Someone who uses a pinhole camera can probably produce a picture vastly superior (atristicly) to what someone who has not studied can produce with even the most expensive camera.

Yes, an SLR generally takes a “better” picture than a point-and-shoot, technically. It probably has better optics (but not cared for correctly, they may not be), and it may have a better (sharper) viewfiender and focusing system. In the digital world, it probably has a bigger sensor and less noise and high MP (but not always).

But that technical data is meaningless unless you’re taking pictures ot test targets to determine the sensitivity/quality of a camera and lens.

Knowing how to take the picture, what exposure/apeture/etc and how to use your camera means much more.

Ansel Adams’ View Cameras were vastly inferior technically to my D200. Does that make my images better?

Being able to zoom or focus quickly doesn’t alone make a better picture. Focusing or zooming quickly on the wrong thing doesn’t help much, does it? Yes, it’s great to have such features when you know what you are doing, and they do make a difference, especially when photographing sports or animals, but if you don’t know what you’re doing, all of the fast focus and zoom will not help you intentionally get the right picture (everybody gets lucky sometimes..)

jon

Until we all have access to the same tools, I think there will always be false accreditation to the technology rather than the artist.

However, if Eric and I entered a photography contest, and I was given a top of the line camera and he was only allowed to use an elementary-school-science-project pinhole camera, I’d bet I win at least 7 times out of 10… :)

Adman

re: Photographic eye. Here’s the anecdote that explains the reality of the artistic eye. Eric and I were on the same boat, photographing the same sites. His equipment was marginally better, but not enough to make a difference. At that time, I’m sure I had been diving longer, had more dives, had more dives with a camera, and been shooting a 35mm camera for a lot longer. Yet, comparing shots of the same subjects, there was a clear distinction in terms of visual impact and appeal. Brains work diffently.

An apt analogy is music. My grandfather finally got around to teaching me how to tune a piano. He did it with two tools and two tuning forks (but only used one). He quickly lost me. He had perfect pitch. I could not hear the way he heard. Having “learned” to play 5 different instruments, I still couldn’t do what he could do.

photography seems to suffer from that same problem as audio engineering: the average layperson has a much more immediate appreciation of technical quality than of aesthetic/artistic merit. a CD has a rich, full sound to it: “wow, you must’ve recorded that in a really nice studio.” no credit to the engineer who selected and placed the microphones, nor to the mixer who massaged the separate tracks into a coherent whole. the notion is that they “simply” capture what’s there in reality, with top-of-the-line gear, and if Joe Schmoe had that gear he could do it too.

which is a long way of saying: i’m with Adman’s last comment. :)

That’s all I’m saying.

For most lay-people, a better camera DIRECTLY equals better pictures, since our skill at actual photography is 0. Therefore, from our point of view, “You must have a great camera” makes perfect logical sense to us. And honestly, I appreciate you helping me understand that it’s not very nice comment.

Good analogy with Photoshop.

Adman

My best whale breach shot ever was taken with a 3 fps camera — about the speed entry-level SLRs (today) offer. The photo pro next to me had an 8.5 fps camera, and he missed the shot. And while you wouldn’t try to shoot a breaching whale with a point and shoot, experience, opportunity and luck have more to do with a good photo’s origins than does the camera itself — assuming satisfaction of that minimum bar of gear quality.

Here’s an analogy that incorporates computers and photography: in most cases, a faster computer doesn’t make you better at using Photoshop. But for some image-editing applications, you might actually need that faster machine.