..."

This is an insult to photographers and photography in general.
If they truly believe that, then whoever uses Nikon 1 will never be a good photographer :


----------



## Meh (Sep 29, 2011)

dash2k8 said:


> I once ran into someone who bought a 7D + 85mm f/1.2 L + 580EX II as his FIRST ever kit. He had absolutely no idea what he was doing and took a lot of stuff that more experienced photog's could take with an iPhone.
> 
> I would only go as far as saying the equipment should match the skill level of the user. Both are equally important.



Maybe an unscrupulous sales person talked him into it. But nothing wrong with buying a 7D as a first DSLR... for example a parent who walks into a camera shop and wants a camera to take decent pictures of kids playing sports... it would be fair/honest for the salesperson to offer a 7D as an appropriate body I think.

Now the 85/1.2L might be inappropriate to recommend to a beginner. But hey if a customer walks into a shop and demands to buy it the salesperson aint gonna say no, but if it was recommended or pushed on a customer that's just mean and greedy... why... because he sold the wrong body, 7D is for sports and salesperson knows the customer will have to come back and get a 5D2 the next week to make the best use of the 85 f/1.2 for portraits


----------



## Tarrum (Sep 29, 2011)

Owning more expensive equipment will help you with better pictures, but only if you understand it to the maximum. Sure, I've seen plenty of people with expensive cameras that had no clue, but once they learned they started to shine. And who are we to judge what equipment they should buy, when I was buying my first camera I was so desperate trying to find out if Canon or Nikon makes better pictures. After a bit of experience, I found it it doesn't matter - so I guess most photographers have to experience something like that to truly respect and understand it's more about them.

Do any of our facebook fans use any of the NIKKOR lenses? - No they're fans for no reason..


----------



## K-amps (Sep 29, 2011)

Tarrum said:


> ......Owning more expensive equipment will help you with better pictures, but only if you understand it to the maximum. ......



I agree with the first part, but not the latter part.

Give a novice a 300D with kit lens (55-250 or 75-300 III) and ask him to use Auto mode/P mode (like P&S) and ask him to take a portrait at 100mm. Using a tripod and natural light coming from a window.

Give the same guy a 7D and a 100mm f2 or f2.8 with the camera on the same tripod and all he has to do is pull the trigger in auto mode.

Which one will be better?

Did he need to understand it to the maximum? All he did was pull the trigger.

Even for complete noobs, better gear *will* make a difference... some difference


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 29, 2011)

I find this whole situation amusing. Nikon was obviously trying to stroke some of their user base and make them feel good about buying stuff, but it got picked up by everybody else. No harm done really - though it's good they apologized.


----------



## samthefish (Sep 29, 2011)

One thing I like about photography is it has both a technical and an artistic side - the technical side says "buy the best camera / lenses/ etc.... can I just get 2 more stops of light ... while the artistic side tries to express something through photography. Most photographers I know are stronger in one suit than the other - I'm better technically than artistically, for example. As much as I would enjoy futzing with new lenses and camera bodies I think I'd be better off focusing on better composition, capturing more emotion, telling better stories though photography. For someone who's got the artistic side nailed they might be shocked at what they can do with an extra two stops of light and a sharper image.

So Nikon is full of it for about half the photography population, IMHO.

SamTheFish


----------



## UncleFester (Sep 29, 2011)

Some people are born photographers. I really like looking at first pictures.

Some professionals are way over rated and some even suck, imo.

When I get general compliments on my photos, my response is usually "A chimpanzee could have done the same. The equipment is just that good."

The trick is to pull something from almost nothing eliminating the perceived presence of the photographer and equipment. 

It has to be worth a thousand words or it's just another picture.


----------



## mortadella (Sep 29, 2011)

There are reasons why photography schools/classes exist, and its not to train the camera. if it were just the gear and nothing else all you would need to be a good photographer is a deep pocket. The Nikon Fb status is rather ignorant, however I don't see the reason why people were offended. Better gear can expand ones potential, yes, but skill of the photographer is 1st and gear a distant 2nd.


----------



## Meh (Sep 30, 2011)

mortadella said:


> if it were just the gear and nothing else all you would need to be a good photographer is a deep pocket. The Nikon Fb status is rather ignorant...



I kind of felt that way when I first read it but the Nikon FB post didn't say that and I don't think it's what was meant. It said the photographer is only as good as the equipment. In other words, no matter how good the photographer is, if the gear is inadequate in some way then there will be limits to what he/she can accomplish. I think that's a true statement. It doesn't mean the photographer doesn't matter, or that you can't take a great shot with camera phone, or a compact, or a kit lens, etc. but only that the photographer will be limited by the equipment. 

Now being from Nikon of course what they would like people to do is buy more and better gear but that's the business the business they're in so I suppose we should forgive them their obviously self-serving statements. Maybe it comes across as an offensive, ignorant, irritating statement because it's from Nikon and we feel like they're trying to sell us something we don't really need.

Isn't it always true that we are limited by equipment? No matter how good you are you can't take a picture that the gear is incapable of capturing. Sports photography is almost impossible with a P&S and it's pretty tough to take candid street photography if you're walking around with a 1D4 and 300mm lens.


----------



## distant.star (Sep 30, 2011)

It's all about the money.

And when you take that argument to its logical end, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are the best photographers in the world.


----------



## thepancakeman (Sep 30, 2011)

K-amps said:


> Give a novice a 300D with kit lens (55-250 or 75-300 III) and ask him to use Auto mode/P mode (like P&S) and ask him to take a portrait at 100mm. Using a tripod and natural light coming from a window.
> 
> Give the same guy a 7D and a 100mm f2 or f2.8 with the camera on the same tripod and all he has to do is pull the trigger in auto mode.
> 
> ...



I whole heartedly agree with this. It is (or at least can be) similar to golf. I suck at golf. I will always suck at golf. However, buying a good set of clubs helps me to suck just a little bit less at golf. Similarly, I may never be a great photographer, but decent equipment can help some of my pictures to suck a little less. I doubt anyone on here woud say a photo out of kit lens is going to match _the exact same photo_ taken with L glass. Without changing the composition or the lighting or anything else, it should be sharper with better color, etc., all the great things that L glass can give you.


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 30, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Give a novice a 300D with kit lens (55-250 or 75-300 III) and ask him to use Auto mode/P mode (like P&S) and ask him to take a portrait at 100mm. Using a tripod and natural light coming from a window.
> ...



Yes, it might be sharper with better colors with an "L" lens versus a kit lens. Unfortunately, those are not the ultimate determining factors of whether or not a photograph (or any work of art) is "good." A good photo doesn't even have to be _in focus_, so why should making something that's poorly composed/exposed even sharper help? 

"I wasn't sure before, but now that it's sharper, I can _clearly_ see that it's lousy..." 

Think about it: seventy/eighty years ago, pro photographers were shooting amazing pictures using equipment that was considered ancient _decades_ ago. They were able to do it not because they were using the latest digital cameras with modern auto-focus lenses, but because they understood composition and exposure.


----------



## FredBGG (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

It's Facebook and some poor employeee of Nikon has to come up with something to post multiple times a day.

Personally I think it would be more interesting having a discussion about what a crap interface Facebook has and how it is a complete waste of time unless you are hoping to be discovered for the next reality show.

As far as photographers and their equipment....

Well to a certain extent they are right. many aspects of your images are going to be only as good as the camera can make them. In the real world, not that of one's own ego, the tools you use will determin the quality of your images. Depending on your style you need to choose the best camera for what you are doing to get the best results. This may mean a film point and shoot if you are terry Richardson when he want's that look. Too much "photographic technical quality"can be counter productive.

One thing is for shure. With the advent of digital larger format photography is being lost.
You can use whatever L lens you want or top of the line leica odr Nikon lens, but due to the optical limitations of smaller formats you will not get that dimensional look of larger formats.

MF format digital is right at the low end of the MF size scale. 

I for sure am my best with a big sheet if 8x10 polaroid or tri-x in an 8x10 camera with a Symar 480mm lens. Camera brand not important... it's just a box.

Do I take good pictures with a 35mm DSLR.... yes, but my best are with 6x8cm film or bigger.

Equipment really does count and Nikon does not make what IMHO really counts... neither does Canon.

With a shitty camera , my talent does not change, but my photographs will and I will not be as satisfied as I would be if I used what I wanted.

The good thing is that the really good equipment is cheap these days... well as long as it lasts...
large MF cameras and large format cameras are easy to find used at very nice prices.

I paid about $ 2,500 for a lens back in the day. I bought one for $ 250 the other day. Same formidable 180mm f3.2 Fuji GX680 lens.


----------



## aldvan (Sep 30, 2011)

Things are more complex according to me, as usual... If you are taking a picture of a riot in Damascus, composition and content are (partially) less important than sharpness, focus, density, saturation etc.
But if you are taking a picture of the wall of El Capitan in Yosemite, or of a highly detailed coleopter on a beautiful and colorful flower a slight off focus, a unwanted grain, or a less than sharp pixel can spoil the best of the talents...
In the present technological era, no part of the kit can be overlooked. You can be Michael Schumacher, but without a good car, any good driver with the best car will win hands down... Obviously is also true the reverse: no best car will win without a good driver...


----------



## NotABunny (Sep 30, 2011)

All the artists thought that Nikon meant that quality hardware improves the artistic skills of the photographer, while Nikon obviously (by any rational argument) said that quality hardware improves the technical side of the photography.

If artists think that (modern) cameras, lenses, lighting equipment and post-processing software are just conspiracies made up by greedy companies, it's sad. Art has evolved and, in this world, there is also competition to deal with.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 30, 2011)

aldvan said:


> Things are more complex according to me, as usual... If you are taking a picture of a riot in Damascus, composition and content are (partially) less important than sharpness, focus, density, saturation etc.
> But if you are taking a picture of the wall of El Capitan in Yosemite, or of a highly detailed coleopter on a beautiful and colorful flower a slight off focus, a unwanted grain, or a less than sharp pixel can spoil the best of the talents...
> In the present technological era, no part of the kit can be overlooked. You can be Michael Schumacher, but without a good car, any good driver with the best car will win hands down... Obviously is also true the reverse: no best car will win without a good driver...



The Camera is like the eye, the Photographer, like the brain. 

One is very limited without the other...


----------



## ecka (Sep 30, 2011)

It's all about the right tool for the job. If you are able to take some great pictures using P&S camera it means that the gear is good enough for the job and, probably, any decent photographer can do it. But, if you think that your skills can somehow compensate for not using a proper gear, then you are terribly wrong.
That Nikon guy was talking about a photographer, not just some newbie with a camera. When you think about it really deep, you'll understand that he is right. The "proper gear" is not always the most expensive one. A good photographer must be capable of using his equipment to it's full potential. So, better equipment = more potential.


----------



## TexPhoto (Sep 30, 2011)

Remove the emotion and anger from the reaction to Nikon, and you are left with one conclusion: Canon Rules, Nikon drools.  Rock on.


----------



## mortadella (Sep 30, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> Remove the emotion and anger from the reaction to Nikon, and you are left with one conclusion: Canon Rules, Nikon drools.  Rock on.



If that was somehow Canon's FB status I think we would all have a different opinion of it...the fact that it's Nikon just makes us want to find something wrong with it. Which has proven to be pretty fun.


----------

