What really counts?

I don’t know why, but I’ve heard this phrase a lot in photography… it literally is a mantra nowadays.

It isn’t the equipment but the photographer that counts.

Now this is an uncontested fact. But It kinda irked me a bit today when I read a thread in a forum of a newbie asking an earnest question:

Which is the better camera model?

While I believe in the mantra, I don’t think using it as an answer to what I conceive as unrelated questions helps at all. Why do I think it’s unrelated?

First of all, the goddamned question is a fairly simple one and doesn’t require the application of subjectivity.

A common mistake done by those who wish to be “deep and profound” by using such a mantra is that they assume that the comparison of equipment capabilities has to factor in the human aspect. True, you can look at it that way, but I for one, would be more inclined to assume first that everything else is equal. That the human element is extracted out of the equation from the start. Because really, who cares if a Pro photographer can take better pictures with a point and shoot than a newbie with a top of the line setup? That’s an obvious fact, so why even bring it up to confuse the person asking the question?

While it’s true that a grandmother driving a Ferrari, might lose to a racer driving a Honda… we can still obviously say with a fairly straight face that the Ferrari is a better car right?

This is how I would like people to approach those types of questions. Because the whole “It’s the photographer” bit, while very useful ammo for the skilled users to defend their choice equipment, is getting very old, very quick – and is beginning to sound like a cop-out excuse instead of a real honest realization.

So which is the better camera model IMHO? I dunno 😉 Leica?

But of course we know that while there are other better brands out there depending on your needs, but the real comparison is between Canon and Nikon in the average consumer perspective. I’d have to go Canon not because I own one, but because overall it simply is better as of the moment ¹ When it comes to technology, it would be good to never speak in finality, because for as long as you can release a new product, you always have a chance to outdo the competition.:

• They’re faster in technological development, so it suggests that they can “perfect” a given technology curve in a shorter period… which is very telling of how “good” a brand is.
• I think their top of the line lenses are better than the Nikon counterpart.
• They have better customer and hardware support.
• Their models usually have lower noise levels.

Similarly, Nikon has a couple of strengths that oust Canon’s offerings, such as their metering or color technology.

Yet an important fact to consider is that the discrepancies between the two brands are very thin – almost to a point that they’re basically the same, but taking them all in as a whole, I’d really have to go Canon because it barely beats Nikon nowadays… but hey, a win is still a win right?

Having said that the answer to the newbie’s question was pretty simple right? He could’ve just went to the store the same day and got himself a camera he would definitely enjoy.

If the question had been what’s best for me, then you could go subjective and put in all the other weights in the argument as you please. But if it’s simply asking for a better brand… especially in the realm of technology, you can actually enumerate the strengths and weaknesses of products that can give you a definite answer.