In a message dated 11/29/2005 2:39:31 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ....Thats not necessarily true, a really good camera (in the context of modern digital or film cameras)should produce a technically excellent product under most every condition with little or no intervention from the operator. The camera industry has spent the last 25 or more years perfecting them to this end.
It may produce uninspiring pictures in the hands of a "bad" photographer, but that is another matter. A bad camera in the hands of a bad or average to OK photographer will do the same thing, BTW (produce bad pictures, that is), and will cripple any attempts to get better. William Robb ============ A bad camera won't help. But a good camera doesn't help a whole lot either. I managed for about 25+ years to use a Pentax P&S (film), perfectly good camera, expensive at the time, to take tons of bad photos. Overexposed, underexposed, things cut off, telephone poles coming out of Aunt Jane's head (I don't have an Aunt Jane, but that idea), lousy shots of people, not so great shots of landscapes. I didn't know what the f I was doing. There is still more to shooting that just picking a camera up. Knowing a bit about f-stops and when to change the settings depending upon the light helps a tad too. Even now. Although, true, cameras have gotten even better. But they had all kinds of program modes for film cameras for years. That part hasn't changed that much. Sure some novices can get decent pictures with good cameras. But what is their hit rate of decent pictures? And some total novices have an instinct for photography anyway. And some don't. So I disagree. Sorry. Marnie aka Doe ;-) Why the h am I defending something KR said anyway? LOL.
