Darkhost said:
... I'd say that image settles this dispute...

Really? You've got to be kidding...

Awesome picture squamish. I'd say that image settles this dispute...

@SquamishPhoto Thank for the post, I've been trying to come up with a good case for the iPhone as a good camera and that might just be the best camera for any situation is the one that you have.

I wonder if the D600 would make you a better photographer, just not as good as the D800
;-)

iPhone 4s 4 or 5 shot panorama with a minor amount of post work. For what its worth. ;]

Eric said:
... As Pierre points out, whether or not the better camera makes me a better photographer may be a semantic argument....

My point exactly and as your IPhone shot points out, if one has talent, bad equipment just waist it.

andrewz said:
@NSXType-R, Love Henri Cartier Bersson. I wonder how many frames per second he needed to get the “puddle jump” shot ;-)

I saw an interview of him and I'm sure he said he waited for hours and hours before someone finely made that leap. He said he knew someone would so he sat there and waited thought the rain. He said he would find the "spot", return daily and take photos until he got the shot he wanted. He jokingly spoke of one spot near his home that he returned to constantly for years and never got the shot he wanted. He was one of those "sit and wait" photographers - and probably one of the first. And boy did it work!

kanuck said:
Interesting a lot of D800 camera bodies are beginning to turn up in my camera district used. Its interesting because I keep hearing about how there is a worldwide shortage. The D600 has people turning in a few bodies maybe? I think its just gearheads buying to try and then returning them here. These D800 bodies have around 2,500 actuations on them etc. I played with a few yesterday in the shops. I am still reasonably satisfied with my D800e purchase, I just need better glass for it now sigh..

I have seen D800s showing up a lot as well with low counts. Most I have seen on ebay usually are listed along side with video accessories. I think some videographers have moved to the MkIII for the low light. Others I have seen in the descriptions that people decided they didn't need/want the MP or moved to the D4 for sports.

I love my D800 and wouldn't trade it for anything but maybe a D4 on some days. I wish I could have both!

I agree with most, a camera will not make you a better photographer or take better photos. I do have to say, the D800 has created a new opportunity to be able to focus on detail like I never have before. I find I take an extra second and might even stop down a bit more since I can crop and "create" more images in post than ever before. I imagine the same can be said with medium format 80mp sensors as well. It just creates more options and different options than from my D300 for sure.

@NSXType-R - The original iPhone photo had horrible contrast and lacked sharpness. I took several, but this was the best. I had to sharpen, and up the contrast... this was the best I could do. The noise is a result of my attempt to get some detail at a larger size. I admit that the lighting was tough and the DR was beyond an iPhone. The other problem may be that I have to hold the iPhone away from my body to take a picture and I am probably not as stable as I am with a viewfinder (even a poor viewfinder like on the P7000).

Interesting a lot of D800 camera bodies are beginning to turn up in my camera district used. Its interesting because I keep hearing about how there is a worldwide shortage. The D600 has people turning in a few bodies maybe? I think its just gearheads buying to try and then returning them here. These D800 bodies have around 2,500 actuations on them etc. I played with a few yesterday in the shops. I am still reasonably satisfied with my D800e purchase, I just need better glass for it now sigh..

andrewz said:

@NSXType-R, Love Henri Cartier Bersson. I wonder how many frames per second he needed to get the “puddle jump” shot ;-)

Add in the film rewind crank and everything and I bet you the quickest he could get was .7 fps. :D

I was very lucky to have caught the Henri Cartier Bresson exhibit at the MOMA right before it ended. On a side note, that exhibit, the cars and vehicles and some of the classic electronics (such as the airport departure/arrival sign) were just about the only things I appreciated in that museum...

I knew he did a bunch of photographs in France and all, but I didn't know he took a whole bunch of shots in China just around the time Mao rose to power.

Eric, did you run that photo from the iPhone through Instagram or something? It looks incredibly noisy.

@ Msmoto - +1

I didn't have my D800 on last weekend's fishing trip. Instead I had an iPhone 4 and a Nikon P7000. At 7:00 am on the way to our fishing spot I spied an image I really liked and stopped the car to grab a quick photo with the P7000. My son then asked me to take one with my iPhone so that he could post it. The following photos are the results, I sharpened both in post, and the crops were similar (and small) but the iPhone can't compare to the P7000. I wish I had my D800 because the difference between the D800 and the P7000 is comparable to that of the P7000 and the iPhone.

iPhone

P7000

Perhaps my iPhone technique was poor, but I generally find that I get better images with better equipment. As Pierre points out, whether or not the better camera makes me a better photographer may be a semantic argument. Ultimately, I agree with msmoto and I prefer to feel as if the issues with my photography are with me, and not with the equipment. So, the example above illustrates how better equipment can allow the user to feel better about their results... and while I may not be able to use my equipment as well as many others, the better equipment does provide me with a greater degree of satisfaction.

@Pierre, what fun would it be if we didn’t argue about such things? I could be wrong but I imagine that Redirector wanted to start a lively discussion when he titled the thread “Whoever said the "D800 won't make you a better photographer" is wrong”. I say argue away as long as it’s polite and respectful, allowing for some playful jabs.

To continue in the current vain, I’ve been thinking how one would define the “better photographer” and I think it could be quite simply; the better photographer is one who is able to produce the results that they intend.

In other words I envision an image in my head and then I use whatever camera, to produce that image. The closer the final product is to the image in my head the better a photographer I am. Or the closer I get to my clients desires.

Knowing the limitations or advantages of your equipment also play into this. The better photographer knows how to get the most of the equipment they have and/or which equipment to use to get the intended results. They would also know how to exploit better equipment as it comes along. Perhaps even having images in mind that they can't make now but when the right equipment comes along, they will be able.

Bravo Pierre....I think that you've just supplied the definitive answer to all of the " Does or will equipment make me better" questions.

Oh, my... good equipment may have a very clear psychological benefit. Also, the ability of the camera to exceed the photographer's abilities, almost always the case, also may result in an area of investigation leading to more diversity in the find products.

The key is the attitude of the one behind the camera. If we are arrogant, closed minded, unable to accept criticism or suggestions, we will benefit far less from improved equipment than if we are willing to learn. I do not think this is especially different whether we are shooting photos or doing any job which requires judgement and the ability to relate to others in a healthy fashion. I can remember some photographers with whom I have worked who were convinced they were right almost all the time, and while they could do a lot of work extremely well, you give them a challenge and they couldn't shoot their way out of a paper bag. And would have an excuse for why it was , blah, blah.... Basically, these closed minded folks will not change much if given a new improved camera.

This 'better photographer' thing has been going-on and probably will continue for ever. We are like the guy that argue an elephant is a big belly with an other guy that argue it is a small tail.

We are in appearance disagreeing because we take different point of views.

The 'better photographer' statement generally mean 'better results' (whatever that is) which can be achieved with better equipment and/or better skills.

The term 'better' applied to photography or art in general is highly subjective, unquantifyable, emotional and relative to the observer, the epoch, culture, personal taste and state of mind at the moment.

We could debate the subject for centuries and only come with the 'whatever makes you happy' conclusion. At the end, it doesn't matter if we can get others to agree with us or not. If you get better satisfaction at what you are doing, then it is better.

A true artists (recognized or not) is one that bring a novel vision and arguing about the media he choose is really pointless.

@andrewz - +1

I think most artistic endeavors, like photography, can be divided into 2 broad categories, I call the Art and Science.

The Science is your tools and technology, your D800 if you will or your D76 if you’re one of us older folks who remembers darkrooms. It’s the technical knowledge and equipment that you must have or use to make an image. Having a good understanding of these will enable you to be a better photographer.

The Art is a little harder to define, is it artistic vision? Is it having an innate sense of form, composition and color? Maybe some of these things can be learned but some people just have it. Sometimes I will look at a photograph, painting or some other art object and just immediately think it is beautiful without thinking why.

So the good photographer (yet undefined) has the knowledge and skill to use the equipment they have to create a beautiful image. As well as understanding which equipment is best for the situation they are using it in.

One could argue and I will that there is no good or bad cameras only cameras with different characteristics. The good photographer will exploit each camera for it’s individual strengths. I’ve seen beautiful images come out of iPhones and Holgas, and some crappy work from very nice high end digital cameras (none here of course everything in the PAD is great!)

So the D800 won’t make you better, you will make yourself better. The D800 may inspire you, motivate you, give you the capability you didn’t have before but in the end it’s a tool, don’t sell yourself short.

@NSXType-R, Love Henri Cartier Bersson. I wonder how many frames per second he needed to get the “puddle jump” shot ;-)

To continue with R8R's analogy, the pro downhill riders switched to full suspension bikes because those bikes provided an edge. Equipment can and does make a difference, but I agree that the user must have the capability and desire to up their game. A good photographer with an iPhone can (and will) capture more compelling images than a poor photographer with a D800. But that same good photographer can probably capture better images with the D800 (as opposed to an iphone) and have greater room to improve their craft.

However, to R8R's point I will also concede that using lesser equipment can force you to focus on different aspects of your photography.

So IMO,
Does a D800 immediately make you a better photographer? No.
Does a D800 allow you to immediately take better photos? Perhaps, depending on your skill.
Does a D800 allow you to improve your skill? Yes, if you have the drive and desire.
Is better equipment necessary to improve your skills? No, there is always more to learn with the equipment you have.

I do most of shooting outdoors on moving subjects, with long telephotos. I have a D3s and a D800. Each is a superb tool when used correctly. I do find however that the D800 is more difficult to use properly. It is much fussier in regards to camera shake and at higher ISO's I think not as good as the D3s. The when I can shoot a bird sitting still or when I shoot landscape the D800 image quality is far superior.

I don't know that either of these cameras make me a better photographer but they do each in it's own way allow me to make the images that I envision making images that my older cameras D80,D90,D300s will not allow.

The low light capability of either is much better and that allows faster shutter speed low light capability. The noise levels are better than the older cameras. The controls are more logical and easier to use.

The camera alone will not make me a better photographer but does allow me to capture more of my vision easily and allow me the time to think about what I want to show not what I can show.

That

R8R said:
I'll throw this out there:

A crappy camera will more likely make you a better photographer than a great camera.

Discuss.

I'm not so sure about that. If you're skilled enough to use it, maybe. If you weren't good at it to begin with, you still haven't gotten anywhere.

Even Cartier Bresson used relatively fast primes with his shots. Imagine if he was just stuck with a slow zoom (if things even exist for rangefinders?)?

Even if you were skilled enough to shoot with the camera, it would still hold you back. Sure you could bring an iPhone to a sporting event, but when you have other photographers shooting 12 fps with a 70-200 2.8, you're going to have to put a lot of effort and bend over backwards in to pull off some shots. Not that you couldn't, but it'd be different to say the least.

Which sort of made me wonder, why would anyone bother shooting with an iPhone at the Olympics (unless you were paid for it)?

I will offer another analogy -

I ride mountain bikes. Years ago I dated a woman who raced downhill bikes professionally. On casual group rides, she could (and did) take an entry-level hard-tail mountain bike and with about 5 minutes practice in the saddle, race just about anyone in our group down the hill and beat them by a huge margin. And this was a group of expert riders on big full suspension bikes.

She had talent and desire. She trained constantly and honed her skills. She examined her weaknesses and worked to balance them with her strengths.

The bike (a tool) was only a small part of the equation. A bike is an inanimate object, it's nothing without the rider. Was she faster on a pro-level bike? Of course. Was she better? No. Her skills were always improving no matter what bike she was on, because that was her will.

A better camera does not make you a better photographer, it's just a better tool. You might be able to shoot faster and sharper, but if your pictures suck, they are just going to suck faster and sharper.

R8R said:
I'll throw this out there:

A crappy camera will more likely make you a better photographer than a great camera.

Discuss.

true but the same could be said for a top of the line camera could force you to learn and improve in order to use it efficiently i guess that door swings both ways inevitably its down to the "User" and there eagerness or drive to push forward and improve and learn and grow as a photographer. although i have to agree jumping in at the deepend so too speak before you can swim can actually slow your progress down.

I'll throw this out there:

A crappy camera will more likely make you a better photographer than a great camera.

Discuss.

Consider it differently. Better equipment will not instantly make you a better photographer, but it can allow you to take better photographs. For example comparing the images from a Coolpix p7000 to a D800, the D800 images are crisper and have less noise, better color & dynamic range etc. So the camera does allow you to capture a better image.

But beyond that, the better camera can also allow you to see errors in technique that might be masked by poorer quality equipment, so better equipment can help you to develop better technique.

So, IMO a better camera or equipment can immediately improve the quality of your images, but it does not immediately make you a better photographer. However, the better equipment can provide better feedback so that you can improve your technique and expand your capabilities.

Better equipment does not a better photographer make, but it can accelerate the process.

Back to to the subject again.
Will better equipment make you a better photographer? Absolutely Not!

Usually I read through threads while composing a reply in my head and come across a post by TTS which are reasoned and well thought out and I agree with and never post anything. But not today I see that TTS said "Now as the Title of this thread is suggesting "Can the newest gear make you better" - I say yes to that as well.". Well I say, Sir, you are wrong.

Perhaps the problem is how one would define a "better" photographer. I'll say without a doubt that a D800 will give you higher image quality, better color rendition, better exposure..... But does that make you a better photographer? Take your oldest, lowest resolution camera put it on a tripod and take a picture, now put your D800 on the tripod and take the same picture. Were you a better photographer when you took the second picture?

Now I can only speak from my experience, I went from film (FM2) to a D200.I was amazed at how easy it was to get a good image with a new better camera.

Last week I pulled out my old Polaroid 350, got some Fuji pack film and went out shooting. I had 10 exposures, ruined the first 2 to getting the exposure right and had to really think about each shot. Had fun too! Did it make me a poorer photographer using obsolete equipment?

Better equipment makes it easier and if you are a good photographer you're going to get better quality images but it won't make a bad photographer good.

So the answer is No, never will better equipment make you a better photographer. A camera is a tool, nothing more and nothing less, with better tool you can do better work but it doesn't make you better.