The body/lens/user paradox

[Simpo Two]

The recent 'what DSLR?' thread got me thinking about the combination of factors that have to work together to make a successful photograph. (Obviously what makes a 'successful' photo is in the eye of the beholder, but you know what I mean)

There are those who think that lashing out thousands on kit will turn them from newbie to pro in a day, those who believe that lenses are more important than the body, and those who think that a good photographer will get good photographs regardless of the kit used.

I can't set up a poll for percentages but it would be interesting to see what people think is the correct balance under most conditions.

I'd go for about:

Body: 20%
Lens: 30%
User: 50%

[nick_bbb]

I'd go for about:

Body: 10%
Lens: 20%
User: 50%
Photoshop: 20%

[nick_bbb]

Actually forget all that. Subject matter 100%

[Simpo Two]

nick_bbb said:

Photoshop: 20%

Good point. For processing or turdpolishing though?

[Nick M]

nick_bbb said:

Actually forget all that. Subject matter 100%

And opportunity plays a part too - sometimes you get lucky, other times you won't, but if you can maximise your opportunities the chances of you capturing that elusive shot will be greatly increased.

Quite often, capturing a fleeting moment in a photograph is the product of hours of preparation, patience and making sure you're in the right place at the right time with a camera all ready to go. Or at the very least, being so familiar with your equipment and having enough experience to know how to react very quickly if a shot appears before your eyes and you have little time to capture it.

[jon-]

Body: 15%
Lens: 25%
User: 40%
Post: 35%
Subject matter: 85%
Position of moon: 3%

Sweet.

[Simpo Two]

I think we'll have to assume that the subject matter and opportunity are there... and of course the better the user, the more likely they are to find the subject matter.

[...Mole...]

80% user
5% body
15% lenses

Although I suppose it could vary on what type of photography you are actually doing.

Edited by ...Mole... on Tuesday 24th November 11:14

[jon-]

Simpo Two said:

I think we'll have to assume that the subject matter and opportunity are there... and of course the better the user, the more likely they are to find the subject matter.

If the subject is there, then the lens is the most important factor. Anyone could operate an SLR to get a half decent photo, but if you're trying to shoot a bird in flight with an UWA even the hardest pro won't stand a chance.

For me, 95% of the battle is getting the subject and having the right glass to capture that. Operating the camera and post is the easy bit.

[beano500]

Simpo Two said:

... got me thinking ...

John, you think too much!


In simplistic terms, camera 20%, lens 80% - it's the quality of your photon that counts.

Taking the combination of camera and post processing (without starting a RAW v JPEG debate please!) together though:

Camera/processing 30%
Lens 30%
User 30%
subject 5%
end viewer 5%

[tog]

Photographer 100%

A good photographer will be able to get a good photograph with whatever equipment is to hand. What that photo is of is another matter - an experienced photographer will recognise any limitations in the kit available and make subject and composition choices accordingly.

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

jon- said:

Body: 15%
Lens: 25%
User: 40%
Post: 35%
Subject matter: 85%
Position of moon: 3%

Sweet.

You work very hard. 203%

[Nick M]

I was going to try and come up with a percentage spread, but the reality is that it varies from person to person IMO.

Give a decent amateur a significantly better camera and you improve their chances (or opportunity) of taking better photographs. They might be sharper, more detailed, better colours, etc., all born out of use of better equipment. But would they suddenly be blessed with the vision to see better photographs, or would they just take technically better pictures of the stuff they would have taken before ? I suspect the latter.

Similarly, if you give an outstanding photographer a cheap disposable camera, you limit the technical possibilities of how good a picture might be in terms of sharpness or contrast, but you don't hinder their ability to see creatively and capture photographs that others wouldn't have seen.

So, from that perspective, I would have to say that in terms of the biggest influence of what achieves a truly stunning picture, the user accounts for around 90%, and the camera / lenses are just bit parts - the tools to allow them to capture the picture at all, rather than how technically good they allow the picture to look.

[Andy M]

All of these photos were taken with camera phones: http://www.thebestcamera.com/popular.html


For me the split would be:

User: 99.9%

Equipment: 0.1%

Edited by Andy M on Tuesday 24th November 12:39

[Simpo Two]

Andy M said:

All of these photos were taken with camera phones: http://www.thebestcamera.com/popular.html

Great stuff as far as they go but I'm struggling with this one:

[beano500]

You could recreate that with an old filter and some vaseline - don't put yourself down!

[Simpo Two]

If my cat had opposable thumbs she could have done better...

[y2blade]

Simpo Two said:

The recent 'what DSLR?' thread got me thinking about the combination of factors that have to work together to make a successful photograph. (Obviously what makes a 'successful' photo is in the eye of the beholder, but you know what I mean)

There are those who think that lashing out thousands on kit will turn them from newbie to pro in a day, those who believe that lenses are more important than the body, and those who think that a good photographer will get good photographs regardless of the kit used.

I was only asking as I have ZERO experiance of Digital SLRs

[beano500]

Simpo Two said:

If my cat had opposable thumbs she could have done better...

Schrödinger’s cat did better and look at the state of him!

[havoc]

Depends on the type of photography.

For stuff not requiring a long reach or a quick lens (focus-speed and aperture), then user is at least 50%.

For more kit-dependent photos (e.g. Motor Racing and my recent safari), then the lens has to take a big share - even my 70-300 was only 'adequate' for the subject matter in Africa.