Give a photographer two cameras - one camera being more capable than the other - and the photographer will take better shots, on average, with the more capable camera. That always seemed pretty obvious to me. The key, of course, is that it's the same photographer using the two cameras.

Give two photographers of differing abilities the same camera, and the better photographer will take better shots, on average, than the lesser photographer. Again pretty obvious.

Give two photographers of differing abilities two different cameras of differing capabilities, and now the outcome isn't so obvious. Which I guess is where the cliche comes from. Except the cliche tries to oversimplify.

All cliches simplify reality. I think the bottom line in this case is that both the camera and the photographer matter. But all else being equal, the photographer matters far more. Of course a pinhole camera doesn't have the same picture taking capabilities of, say, a Nikon D3, but then any competent photographer wouldn't expect it to and wouldn't attempt to use it to take a photograph that demands the capabilities of a D3. Certainly, a big part of being a good photographer is understanding what your equipment can and cannot do.

On the other hand, I would expect an Ansel Adams (were we able to beam him alive and kicking into our time) to be able to produce far more compelling images using a pinhole camera than your average three-year old. Likewise with the D3. A good photographer will always produce better photographs with any given camera than a my cousin Marvin would (assuming one could tear him away from ESPN), and will be far better at choosing the right camera for the job in the first place.

Give pinhole cameras to both my cousin and Ansel Adams and set them loose in Yosemite Valley and my cousin will happily snap away at El Capitan and Half Dome. Ansel would be far more likely to hang out at the bar in the Ahwanee Hotel and plan a return trip, armed with his view camera.

My camera and lenses are quite simply extensions of my eyes, brain, heart and soul. Yes they are important. I must "connect" with my hardware/camera/lens to make creative serious work. I am drawn to certain specific types of equipment--always have been. It is that equipment that motivates me and challenges me along with my subject matter and my feelings about that subject matter, of course. Eleanor

I totally agree with Micheal, I used to sell cameras in a small shop near Montreal and the first thing i'd ask customers is "what do you plan to shoot" (and then the budget comes into play).

Then after that, we could suggest certain products (ok almost all of them were compacts and not SLR but...) And i'm sorry but when they came back to get they're picture printed, you can really see the difference between a nice piece of equipment and a crappy one...

So in my opinion, if this is true in compact cameras, it's true in all cameras/equipment.

This reminds me of a time when I was __________ ing. I'm a very good _____ er.
On a demo-day, I tried out a number of _________'s.
Each one enabled me to _________ very well.
Then I tried out the cream-of-the-crop _________. I found it had a profound difference on my ___________ ing.

I think people like Ken can get confused because any number of cameras allow for a certain level of competence. But there some cameras that will allow the competent to exceed at a new level.

BTW, ____ = ski

of course there are differences between cameras, some produce better detail and some can shoot faster....the right camera for the job...that goes without saying....
but there are also different kinds of photography...the kind when you wait for the moment, the kind where you create the moment and then there are some grey areas in between (setting the stage and waiting for the moment you wanted to create).....

i find it funny that ansel adams always is used as an example of a great photographer....which he certainly was, but he was an even better printer and a large part of his art is the developing and printing technique....

there is the old saying that the difference between an amateur and a pro are 500 frames....which to a point is true, not because random shooting will get you better results, but shooting more is like exploring and by that (and during editing) one finds what works better and learns for the next shoot....i would also add to that that the biggest difference is a master printer....nowadays that means someone who can make a file from a canon rebel look better then from a 1dsIII....

and considering that some working pros shoot with disposable cameras and some don't even touch the cameras (the assistants and camera operators do that for them...although i would say that that blurs the line with art directors)....no the camera does not matter at all....

but in reality these people found a way to get their ideas from their heads onto paper...that is the most important thing.....and forums probably can't help you with that....you have to play and find your toy.....

it is funny that in these forums, cameras and are discussed to death....and lens specs are compared in numbers.....but what makes the picture..the character of lenses and the light that is captured..actually rarely does....

I thought I'd let Michael know that there are indeed online forums where people debate the merits of various pieces and brands of kitchen equipment for both the serious hobby-chef and the aspiring professional.

For example, try Chowhound.com and the 'cookware' board.

I remember a long posting on chowhound once complaining about people who comment on a cook's pans or appliances and say things like 'I should get a XXX so I could cook this dish' and not realising the importance of the cook. It all seemed very similar to the sort of equipment and counter-the-equipment debates that happen in photo circles.

Uhm. Ken Rockwell's site is a joke. It's a gag. It's meant to poke fun at all manner of things photographic. Did you read his "About" page?


[[Come on folks. Don't they teach analytical thinking in schools any more? ]]

Indeed.

Isn't this all irrelevant?

It's not the camera...get a life.
It's not the photographer...get over your ego

but the person (client) looking at the picture who is the most important

If his site is a joke, it's one which he and many other take all too seriously.

His disclaimer simply appears to be an excuse for inconsistency.

Michael

Just what the manufacturers want us to believe - the more we buy, the "better" we get...I got over that a long time ago...

I guess Michael Schumacher was just along for the ride while the car won 7 championships...

Yes the equipment matters, and I enjoy the latest technology without shame or guilt. But to say that we need modern tools to accomplish anything is truely naive. Just ask the Incas, or the Egyptians...hell we're still trying to figure out how they did it.

Right, but who would do a better job removing your appendix? A surgeon with a pocket knife, of a boy scout with a finely honed scalpel?

I think the point here is that the equipment only matters insofar as the photographer has the skill to get the most out of it.

The thing I like about photography is it's a combination of art and science. And in the skilled hands of a great photographer, a better camera can make better images, but in the hands of someone who knows not what they are doing, it's wasted. A picture is the sum of the camera, the technology, the art and the artist. You can't just look exclusively at one aspect or you'll get to the point of absurdity very rapidly....

Michael:
With all due respect, I don't think that you and Ken are in disagreement. You both believe that the camera is an essential part of the photographic experience and endeavor, as it obviously must be. Ken makes the very valid point that the purpose of the camera is to make it possible for the photographer to accomplish his or her vision. Put another way, the best camera is the one that best suits the photographer's intended purpose with the least amount of thought given to the tool and the most amount of thought given to the "seeing" of the final image.

I would suggest that Jay Maisel, who I have had the pleasure of shooting with on two occasions, would succeed in creating striking images with whatever equipment you gave to him. However, he chooses to use a Nikon D3 because it allows him to capture the images he wants in the environments in which he chooses to shoot.

What Ken was communicating is that many of us get caught up in the technology chase and forget what drove us to photography in the first place, i.e., creating that "wow" image. Does the camera make a difference? Of course it does, and Ken would be the first to admit it. Does the photographer make a bigger difference? Of course he or she does. Give a talented photographer and an uninspired photographer the same equipment and the same shooting environment, and I have no doubt which one will be the more likely to produce the "wow" image.

I have also experienced shooting with Michael in the Amazon last year. Michael, you own or have owned virtually every fine piece of photographic equiment ever made, but can you honestly say that these purchases have improved the artistic, as opposed to technical, quality of your images anywhere near as much as your attention to improving your ability to "see" an image. If you believe the answer is yes, then good for you. You are a rare creature in that respect.

Rather than disparaging Ken's message, perhaps the debate would be furthered by concentrating on the insights he offers about the relative importance (not the exclusive importance) of vision over technology. There is value there.

Goodness, Michael, that article is a bit of a rant!

Of course you are right in a sense but in another sense you are wrong, too. It is a matter of degree and the kind of photography being undertaken. Praise of the Holga might be overdone but so to is the endless deconstruction of the merits of competing camera models which in reality offer almost identical performance.

Oh, and I'm surprised you are not more familiar with the words of Mr Rockwell. Love him or loath him the man is a internet photographers' (anti)legend. A man who can review equipment in great detail by looking at the brochure alone!

ps

Why not do something different and write a review of the Sigma DP-1. I was at the Focus on Imaging 2008 show the other week and managed to persuade Laurence Matson to let me into the Sigma booth to take a close up look at the A0 sized prints they had on display. The Death Valley shots demonstrated excellent print quality. I think a camera you can slip into a shirt pocket and get Canon 5D like quality from for landscape work has got to a lot more interesting than endless reviews of Canon Rebels (even though my 350D gets a lot more use than my 5D)...

As Michael often says: "Horses for courses."

I think it boils down to the intent of the photographer.

Is it possible to create a striking image with a Holga? Certainly.

Could Burtynsky execute his intent with a Holga? No way.

(And let's not confuse the necessary with the sufficient).

Michael is correct in saying that the equipment matters. It does in photography and in any endeavor in which science plays a significant role.

The real issue is that the equipment is not all that matters. The art matters as well.

In my view one's approach should be a 50/50 split between art and science.

Or maybe 60/40.

Definitely not 90/10 or worst 100/0 in either direction.

At least not if one intends to create expressive images.

In a literal sense, of course equipment "matters", but that's not the point that most people who say "equipment does not matter" are trying to make.

Bad workmen blame their tools, so the mediocre photographer explains his or her mediocrity on the fact he or she does not have a good enough camera. Therein lies the root of the problem - the belief that all one needs to release the Ansel Adams trapped inside is a better camera, lens or other gadget. Its not true historically and its not true now. In that sense, equipment does not matter nearly as much as the sad gearheads on dpreview would like to believe and I'd be mighty surprised to see a contrary view receive support here.

Quentin

Wrote a mail to Michael about a week ago suggesting Ken Rockwell as an interesting subject for a future Video Journal interview. To me KR and MR represent opposite extremes when it comes to Internet photo sites. Personally I agree maybe 92% with MR, 3% with KR and 5% with myself, but I still think KR is a pretty smart guy who makes some valid points. Fun to read too.

Anyway, don't know if my mail influenced Michael to check out Ken Rockwell’s site, but I certainly won’t expect an interview anytime soon.

Michael wrote: Camera Does Matter. Yes he is right, a toycamera can make very interesting pictures.

Quentin, you have it about right: it takes both the tools and the ability to use them. Where I think it all goes up its own ass is where great claims are made between models so similar as to be practically the same: D200/D300 comes to mind. As I answered elsewhere on this site to that very question, if you are really able to cross your heart and say that the D200 is not good enough for your skills, then get the D300. But, to extend that here, if you really are better than the D200, I think you should forget the D300 and await the one after the D3 or, perhaps, funds no problem, get the D3 and also the next one up that comes along.

Can I get better shots from Leica M-whatever than I can with Nikon F3? Certainly not, as I have no DEEP experience of the Leica. But, with experience of both, my last employer (M3, if you need the detail) did exactly that and embraced the new Nikon F. Not so much a CAMERA choice but a system one, rangefinder v. reflex.

I think Michael´s reaction was quite surprising, for him, must have been something he had for dinner last night; we all get those moments! I think the main problem is that he seemed to have taken a very literal interpretation where, to me at least, there was but one point being made: it IS the photographer who matters and the camera need but be good enough. I agree utterly that nit-picking and pixel peeping are hobbies in their own right, that great photography is a cerebral event, hardly an overwhelmingly mechanical one.

But then, a whole group of little industries depends upon photographic circles of confusion for its very being and the bucks they bring in, so not a lot is going to change, whether by word of mouth, through magazines or clubs or even the internet. Everbody has an axe to grind, a field to plough, a cash cow to milk. Just make the most of the educated opinion you can form for yourself.

Buenas noches - Rob C

many classic and iconic images are out of focus or soft, lack contrast have too much grain and probably show CA under a loupe....

nothing worse then a sharp image of a fuzzy concept....ansel adams, i believe....

i would say that this is one of the problems with the advances in digital imaging...everybody has access to professional tools (yes i count a rebel as a pro tool) and photoshop....the world is NOT a better or prettier place because of it...there are just millions of very mediocre crisp and detailed images...

Michael, I'm sorry that you happened to stumble upon Ken Rockwell's site for the first time. He's been around for a while now. I can describe his website in one word: Hilarious.

He used to bash Canon. Then he got a 5D. He's in love now.

He used to say that full-frame 35mm is out of date, and that APS is superior. Now he disagrees.

The only thing that hasn't changed is that he believes that JPEGs are superior to RAW files and that TRIPODS are OBSOLETE.

He's actually a nice guy. He replied to my emails, and seems like a good guy. The only problem is that he's a complete jackass.

I hope it did because Ken Rockwell definitely needs to be "spanked". What a total, effing, bullshitting idiot.

I remember years ago when I shot Nikon and was looking for an on-line review of a new Nikon lens. Got a hit for a review of the lens on his site. I go there and the "review" was just something like "How does it perform? I have no idea, since I've never used one"!?!

Then I saw how he described himself as a "published" photographer. I couldn't believe it looking at the stuff posted on his site so I emailed him and asked where he had been published. Turned out it was in some crappy black and white toy train or airplane hobbyist magazine or something like that.

Michael I can't believe you took this goof seriously but thanks for "spanking" him anyway.

Without the shadow of a doubt there many different fields within photography, and many of those sub-industries have implicit standards in terms of equipment. That's a fact of life that is not even worth discussing.

One of the confusions in this debate results from the fact that people are overall treating photography as if it were PJ work alone. Yes, it is true that the dying soldier shot by Capa during the Spainish war could have been shot with a current mobile phone and still carries an amazing appeal. All this shows is that image quality is not important for all photographic fields, but it can hardly be used as a proof that all photographic fields can overlook the impact of equipment on the end results.

Michael and many others have been writing this for years, and it would seem to me that 6 years olf kids with a basic education in logic should be able to make this out, but I guess that I am expecting too much.

Now, a topic that I find much more worth discussing is what I call "the re-virtualization of capturing devices". Today, most of my images I consider worth printing are panoramas. A panorama only becomes reality thanks to the combination of capturing device and post processing. In a way, it is a partial step back towards the former world of film where [chemical] post processing was needed to reveal the virtual image carried by the exposed piece of film.

The implication of the usage of panoramic techniques on the nature of photography can be troubling since the capturing process of panoramas stops to be a more or less prolonged instant event, but becomes discrete in time, spead out in a way. This has the potential to shed new light on the eternal debate on the "reality" of photography vs it being intrinsically an interpretation of reality combining more or less conscious depatures induced both from the equipment and the person using it.

If we are to re-open classical debates, I'd rather focus on these topics. I might write an essay on this one of these days.

Cheers,
Bernard

???????????

Michael,

With all due respect, your use of ^%^*$ language speaks volume about the validity of your arguments. The more irritated you seem to be, the more weight you give to Ken's arguments.

I like Kens site, and his use of language that many find so infuriating.

I thinks hes saying

have fun

get out

take pictures

enjoy

Your current digicam is probably pretty good

As the owner of some stupid gear with lust for more its food for thought

Ps some of the best money I have ever spent was on a $200 frying pan

SMM

Again, re-read his essay, then go back to read a few books on logic/rethorics and you might see the light.

Questionning Michael's main point equals questioning logic itself.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sounds like we have a new deity here. The above statement would make even The Pope proud.

And by the way, Bernard, patronizing me (or others) is not going to add any weight to your arguments.

I am sure that your superior logical/rhetorical skills allowed you to grasp that in my post I did not go into the validity of Michael's argument at all. I was simply pointing out that using a cursing language typically does not add weight to one's arguments; on the contrary, it weakens them.

This is not about questioning Michael's main point and the relevance of logic to the discussion. It is about Michael responding to Ken's thesis by stating that cameras do matter, which is putting much too much emphasis on the title of Ken's article, and paying little attention to the substance of his article. Michael's main point is superficial and unresponsive to the main tenet of Ken's article, which is that the camera is less critical to the photographic experience than what the photographer brings to the image capture. Michael dismisses this by arguing that camera technology is very important to the process of image capture. Of course it is, but more important to the debate is the relative importance of the advances in technology to the creative process itself.

Mr. Michael H. Reichmann wrote:

One of the hoariest of the hoary cliches is that a good photographer can take a good photograph with just about any camera. Horseshit.

But I think a technical good photograph is not per definition a interesting photograph and that is
great difference.

I think also that a good photographer can take a interesting photograph with just about any camera.

I don't think Michael's article was just in response to reading Ken's site. All that article did is set him off about a topic that he believes is far too prevalent across the wider Net. it was 'The straw that broke the camel’s back', so to speak. Whilst Ken's site itself may purport to be a "joke", it’s just one example of far too many in online forums where you see this almost holier-than-though attitude of 'it’s all the photographer, stupid’.

Michael is certainly not espousing that is all about the gear either, but that it should be a balance of the two. They both matter. We pursue a craft that relies heavily on tools, and the quality of your tools always matters to a craftsman, regardless of their craft.

As an amateur woodworker, I see this constantly in trade magazine, and even articles reprinted from 100 years ago. Tools have always been discussed, debated, and analyzed. (Do I want the #97 Stanley Edge, or is the #127 Stanley Jack better for edge planning some Tasmanian Oak)

Quoting Michael from a slide in his recent Seminar in Sydney.

"Better tools will NOT make you a better Photographer.
Better tools WILL allow you to make better Photographs. "

Subtle, but important distiction, that I happen to agree with.

Regards

Mark

PS: No, They don’t’ seem to teach analytical or critical thinking in school any more, I personally only did it after joining the Navy.

Ken's "thesis"? Puhleeze. Ken Rockwell isn't qualified to even carry Michael's camera bag.

Of course the camera doesn't matter . . . to the taste of my PB&J sandwich.

Which 'fact,' of course, has about the same relevance in answering an equipment-related photography question as knowing that a Holga can capture an award-winning photograph. That might be true, but I sure don't see many pros shooting Holgas on the NFL sidelines.

The equipment is not an end, but neither is it irrelevant.

I remember when the 1Ds came out and he announced that "it was no big deal". No, it's probably just one of the five or ten most significant cameras of all time.

I was once told that all a photographer needed was a camera and an audience -- and the camera was optional!

Sure...

"With all due respect, your use of ^%^*$ language speaks volume about the validity of your arguments"...

If you didn't mean to question Michael's argument, you probably need a class in writing on top of the class about logic...

Cheers,
Bernard

Just returned home from a shoot at the Tonto Monument Lower Cliff Dwellings and decided to check-in and see what’s new. It’s been several minutes now and I’m still laughing my ass off at Michael’s latest article….

There’s so much merit to the article that I’ll just say it should be required reading.

Also I’m now thinking I know what to do with the cereal box after I empty it in the morning.

Michael - keep up the good work!

Judging by the number of typos in Michael's article, I'd say he's still a bit edgy from time lag and temperature adjustment. Or was it the tears in my eyes from laughing. Obviously, he doesn't suffer fools lightly. But seriously, have you ever seen a self-respecting craftsman who didn't take pride and care in his/her choice of tools. I know as a surgeon that I've thought long and hard about the tools I use. That's not to say there aren't choices and variations of outcomes. In any art form the important thing is the product. But how you get there is what this forum is all about.

OK, I'll bite...I can't resist picking apart flawed reasoning.

Ken Rockwell is 'putting the cart before the horse'. Looking at great images and finding out they were taken with low level gear does not lead to the conclusion that low level gear takes great photos, only that it can under certain circumstances and in the hands of a good photographer.

The point here is that in many quoted cases the camera was chosen for a specific reason to get a specific effect by a master photographer, ergo the camera is indeed critical to the end result.

There is a talented photojournalist here in Australia called Michael Coyne who took two Holgas to East Timor to shoot a serious piece on the people of that war torn country. The reason he used the Holgas was not because he is a great photographer who can take great images with any piece of junk but specifically because the cameras evoked a different reaction from his subjects.

Pointing a top of the line Canon (worth a year's wages) at a 3rd world war victim is one thing, but pointing a 'toy' camera at them was actually amusing to the subjects. Michael's images show people in far more natural poses that a gun Reuters guy might have shot. The choice of camera was a deliberately creative one - a considered choice of tool for that particular job and critical to the intended outcome.

Regarding pots and brushes, yes people do agonize about the minutiae of such things. All activities involving tools have this aspect, it's human nature to one degree but, more importantly, it is critical to a master of any craft to understand exactly how a given tool will behave. Only master craftsman can fully appreciate just how important the tools are to the job in hand.

Anyone who says the camera is irrelevant simply does not fully understand their craft.

The creation and use of tools is arguably that which separates us from lower animals. That we discuss them endlessly seems to be both natural and normal. In the end, however, people have to use those tools. The difference in results is not a function of the tool.

I enjoy reading Michael and Ken - for different reason and with different mindsets.

Some random thoughts:

Check out a woodworking site and see how many words are expended on chisels.

A professional is one who does his best work when he doesn't feel like it.

Despite the high cost of living, it remains highly popular.

I don't entirely agree with this.

Objectively, different tools must make a difference, simply because they are different. Subjectively I agree, tools don't always make a difference.

Objectively, one lens can be sharper than another; subjectively, this may not be important to the outcome but, if it is, then the choice of tool is vital.

Whilst I am no super Ken Rockwell fan, he sure does have a point.

I am puzzled as to why the LL would put up that article. I don't take KR that seriously, and I dont think he does either, but he says some good things at times (and some not so good ones too)

I think what he was saying, is that the persuit of gear, and in many cases premium stuff, in itself means not a whole lot, rather obvious thing to say..but how true. We all get what we need, can afford etc. And we all like gadgets to a point. But the real meat is the photographer..and everyone knows it. How many of us know the keen new shooter who has loaded up with L lenses and high end stuff..only to produce somewhat lacking shots.

I feel there is a "snob" element to some photographers, in regards flashing off gear etc, this is not directed at anyone in particular.

Not that I suggest buying cheap stuff, but I think we all know what the argument is. And what does really count. I know KR's site has some iffy articles, and you could question the "tone" of some of his remarks, I find them somewhat refreshing in their no holds barred kinda way. Mind you, slightly OT, and dont take this the wrong way, but I am not sure this site is 100% on its articles either. DOF one is a bit lacking IMO, and the metering one avoids any mention of trying to explain how modern cameras work. So we can pick hairs if we want to.

Sorry Michael, I am with Ken on this one ;-)

I think everyone knows what Ken is trying to say, it's his arrogant proclamations that are so irritating. Reasoning out and debating issues is worthwhile but he takes the line of "I'm a free thinker and won't be caught up in all this mainstream stuff - oh and by the way if you do this or that then you are wrong"

He is a good example of what is bad about the Internet and his 'spoof' excuses simply will not wash when he must be aware that people do take him seriously when they don't know any better. He is trying to have his cake and eat it.

If you look at his home page, and click on Updates:

"Observation #2: I ticked-off a Canadian gear-oriented site with my classic Your Camera Doesn't Matter article, which has resonated with such deep truths worldwide that it is now available in fourteen languages.

I guess they've never seen good photos made with bad cameras up in Canada. I know I sure have, and linked to some, which settles that one.

I sure know I've also seen far more really crappy photos made with great equipment, in fact, I've made thousands of the crappy ones myself with great gear! "

(My italics)

I think this makes my point.

I know what you are saying Nick, and I am not here to defend Ken's sometimes questionable use of words. He tends not to pull his punches, sometimes that is good..other times not so good.

And I def do not agree with everything he says. But being a DP forum veteran, I am well used to strong arguments! I tend not to take things so seriously, esp websites and forums. I am sure both Micheal and Ken are nice guys, and both can have their view on this.

The problem I have is this..I honestly feel, IMO..my best shot was taken on a cheap beaten up Olympus compact, it didnt have the sharpest lens, it didnt make the best exposure. It is just, far and away my best ever shot (and film too..sorry!)

That kinda tells me something, whilst I would def have got a sharper better exposed shot with a leica, what counted is, I got the shot. That seals the deal for me, on a personal level, and really does say..that what you pack, matters a whole lot less, than what you get.

Ansel Adams said "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept"

It's always important, and interesting, to present prevailing arguments for or against some issue, and then examine the reasoning.

Seemingly wise sayings are often meant as an antidote to excessive concerns in the opposite direction. They are like parables. If you take such arguments literally, you can always pull them to pieces. At least I can .

Ansel Adams' pithy aphorism, 'There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept', is a perfect example. Of course there's something worse; a fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept. That really is totally useless; no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

At least Ken has done his best to present the 'for' case that the equipment doesn't matter, and his argument was good enough to provoke a rebuttal by Michael .

Actually I think it was exasperating enough to provoke a rebuttal!

Of course the camera matters. How much depends of the shooting situation. If you're shooting in bright sunlight, a digicam may produce results nearly indistinguishable from a 1D-III when both are printed 8x10 inches. But if you're shooting action in a dimly-lit gymnasium, the choice of camera can make the difference between good quality captures and noisy, unusable crap, no matter who is behind the camera. High-end, expensive cameras don't sell just because photographers have an incurable mine-is-bigger-than-yours complex (although that does factor into some camera sales), but because in many situations they offer capabilities that make a measurable difference in the quality of the final result. These may be improvements in image quality, autofocus speed and accuracy, handling, or ergonomics or "feel". In some cases these differences may be insignificant to the average person, but if those differences are significant to a paying client, then they may very well justify spending the additional money for the more sophisticated camera.

Sure, but was that best shot meant to be an answer to a RFP for a coffee book on the architecture in Venice or an add for the new BMW M3?

Had you in mind an exhibition in Kualalumpur where the requirement for print size it at least one meter high?

I know that the answer to these questions is NO, and I also know that if the answer had been yes, then the best shot would most probably not have been shot with an Olympus.

That's all Michael is saying.

Cheers,
Bernard