Photographs Are Made With Light, Not Sensors and Tech
caleb kerr

While I agree with your message, the images you are showcasing are somewhat contradicting your point. I only see one or two images that are dependent on the available light and could have been shot just as well on a smaller/cheaper sensor (the expo center sunbeam and the gear shot), the rest require features such as long exposure (milky way and lightning shots), telephoto lenses with large aperture (surfer shot), and studio lighting (the athlete shots) which generally aren’t available to someone with a phone camera, point-and-shoot, or other budget-friendly gear.

I’m a sucker for these articles that downplay gear and hail artistry, as that’s what I tell people whenever they ooh and ahh over my camera and photography. I just bought a 23 megapixel phone camera with crazy fast autofocus to try to challenge myself do more mobile photography and I was consistently disappointed with the quality of the photos. That’s a larger sensor and a more expensive camera than my DSLRs, yet the images are in my opinion far inferior. So I’m coming around on this argument, and my current version is that there’s a bell curve of quality to be found in inexpensive cameras that can give you great results. More money doesn’t always mean better images, but there’s a minimum threshold as well. For my case, the Canon Rebel SL1 is the sweet spot between price and quality, and thus I’ve made that one my primary camera body.

Are all of the above shots from your 1DX, or do you shoot with other bodies as well? I’m always curious to learn what others treat as their everyday cameras vs companion cameras vs special use/client work cameras, as I’m more likely to make your companion camera my primary one…

Like what you read? Give kinkytraveler a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.