burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It was tongue-in-cheek humor... But like all humor, may contain truth. Taking it as an insult is the reader's option... But it was not intended.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Agree. Some people just blow me away with their PP results. Unfortunately I'm not in that league.

Here is just one example of what I'm talking about.

http://500px.com/lisaholloway

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I use my 16 megapixel DF for "snapshots". When I want to take really good "photographs" I dust off the 800E. I use the same lenses for both.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Careful here, you are telling every DF owner that they have a sub-par camera!!!!
:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol:

aellman Loc: Boston MA

It's hard for many of us to give up the advantages we had in the film era. Nonetheless, in the digital era, as before, it's obviously about the camera AND the lens. Trying to score one over the other is literally unbalanced.

I am envious that you are able to use your old film lenses on your camera. I have a half dozen great quality fast Minolta fixed and zoom lenses I would love to use. I keep them around with two bodies and countless accessories for old time's sake. (I think the whole system would be worth about $1.50 on ebay now.)

I shot film for over 60 years. Now (as always) it's all about maximizing the quality of whatever I have to work with. I find that my eye for composition is more important than the camera OR the lens. I have blown up images from my 8 megapixel camera up to 24x36, and they look excellent. I also shot my best image of the year with my 8 mp iPhone 5s.

In addition to my DSLR and phone, I still use the Diana, a film camera that most photographers would consider the poster child for objectively awful quality. If you don't know about the Diana, here's the whole story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana_(camera) .

If you're interested, you can also Google "Diana toy camera," and find examples of what can be done with an all-plastic camera and lens, a marginally useful viewfinder, light leaks, and unpredictably soft focus (every camera is different).

As an example of how cheesy the Diana materials are, I once left one on the dashboard of my car in the summer (really bad idea). When I returned it was a puddle. I now have six vintage (ca. 1970) Diana's, because they're getting harder to find and are considered to be unrepairable.

Regardless of whether you use a Brownie Hawkeye, an 8x10 view camera, or a 54mp digital colossus, I wish you all the best in the pursuit of images that make you proud.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

She is a regular on fredmiranda.com, but please don't make the mistake thinking that it is about PP - her in camera shots are already better than what you and I could ever dream of creating.

I guess she doesn't know what Ron knows.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You are talking about snapshots. Real photographers MAKE photos.

Just because we don't have the skills to drive well at very high speeds, it doesn't give us the right to judge those who can.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

You are 100% correct.

Since he is the former, he will never understand that.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

And you are "stuck" with the D800e? LOL

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

We got into this thread 4 replies before it zigged off course. Ron...., you made a very astute observation. In the past, the camera body was a somewhat passive, light tight, film holder. In those days the lens was the superb element in the creation of a sharp image.

The point made is that modern cameras are more systems then mere components. To obtain the maximum performance of today's systems requires both top quality lenses and top performance bodies.

The point made was that of mechanical quantities and qualities. Veering off course to include the photographer is not part of the equation, and shouldn't be, based on the original premise. The discussion should have focused on matching quality lenses with quality bodies, which have evolved far beyond the dumb, light tight box holding a roll of film.
--Bob

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

Perhaps you should define what a real photographer is. We're not all pro's, or even advanced amateurs. And I'm not judging anyone, just making a statement that not everyone wants or can hold to a professional level. But conversely, those who sit at the upper end shouldn't put down those who aren't as accomplished. So in the end, anyone who likes to take photos, at any level is a photographer.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

I am at the bottom as well, I am a snap shooter, that is why I feel ok "putting down" others on my level - if I was good at it I'd never do such thing.
Anyone with a license is a driver. Just like anyone with a camera is a photographer. But you don"t feel that we are all on the same level/skill do you?

So as you said yourself: We're not all pro's, or even advanced amateurs - in my book, if you are not part of those 2 groups, you are a snap shooter.

Do you feel bad because you are called a driver and not a race car driver? I would think not.

Look up member Mark7829's pictures here - he is in the top tier. Now google pictures for "Golden Gate Bridge" and compare those to his. I can''t make it any clearer.

DJO

I'll post this one more time.

There's an old saying in photography: "Anyone can learn to use a camera, but you can't teach someone how to see."

anotherview Loc: California

Yes, "Masters worry about light."

Doing photography comes down to that pivotal concern.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

Hey it's easy: great lens, great sensor, MAYBE a great picture