The best magazine
It suggests that somehow if you've won the race with less advantages than the competition then you must be better than the other guy.
Kind of like the story of the poor kid with duct taped golf clubs, that shows up on the course and drives the hell out of the ball while beating the rich cats with their top of the line clubs, and overpaid caddies.
Photographers can be a little bit that way as well.
While you may not thing as photography and digital cameras in that manner, you'd be surprised.
There always been a bit of a ongoing debate raging in this community as to whether equipment or expertise is more important to capturing the perfect photo.
While it's true that I've seen some pictures taken from cheap $200 compact cameras that are truly breath taking, there are some caveats that need to be explained.
Otherwise, who needs an expensive SLR camera to take great pictures.
Basically the most obvious one, is that the photographer with the cheap camera simply got lucky.
He / she managed to snap that photo at just the right time at just the right place, and under perfect lighting conditions to get an unbelievable shot.
And yes that does happen.
It could also be, that the individual had a solid understanding of lighting, composition, and the workings of the camera in their had to capture the photo.
There is something to be said for knowing what your doing.
I do believe, that it is possible for skill to compensate for shoddy equipment.
But, what if that same skilled photographer had truly exceptional equipment in their hands.
Maybe that one particular picture couldn't be any more perfect, but what about the hundreds of others that just missed the mark.
I suspect they would have benefited greatly from better equipment.
All that being said, I won't use that one lucky picture as an excuse for buying inferior equipment.
I like to play the odds, and if I think an expensive SLR camera in my hands will improve the likelihood of getting more perfect pictures, I'll gladly fork over the money.
Source: ...