It ain't the equipment
Oct 11, 2017 09:26:47 #
tnturk wrote:
Please understand this is an observation. Not the ... (show quote)
I'm sure you're right. But I would really, really, rather practice with a new Phase One, or two.
Oct 11, 2017 09:27:07 #
I do not care to chase technology, especially since it offers no improvement in my photography. It’s my personal vision that the clients and publishers seek. For those that do chase technology, that is fine. Do whatever you wish to do. It just is not for me. I do not care how others procure their images. That is their business. Shoot what you want, with what you want. 👍.
KK
KK
Oct 11, 2017 09:28:03 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
I believe some of us who has a creative bent and a good eye can take a good photo with a modest camera.
But the comment on gear that can shoot very low light and capture fast action with auto focus does make a difference.
I follow a number of the image and video makers online. Lens do things for them if different approaches. The Sony Zeiss
55mm on the a7s was a totally different experience for me. The shallow depth of field was off the charts. A CU of a face
might make the nose in focus and the rest slightly out of focus and the background great bokeh. It is not for all uses.
Lens have different color interpretations. I am not that knowledgeable but really understand the creativity in image
creation.
But the comment on gear that can shoot very low light and capture fast action with auto focus does make a difference.
I follow a number of the image and video makers online. Lens do things for them if different approaches. The Sony Zeiss
55mm on the a7s was a totally different experience for me. The shallow depth of field was off the charts. A CU of a face
might make the nose in focus and the rest slightly out of focus and the background great bokeh. It is not for all uses.
Lens have different color interpretations. I am not that knowledgeable but really understand the creativity in image
creation.
Oct 11, 2017 09:31:52 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
It sounds like you have the equipment required, a good eye and that's the backbone of a great photographer.
Oct 11, 2017 09:32:47 #
Teton Viewer wrote:
<<So for all you people out there who think ... (show quote)
There is so much difference between a Hawkeye and an 8x10 view that the statement is irrelevant, however I think the difference in our DSLR's of comparable size sensors, vary mainly in the extras rather than the quality attainable,
Oct 11, 2017 09:34:11 #
Consider this, 99% of the worlds most memorable images were shot with cameras and lenses that are vastly inferior to what we now have access to. Those images were made by a photographer that knew their craft and shot with their own personal and unique vision. The camera was of no importance. It was just an extension of their vision. 🤔
KK
KK
Oct 11, 2017 09:37:12 #
Some of my best photos were taken with a Nikon d40x and the 2 kit lenses that came with it.
Oct 11, 2017 09:37:21 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
Kiron Kid wrote:
Adequate gear is important. But adequate is the operative word. Steve Morse, Pat Metheny or Jeff Beck could pick a $200 guitar off the rack, and blow you away with its sweet sounds.
KK
KK
Well said!!
Oct 11, 2017 09:39:42 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
turp77 wrote:
I totally agree with you to a point. Use your came... (show quote)
At what point is enough for megapixels? I say stop chasing pixels
Oct 11, 2017 09:42:39 #
davyboy
Loc: Anoka Mn.
photoman022 wrote:
I also use entry level equipment. I can't justify spending too much money on equipment. That being said, I have never encountered a situation where I was not able to capture the photo I wanted. I print my work and I challenge anyone to determine whether it was taken with a D850 or a D3200.
Yes I love it!!!!
Oct 11, 2017 09:56:41 #
The equipment ro a photographer is like a chisel to a sculpter. Sure, he can work faster with a compressor and pneumatic tool, but that won't creat a David. Most of the accoutrements of expensive equipment have to do with speed and quantity not aesthetic quality.
The photographers who stand out in history had no auto focus, auto exposure or even auto wind. Just a box with one decent, not great, lens.
The photographers who stand out in history had no auto focus, auto exposure or even auto wind. Just a box with one decent, not great, lens.
Oct 11, 2017 09:58:05 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
SharpShooter wrote:
LoL!
Wait till you're advanced and you can't get the shots you want because your entry level camera doesn't have the focus system capable of getting the shots?!
Suddenly the equipment becomes brutally important, no matter HOW good you are.
Don't judge a camera by how good you are not!!!
SS
Wait till you're advanced and you can't get the shots you want because your entry level camera doesn't have the focus system capable of getting the shots?!
Suddenly the equipment becomes brutally important, no matter HOW good you are.
Don't judge a camera by how good you are not!!!
SS
This means that you have to be brutally demanding on the quality of your product before you take the shot. And if not an advanced photographer now, that you desire to be. Lots of us aren't, and don't. Just my observation.
Oct 11, 2017 10:01:21 #
Jeffcs wrote:
While I agree with OP about experience just because you own a D5 doesn't make you a better photographer it makes you a D5 owner, that said, there are just times when entry level stuff just won't cut it. Along with your cameras system one also needs to shoot and shoot a lot!
Like cars, and I hate cars, a beetle will get you where your going but it won't win races.
Like cars, and I hate cars, a beetle will get you where your going but it won't win races.
But the Beetle won't hold 6 people, run off road, haul a trailer, transport a 4X8 sheet of plywood etc etc. In other words there are things that a Beetle can't do no matter how good a driver you are. There are things that an entry level camera just can't do, that a more advanced camera can, nomatter how good a photographer you are. There are reasons why the pros on the sidelines of an NFL game use the pro cameras with those heavy long lenses as opposed to an entry level camera with kit lenses. If you are lucky enoiugh to always have good weather. sunny skies and a still subject, the entry level camera will take as good a picture as the $6000 gear. But I ain't always that lucky.
Oct 11, 2017 10:11:40 #
Wanderer2
Loc: Colorado Rocky Mountains
bobmcculloch wrote:
There is so much difference between a Hawkeye and an 8x10 view that the statement is irrelevant, however I think the difference in our DSLR's of comparable size sensors, vary mainly in the extras rather than the quality attainable,
Not it isn't irrelevant. I chose this comparison because, although it's an extreme example. it makes the point, and is an example of, equipment making a difference which was the OPs subject. Just because the equipment is dramatically different doesn't invalidate the point. They are equipment from the same era and it is a valid comparison for these purposes.
As to sensor size, I disagree that any quality differences are "extras." I do landscapes with a full frame and am looking for the capability to produce very large prints. FF has an advantage for that over APS-C. I wouldn't think of that as an extra.
Oct 11, 2017 10:16:29 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.