Can you really make good photos without a good camera?

I hear them all the time. "It's the person behind the viewfinder that takes the photo, not the camera" is somewhat true, but only half true. Sure enough if you're a very unskilled photographer there's no use even with a hasselblad dSLR camera, but the photos taken by an excellent photographer with a pinhole camera would prove to have little use. If that's true then why are we seeing professional photographers walking around with good lenses and cameras, whereas philosophy claims that all you need is a disposable camera?Again that will mean there's no such thing as a good camera, but why are big corporations such as Nikon and Canon employing top engineers to make lenses and cameras?

"Again that will mean there's no such thing as a good camera, but why are big corporations such as Nikon and Canon employing top engineers to make lenses and cameras?"

Better equipment makes it easier to get a good picture. You could shoot a wedding with a box full of disposable cameras, but you need to bring other skills into play. You'd need to have sufficient lighting, need to have the ability to move around where you need to to get the shot. Better equipment allows for use of higher ISO, so less light or no additional lighting is required, fast zooms and VR/IS allow for photographers to be able to abide by the rules and regulations of the ceremony or event because they either do not have to move as much or not at all.

Think of it this way.

If I put a pinhole camera in the hands of Ansel Adams, and then give you the exact same camera, who do you think is going to come back with a better picture?
OR
If I give Ansel unlimited money and a month to get the best shot he can take, and give you the same, who is going to come back with the better image?

Being a professional is also more than just the basics of photography. It is knowing the right gear and how to use it, the right accessories, the correct lighting and setups, the best poses, the best business skills.

In an issue of RangeFinder magazine, a nationally recognized glamour and fashion photographer took a whole shoot of images for a product with a Polaroid instamatic. The client LOVED it. Why? They had asked for a specific look, and the photographer knew that with all the $40,000 digital medium format cameras, $10,000 high end DSLRs that to get the look they wanted and he needed, the $100 polaroid was the way to go.

You buy equipment that best suits your needs and shooting style and that will allow you to get the job done in the most efficient manner with the best results. No one attribute is in a vacuum. They all play off each other.

Glad I could help. Report It

The tool is only as good as the person is using it.

A sharpshooter will hit the target because of the sharpshooter's skill, not the gun. Compare to a novice, a sharpshooter can hit the same target with a 44 magnum, as well as with just a 22. There's a big advantage with the 44 compared with a 22, right. Which one will you chose if you were the sharpshooter.

composition and exposure can make or break an image.
in 90% of the situations it is the photographer that makes the image...the camera is only secondary. it does help to have a good quality camera with a decent lens i've seen where the lens can blow a good image. but a top of the line dslr or large format camera will not make the images any better if a person does not know how to compose and expose to begin with.
my wife took an awesome image with a cheap throw away more than once. and i see images in flickr that are incredible that were taken by little pink point and shoots.

Just like all arts, artists don't want to be limited by the tools at hand. You start off with limiting tools and as you improve you get better and better equipment. A highly skilled artist is only going to get so much out of mediocre tools. That doesn't mean you only have to use technically advanced or expensive tools but if it will open up your possibilities, it is nice to have such tools. Doesn't do any good though if you lack the skills to maximize the use of such tools.

Yes, a good photographer can make a good image without a good camera. A good carpenter could build a house wiith only a hand saw, hammer and nails. Would his job be easier with the correct tools? A camera, basic or advanced, is a tool. Good craftsmen and artists of any sort want and like having good tools at hand. Companies like making money. Get it? It's really not hard, and your basic premise is too simplified to have any real meaning.

The answer to your question is Yes, the photographer can make interesting photos without a good camera. An old brownie might do! But, the good lens and good cameras open up even more creative possibilities. he big companies are going to go where the biggest profits are, in the case Nikon and Canon, the pro sumer models are going to make them the most money.

The tools are important!

A good camera with the right lens makes specific types of photography much better. Fast telephoto lenses are great for photographing birds. Wide lenses are great for architecture and landscapes. Medium telephoto lenses are great for portraits.

Use the right tool for the right job for the best results.

well it depends what angles you take it and the lighting the camera only changes each picture slightly but you can always use the photo shop on computers to edit it. its just the way you take the photo

I have hunted squirrels all of my life. I use a $29 dollar .22 rifle. I do well with it. It is not so much the equipment as it is the grey matter between your ears that makes the good photographer.

all pictures try to show a point and show interst the the viewer. if he can even use that with enough detailes(doesnt matter if they are blurry) and right tint and enough light or shade then he can do wonders!