If you cant understand pictures of people's lives are not dependent on the equipment you don't see art.
Perhaps it's you who can't understand the reality that "pictures of people's lives" do not constitute the only form of art.
Secondly, all pictures are dependent on some
form of "equipment" or another, so unless you come to terms with the fact that all
photographs are dependent upon equipment it is impossible to have a meaningful disussion with you.
Your images are very good technical recordings of things. Clear, crisp, technically very good. Also lifeless.
Thank you for the compliments on my techincal skill in taking macro shots. As for the "lifeless" comment about my photos, I would have to disagree, seeing as my photos are of wildlife
. I find your comment interesting, however, as one of the most consistent compliments I get are that my photos are "bursting with colors and life," but you most certainly have the right to your own opinion.
One more thing I would like to mention about the photos I have taken is that you couldn't possibly
duplicate photos of this kind with a standard lens ... especially that $35 beauty you used ... you would have to have the right equipment
in order to come close
Most cameras are more than good enough at presenting the subject well.
Actually, cameras don't "present" the subject at all (they merely record what gets presented to the sensor). Lenses
are what present the subject, and so here again we're talking about equipment, are we not?
And as far as being able to "present the subject well," the degree of effectiveness in doing so all depends on what that subject is
too, doesn't it? I can promise you that your little $35 camera couldn't take a single acceptable photograph of an insect or butterfly, nor could it render a single acceptable bokeh in a macro shot either. For that matter, even a high-end standard lens also couldn't take a single acceptable 1:1 macro shot, nor any kind of natural bird shot, either. So, here again, the ability to take certain kinds of photographs is entirely
dependent upon choice of equipment.
At the end of the day, you might be interested to know that, regardless of what kind of shot you're taking, it requires both cameras and lenses, which are nothing but "equipment" ...
All basic DSLRs now are much better than anything available through most of the history of art.
This is true.
However, by saying that the equipment of today is "much better" than anything available in times-gone-by, you are therefore admitting that some equipment is "better than others," are you not?
The idea that people are equipment limited is a fallacy.
In point of fact, the idea that people can "do anything they want" without the right equipment to do so
is what constitutes true fallacy
Most photographers are limited by their time with the subject. The ability of a $100,000 camera vs a $1000 camera is minuscule compared to other issues in making the art.
The limitations of time may be yet another limitation, but no photographer can take a single picture of any subject (regardless of the time he has), without the necessary equipment
to do so. And even if you had a decent camera, if all you had was a standard lens, I could give you all the time in the world, but you still could never
take a single 1:1 macro shot with it, nor could you take a single wide-angle shot with it, nor could you take a single super-telephoto shot with it. Here again, you would have to have the right equipment
in order to obtain these kinds of shot.
The ability of a $100,000 camera vs a $1000 camera is minuscule compared to other issues in making the art.
You are clearly thinking within the limited terms of your own kind of "snapshot" photography. If you are only thinking within this limited context, then I agree with you that if a person's only photographic goal is to run all over town snapping random shots of buildings, of people sitting on benches, and other assorted 'standard range' shots (as you do) ... then any old camera will do ... as you just proved with your $35 experiment.
However, if you want to take the kind of ultra-precise photos I take, of exceptionally-small subjects, or of any kind of specialized subject at all, you aren't going to be able to get to first base without the right equipment
to enable you to do so.