[dugarner]

I always like to fall back on my music analogy when I get discouraged about my entry-level equipment. A mediocre student on piano will sound "better" playing a Steinway than a Kimball. But a mediocre student isn't going to sound more advanced, just a little more refined than they did on the crappy piano. It's still the same level of artistry, just a little more tolerable to the ears. I grew up playing a Kimball, and I'd do what I could to get the best music out of it, but when I went to my lessons and played on the Yamaha grand, it just sounded better. I could do things on the keys I just couldn't do on the Kimball.

With cameras, it is the same thing. While a great camera doesn't improve your eye, and won't do the composing for you, there are things to be said about the forgiveness and quality of better equipment. There are things I just can't do with my dSLR that would make some okay pictures great.

On the other hand, I can tell myself to push my equipment to the maximum of its performance, and be as good of a photographer as I can be with what I've got. I get comments and looks-down-the-nose from people with fancier cameras (that's a dSLR? it doesn't have as many buttons as mine does), but hey, at the end of the day, my pictures are off my camera, on my computer, on a scrapbook page, and ready to be printed. And theirs are probably . . . on their spare card sitting in their desk drawer?

So it's true that a great camera isn't necessarily going to make someone a great photographer, but I sure wish someday I could trade in my Kimball for a Steinway.