Does the camera really matter?

Question:I think yes, but I've seen other people answer no.

I know that experience and knowledge are important, but don't you think using the right camera plays an important role as well? For example, a picture taken on a DSLR will always have better quality than a picture taken on a camera phone... get my point?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I think yes, but I've seen other people answer no.

I know that experience and knowledge are important, but don't you think using the right camera plays an important role as well? For example, a picture taken on a DSLR will always have better quality than a picture taken on a camera phone... get my point?

You're absolutely right... which is also why I think that it's better to get a DSLR than a point and shoot because knowing how to control the manual features makes you a better photographer. It's often better to do it yourself than to have the camera do it for you.

If I were to submit a picture taken on a camera phone in class, I would automatically fail the assignment!

Of course. As with any artistic endeavour, the best tools can't make up for a lack of talent and passion. But anyone will achieve better results with good tools than with bad.

Yes, some are good at making pictures and some are good at taking them. A camera can show you a moment in life like no other. Yes the right camera matters too. If it doesn't "feel" right it won't come out right it would be a good potential photo.

would a racing driver be able to win in a sub-standard car?
would a chef make good food using only a microwave?

the photographer requires talent, they also need a tool that allows them to utilise their talent.

the camera really doesnt matter. as long as it has some of the basic setting then almost any photographic image can be created.

the camera doesn't matter at all:
it's your lens!

The lens on a cell phone can't handle too much information, thus it looks grainy. The lens on say a DSLR or a Film SLR can handle transferring much more data to the film or to your memory card.

Now, you can use a point-and-shoot and come out with some amazing pictures, the only problem with point and shoots are that they are one-ended. You can't get a lens with a greater or smaller aperture for a point and shoot camera as you can with SLRs.

As for DSLR v. Film SLR, I use a film SLR simply because it was much cheaper, and my photos come out as clear as one on a DSLR would. A Digital SLR is just much easier to share photos with because you can buy a memory card reader and just upload it to your computer.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamer...

Read the link Carmen gave you for some good insight.

With any photography, it is the 12 inches behind the camera that composes and takes the photo, so the composition and exposure quality is ultimately up to them, no matter what camera they are using.

Now, given that the person behind the camera is a very competent photographer, the the camera certainly effects the technical quality of the images produced.

Sensor size is important ... a typical DSLR's sensor is over 15x the size of a typical point and shoot camera, which in turn is much, much larger than any camera phone's.

The following list will help you determine the quality and resolution you can expect from a digital camera in order of importance.

* Quality of the lens
* The quality and sophistication of the analog to digital converter within the camera.
* Sensor size
* Pixel count

More on pixel counts:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.h...

The camera definetely matters, the choice of which depends heavily upon what you seek to accomplish with it. There is little point in purchasing a $2500 camera setup if all you really want to do with it is document everyday things like family gatherings or random things you wish to share through email and the like. A camera is simply a tool, and every job has need for a different tool. That is the way I look at it. But, there are some who are convinced that in order to get the best photographs, they need what they deem to be the "best" camera. What constitutes the "best" is much too subjective to have been made standard, as there are many opinions about what is considered best from brand, to image sensor size, to resolution. I think the best thing to do is decide what you want, and go from there. Basing such an investment on the opinions of others only serves up a part of what is necessary to make an informed decision on an investment that will ultimately serve your goals. Take them with a grain of salt, you'll be the one who will use whatever tool you decide on, so pick one which will give you what you need, and not what you think you want.

I will give you an example.

Personally, I'd love to have a nikon D3. I think it's an awesome camera, something new and a first for nikon and since I use nikon, I have interest in what they have done with the D3. But in truth, I have no real need for a D3. Sure, it's an awesome camera, but the truth is, it's expensive and heavy. So I ask myself, do I want to lug this thing around with me when I'm out shooting? Or do I want something a little more manageable, like a canon 5D being both a full frame DSLR and light, which is perfect for taking out shooting all day without giving myself whiplash from it being around my neck, not to mention being half the price of a D3 *with* a 24-105mm f/4L IS lens. Then I have to ask myself, can I invest in the best possible glass for a full frame DSLR? Since more of the lens will be used by the image sensor, full frame has an inherent dependency on glass that can provide the best corner-to-corner resolution. In this instance, more investment is needed to support an already substancial investment to begin with. This can reach upwards of $10,000, so long as we're talking about the "best".

But is it best for MY needs? No. I'm not a pro-photographer, I'm not a photojournalist, and I don't have a studio. So for me, the now $1000 nikon D80, a much less expensive camera lacking many of the advanced features of a D3, but is sufficient [for me]. Afterall, it is a camera and a DSLR at that. It can accomplish what I need from it far better than a point and shoot, or even a camera phone for that matter because I tend to shoot more things than just family gatherings and idiocentric happenings worth emailing to my friends on our mobiles.

My brother on the other hand is a smart guy, he's got the latest computer phone PDA blackberry whateveryoucallit with a camera and if he wants to email me a picture of his kids at six flags or something, he can. So his camera phone suites what purpose he requires of it. It doesn't make that camera any less useful, even though it is far outclassed by a nikon D3, costing many thousands more than his latest computer phone PDA blackberry whateveryoucallit thingamajig.

Yes and no. While pictures will always be better with an SLR over a camera phone you would not be able to tell the difference between a $500 DSLR and a $2,000 DSLR if they used the same lens. After a certain point there wont be any discernible difference in image quality.

The first thing you need to do is define the word quality. Does that mean sharpest, most colors, ability to enlarge, etc....)

The first thing that matters the most is the photographer. What are you photographing? What are you trying to capture, how are you capturing it. I have see some amazing photos taken with the disposable cameras, pinhole cameras, point and shoot cameras and camera phones. Obviousely the tools have to be suitable for the task at hand. A cheap zoom lens will take a better photos of something far away then the best lens made that does not have the focal length to even see the item you are photographing (without the photographer moving) . The worst color film made (that is not defective or spoiled, or damaged, etc...) will always give you better color then the best black and white film made (unless the colors you are looking for are black and white)

Think about all of those great photos that were created before Digital and before all of the high tech items available today. Do you think they would have been better with the equipment available today?

Having the fastest, most megapixels, biggest, etc.. may help or may not. It will only help if it gives you the tools you need to take the pictures you want.

There was a student in one of my photography classes that took very poor photos and kept blaming the camera. The composistion was not good and this had nothing to do with the camera. The proof was when they went out and bought an incredibly expensive camera and the photos were still very poor. On the other hand there was another student that was shooting with a Pentax K1000 - about as manual as you can get and it would not surprise me if thier photos end up in a studio or being published one day.

My teacher used to say if you gave him a Stradivarius violin it would not change the fact he does not know how to play the violin. If he was an established violinist then the little bit he would gain from the violin itself would be noticeable. But not being an experianced violinist the cost of the Stradivarius is far outweighed by the fact that he does not know how to play. A better (and more cost effective) use of his money would be to take a violin lesson. Going back to the proper tools comment obviousely if one violin had strings and the other only had broken strings then the one with the good strings is automatically a better one to play music on (until you fix the other)

The reason a DSLR is better then a camera phone is because it gives you more "tools" at your disposal. Things like the ability to shoot at higher resolution, interchangeable lenses, higher quality lenses, all soughts of lighting options, etc.... BUT those items will only matter if you need them to take the picture you are looking to take. Keep in mind that there are plenty of professional photographers out there who are using Nikon D2xxx models and these cameras have under 5MP while there are camera phones that offer more MPs

If you think that all of those tools are necessary for a good photograph try searching the web for mobile phone photographs and you will see lots of good items. Would they have been better with a better camera - who knows?

If you want to to add better tools to your collection (assuming the camera whether film or digital are working correctly and suit your needs) then spend the money on quality lenses. Think about having the best house in the world with the biggest and most beautiful windows BUT there is something wrong with the glass and they distort everything you see through them or they have a tinge and do not let in all of the light or slightly change the color of the light. Compare this to a camera. The body is your house and the lens is where the light passes through. No matter how good the body is a poor lens will not let in the correct light, a nondistorted image, zoom enough to focus on something in the distance, allow you too focus on something that is too close, etc...etc...