I think good gear help with the technical side of photography (see below), but sure doesn't make up for a poor artistic eye

I would not have got shots like this one with out 600mm @ f5.6 - f6.3 owing to the distance and shooting through grey galvanized catch fencing.

My opinion is that it is a split between skill and gear, the percentage varies between people. The "art" element comes in, the person behind the camera makes the composition the camera makes the exposure.

The same tog taking the same shot with the different gear will always produce different results, I believe that the high end gear will produce better work. This is a lot more of an issue in digital than analogue, as there is a lot of tech going on to produce the shot far and above what the exposure picked by the tog is. The pic engines in higher end gear are better, as are the sensors on the whole. My D700 deals better with greater contrast than my D40 did, so in the same circs the D700 gives the better result.


So in answer the original question:



Yes and no!!!!

In my opinion having better equipment will make absolutely no difference to your average photographer.

However to a skilled, experienced photographer, high end equipment makes a big difference to the quality of the technical output of your images, which is very important in commercial photography.

But without that knowledge and experience in the first place, better equipment makes absolutely zero difference, and in fact will often be more difficult for the inexperience user to use, and actually produce worse photos.

Paul.

It has made interesting reading and I agree with a lot of what has been said.

There are some areas of photography that just demand specialist equipment (there is no way one could take the image in KenTT's Post with a compact).

However, I do think that a lot of equipment is bought in the belief that it will make them take better photos when, in reality, using their existing equipment to the full would result in those better photos.

I often wonder how many new cameras are bought when the person has not even taken their "old" camera of fully auto mode. Ah, you here them say as the Jessops salesman (or whatever other shop) tells them that the new model boasts 2 megapixels more. WOW that'll make a difference and they flash the plastic and wonder off thinking all their dreams will now come true.

Am I really an old cynic....Yep

Steve

I believe there can be huge difference in gear quality. Lenses stand out the most to me. An FX quality fast lens produces extra sharp photos across its aperture range. The trade off is price. I've been producing good work with Nikon lenses in the $700-800 range. When I bought my Nikon 24-70mm F/2.8 FX lens in preparation for my new D800 body the game has changed. The test results of that lens using my D7000 have been fantastic.

So, better equipment, in the hands of a knowledgable photographer, can make a big difference IMHO. The same can be said for camera bodies. A D800 36.3 MP camera body with 51 focus points can produce better prints than a 6 MP D40 with 3 focus points.

If the same photographer shoots the same subject with the same lighting conditions the technically more advanced gear will outperform the weaker kit.

I agree with a lot of what you say Bob but give a highly skilled photographer an inferior body with a decent lens and I would bet he would produce better images than an inferior tog with better gear.

I read statements like "I have to buy the new Canik XLR5000050 with 200 AF points for my landscape photography" WHAT!! Ever tried manual focusing when the subject is not moving fast. It is remarkable what the human eye and hand can achieve.

I personally think we all rely on the computers within our cameras instead of putting a bit of ourselves into the images. Me included because like most of the human race, I am a lazy sod.

One of the reasons I very rarely use one of the larger forum is because the images submitted, hundreds per hour, are so formulaic that they could have been taken all with the same settings, oh sorry they have, the settings the computer within the camera has dictated.

Off me soapbox now

Steve

I think its just like anything in life really. If your good, good gear will help you out, if not, then your still not, whether or not you have x,y,z lol.

You can buy a ferrari, doesnt put you up there as a f1 driver, but you can go faster than in a 1 litre city car.

I'm glad files contain exif data to show all that was going on in a shot. People comment all the time on shots that are sharp when I'm using a 200mm lens handheld at 1/20". That doesn't happen by accident. It comes from 40 years of shooting without Vibration Reduction(IS) using cameras without light meters or auto-exposure. My old twin lens Yashika Mat 124 had just a simple waist level viewfinder. Every photographer need to develop good, stable technique.

Today's cameras are marvels of technology but if you want to see how good a photographer is put a bride in front of a bright window or against a dark paneled wall and see how the shots come out. Very few modern cameras can handle that.

This topic has been around for a very long time. When asked in person to voice my opinion on the subject I simply state that my photos speak for themselves. I agree with all that you have said Steve.