I have written about how I had a camera as a kid and about the chain of circumstances that led to my getting a DSLR camera. In that time, and well as the time with the DSLR, I have learned what is perhaps the key lesson of photography: the camera itself is usually not the limiting factor the quality of a photograph.
Certainly, it is true that a better camera can produce better photographs. If that were not true, there would not be a market for high-end camera. However, there are, three things that influence the quality of a photograph, and the quality of the camera is last on that list. In order, they are the eye of the person behind the camera, the lens in front of the camera, and (finally) the camera itself. Having a better camera does not mean that your photographs will automatically be better; it means that, if you can already take good photos, then you can take good photos in a wider variety of conditions. It is most important to upgrade your eye for photography, and you do that through study and practice – getting out in the field and shooting frames, and focusing on composition, lighting, and storytelling.
In other words, a better camera makes your photographs more astoundingly. If you take good photos, they will be more astoundingly good. If you take bad photos, they will be more astoundingly bad. If you take average photo, they will be more astoundingly average – that is, still average.
Jim Richardson, a photographer for National Geographic, said, “If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff.” I can only hope my choice of stuff is interesting, or that I have photographed that stuff in such a manner as to make it interesting.
Look for additional posts, musings, and the occasional photograph added to the blog in the “Photography” category.