Now that my initial ire has cooled, I am reminded of this awfully terribly politically incorrect picture about internet flame wars on a fark.com thread sparked by an article about some entertainment figure insulting the organizers of the special olympics. Always a bit embarassing to become part of a flame war, even if I do think it was justified. Yeah, who cares if it’s justified, or if I’m right. I was still dumb enough to participate in the flame war.
Anyway, to follow-up on my post from below, after I clarified my position about what bothered me about Matt’s post, Matt replied with an ad hominem attack. But in that attack, he made an interesting comment: "It’s not like National Geographic contracted you to go to a scooter rally with your crappy $200 digital camera."
So two minor points:
First, I shoot with a Canon Eos Rebel I’ve owned for eight years now, and, except for the rare roll of black & white, I shoot chrome, (for the last six years, specifically Kodak E100 VS and E200 film). I use three lenses, an 19-35mm wide-angle, a 28-80mm medium-range lens, and a 70-300mm long lens. I’d say I use the 28-80 about 60% of the time, the long lens about 30% of the time, and the wide lens the remaining 10% (it’s rarely necessary, but when you need it, you need it). And, of course, I have a bunch of other crap, including a Manfrotto tripod, some filters, an extension tube, yada yada yada. Probably $3k worth of camera junk. Not a pro rig, barely even pro-sumer, but decent for what I needed when I first got started.
Second, the post implies my photography is of poor quality. I do take pride in my work. In fact, I take my work about as seriously as the owners of some of the scooters I photographed in Las Vegas take their bikes. I will be the first to admit that I’m not a pro, especially when friends suggest my stuff is professional quality. I can tell the difference in a heartbeat. Oh, I have sold some pictures, but I can count the number on one hand.
Now the major point:
But the really interesting implication is that equipment makes the photo. I think that’s a big fallacy. Equipment gives a photographer flexibility, provides a greater range of options. Take, for example, that wide-angle lens I rarely use: For architectural pictures, or for anything where I can’t move 
far enough back for my medium-length lens to capture the entire subject, it’s invaluable. But that’s not to say I need to capture the entire subject, like clock tower and crowded staircase in Santiago de Compostella (note the slight curve of the tower–that’s distortion from the wide lens). Sometimes, focusing in on just a few details–like this bas relief on the tower, or a man sitting in the crowd, looking up at the steeple— can make just as compelling a picture, if not more so, than the broader subject. The first picture I could never have taken without special equipment. The second and third I could have taken with my cell phone, though it would have been grainy.
But let’s get even more specific, and take a look at some pictures (first and second) I took back in 1997. They look pretty good, they capture a lot of emotion, a lot of pain and distress. Any idea what kind of equipment I used?
I took them with a point-and-shoot, press-here-dummy camera that couldn’t have cost more than $100, and I shot them using low-quality consumer film.
To go in another direction, a friend from business school decided to buy an expensive digital SLR before a trip we took together to Costa Rica. When he got back, he was completely disappointed in the quality of his pictures: they tended to be out-of-focus due to camera shake. His solution was to purchase even more expensive lenses with anti-shake technology. But my pictures, taken with my old, beat-up Canon gear, were all crystal clear, and I didn’t use a tripod or expensive, anti-shake lenses. Why? Just a matter of being familiar with my equipment, and knowing my own and my equipments’ limitations. When I didn’t have sufficient light getting through the rain forest canopy, I knew exactly what shutter speed I could barehand a shot at, and at what focal length. If it was too slow, I braced myself against a tree. Or switched to faster film. Or narrowed the depth of field. Or zoomed out. All sorts of tricks that you could pull off with a thirty-year-old SLR. (OK, I also used a $35 attachment to my $500 flash gun that focused the light, throwing it 100+ feet up into the canopy. But skill had something to do with it, too!).
Anyway, give me a crappy $200 digital camera and a rookie a $20K, top-of-the-line pro kit from Canon, and my pictures will be better than the rookie’s, 99 times out of 100. Give a pro a crappy $200 digital camera and me the top-end Canon kit, and maybe, just maybe, I’ll be able to hold my own.