Do you really need fancy equipment?
Oct 26, 2016 18:47:26 #
missinglinq wrote:
Depends, of course, on how you define 'great photo... (show quote)
Actually you can find photos of Babe Ruth and of the Indy 500 from the 1930's. Certainly were not made by DSLR's and huge zoom lenses. Maybe by Leica with the photographer getting real close (dangerously close in the case of the Indy 500). Even more likely by using a SpeedGraphic.
Oct 26, 2016 18:48:19 #
wj cody wrote:
you bet they would and do - they are the ones who continue to profit digital image manufacturing companies.
Amazing; the word on the equipment I mentioned is that only pros generally buy it, because of its severely high costs. As a matter of fact, precious few even on a photo-obsessed site like this have them.
Oct 26, 2016 18:50:05 #
LXK0930 wrote:
Many years ago (way before digital), I took a phot... (show quote)
By the way define "Fancy Equipment".
Oct 26, 2016 18:57:05 #
Architect1776 wrote:
By the way define "Fancy Equipment".
Offhand, I think it implies advanced, very expensive gear.
Oct 26, 2016 19:35:07 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
The position that 99% of "great photographs&q... (show quote)
Amen!! Well said. Do I need the best? No. Do I want the best? Yes, as I can afford. Why should I limit myself to only the most basic unit when I am not the best on the block? Spend $100 or $10,000 for camera equipment and enjoy it.
Oct 26, 2016 19:39:03 #
LXK0930 wrote:
I was not trying to imply that a disposable (or modern equivalent) camera will do the job for most people or most circumstances. However, I think that many people spend too much time (and money) on wanting the latest and greatest gear, when what they have does the job just fine.
By the way, I use several cameras: an older MFT with several lenses, a Canon G, and a couple of small, pocket cameras. I spend my money on travel rather than gear!
By the way, I use several cameras: an older MFT with several lenses, a Canon G, and a couple of small, pocket cameras. I spend my money on travel rather than gear!
Why buy a Ferrari when a Kia will get you to the store? Because you can.
Oct 26, 2016 19:43:38 #
NoSocks wrote:
I love this response and agree wholeheartedly. My Nikon gear is way better than I am and my Porsche will go faster than I'll ever be able to drive. But I wanted this stuff and I have it. So what.
Me too.
Oct 26, 2016 20:27:10 #
Describe "fancy". Bells and whistles? Price? Size? Number of accessories? For myself, I like to take pictures and I want equipment that I can grow into that will challenge my creativity.
Oct 26, 2016 20:33:54 #
papakatz45 wrote:
Why buy a Ferrari when a Kia will get you to the store? Because you can.
Two cars may get you there equally well, but two cameras will not. She cameras, as I pointed out earlier, cannot give a good enough frame rate, or respond well enough in low light, or fail in other ways. I have great equipment not because it makes my images better composed, but because in many cases, I would not even have useable images without it.
Oct 26, 2016 20:59:00 #
papakatz45 wrote:
Why buy a Ferrari when a Kia will get you to the store? Because you can.
It all depends on what you enjoy. Performance car buffs would enjoy driving a Ferrari more than a Kia, but I'm sure there are people who wouldn't enjoy driving a Ferrari even if they could afford it. Naturally, pro photographers want high end equipment and know how to use it. But photo hobbyists can also enjoy using "fancy" equipment, and that's all the reason they need to get it. On the other hand, there are photographers who enjoy the challenge of using simple equipment, even pinhole or plastic cameras. And there are lots of people on the internet doing very impressive work with phone cameras, and I'm sure some of them could afford the "fancy" equipment.
Oct 26, 2016 21:09:21 #
PNagy wrote:
Two cars may get you there equally well, but two cameras will not. She cameras, as I pointed out earlier, cannot give a good enough frame rate, or respond well enough in low light, or fail in other ways. I have great equipment not because it makes my images better composed, but because in many cases, I would not even have useable images without it.
I agree with you.
Oct 26, 2016 21:11:32 #
MW wrote:
Actually you can find photos of Babe Ruth and of the Indy 500 from the 1930's. Certainly were not made by DSLR's and huge zoom lenses. Maybe by Leica with the photographer getting real close (dangerously close in the case of the Indy 500). Even more likely by using a SpeedGraphic.
But now most of us can take these types of pictures with the gear now available.
Oct 26, 2016 21:11:39 #
LXK0930 wrote:
Many years ago (way before digital), I took a phot... (show quote)
The answer is totally dependent on what your subject material and goals are. If you are after specialty shots - wildlife, birds, sports, etc - the answer is yes, you need good stuff and generally the more capable the better. If you are doing street and some landscape, an iPhone will do.
Oct 26, 2016 21:20:30 #
carl hervol
Loc: jacksonville florida
yes I hAVE ITS LIKE AN IPHONE TO DAY CAMERSMORE IPHONE THAN 1,000$ TO 2,000$ +CAMERAS 
Oct 26, 2016 21:24:01 #
papakatz45 wrote:
Better example for my issues is to say the road is badly rutted. Jeep will get you to the store; Ferrari will bottom out and leave you stuck where only large tow truck can eventually extract your vehicle.Why buy a Ferrari when a Kia will get you to the store? Because you can.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.