All gear no idea

[Thrash]

Quite the opposite for this guy, just came across him on Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ewitsoe/
Pretty sure most of his shots are with a Nikon D80 (can buy one used for about £150) and a 35mm f1.8, less than £300 worth of gear but some of his photos are truly great. Just shows how unimportant sensor size, low light performance and all that technical stuff is!

 

[jacob12_1993]

I say this to everyone who asks me about buying cameras...unless there is a specific requirement you need (video, large files sizes etc and if you want these you probably already know what camera you want) pretty much any DSLR camera from the something like the D50 upwards will take great images. Some of my favourite shots were taken on a D40 and even now I only use a pair of mid range D7000s. Knowing how to use your camera makes much more difference than the model of camera you use

 

[badboy1984]

Thats why I didn't rush to upgrade to FF. I've spend the money on quality lens instead. That give me a better position in the future to upgrade.

 

[Phil V]

Whilst I agree entirely with your premise - I'll try to do this whilst sticking to the rules:
Those images strike me as largely 'style over content', and do nothing for me. Technically they're OK but owe more of their appeal to the processing than to composition.

 

[philwillmedia]

Wow...
That guy is just a little bit good.
Some sensational pics there.

 

[Thrash]

Whilst I agree entirely with your premise - I'll try to do this whilst sticking to the rules:
Those images strike me as largely 'style over content', and do nothing for me. Technically they're OK but owe more of their appeal to the processing than to composition.

I do understand what you mean and you can tell a lot have been edited quite heavily in terms of clarity or the likes but I still think they look good. Admittedly some arent actually that great but he does have over 1,000 pictures up there, if he only kept the best couple of hundred or so, his Flickr could be amazing.

 

[Phil V]

I do understand what you mean and you can tell a lot have been edited quite heavily in terms of clarity or the likes but I still think they look good. Admittedly some arent actually that great but he does have over 1,000 pictures up there, if he only kept the best couple of hundred or so, his Flickr could be amazing.

Quite possibly, and I never viewed all the images, But by the time I'd scrolled down a page or so I was underwhelmed. On a second look, there are indeed some cracking images. And like I said, I'm pretty much a fan of the 'talent before gear' approach.

 

[ernesto]

Not really the opposite of all the gear though and it doesn't surprise me at all.

I have never had a problem with the quality that an older DSLR and prime lens gives (my shots are poor because of me and me only). You don't even need as new as a D80 to get very good IQ. When I read the first line I was imagining him using a £30 compact from Argos which would really be the opposite of all the gear.

 

[HoppyUK]

I do understand what you mean and you can tell a lot have been edited quite heavily in terms of clarity or the likes but I still think they look good. Admittedly some arent actually that great but he does have over 1,000 pictures up there, if he only kept the best couple of hundred or so, his Flickr could be amazing.

Those images simply prove that you can take great pictures with limited equipment, ie camera and a standard-ish lens. Was that ever in doubt?

What they don't show is all the other great images that a talented photographer can take with more equipment options. Eg sport and wildlife with a longer lens, or macro, or using flash, or 101 other things that are just not possible with basic kit.

 

[Thrash]

Those images simply prove that you can take great pictures with limited equipment, ie camera and a standard-ish lens. Was that ever in doubt?

What they don't show is all the other great images that a talented photographer can take with more equipment options. Eg sport and wildlife with a longer lens, or macro, or using flash, or 101 other things that are just not possible with basic kit.

Nope, not for me, you and probably most people whove posted in this thread but thats why I posted it in the basics section where you get a lot of beginners who might think that you need a 1D X and an array of L lenses to get good photos - I know I thought like that when I first started.
It was simply to show that using a 7 year old camera with one of the cheapest lenses you can take great photos regardless of whether its the latest model with the best low light performance and highest dynamic range which most of us like to talk about (myself included)

 

[macvisual]

Thrash;

Thanks for that guy's link, I spent some time viewing his work and for me it's excellent, just goes to show that you don't need the newest and best to produce good results!

Very inspirational work....

 

[KIPAX]

Just shows how unimportant sensor size, low light performance and all that technical stuff is!

Bring this guy on one of my jobs.. he will go home crying with no photos


equipment is important when required and not important when not required.. for all the people telling me equipment isnt important.. feeel free to join me and I will show you otherwise..

 

[Thrash]

Bring this guy on one of my jobs.. he will go home crying with no photos


equipment is important when required and not important when not required.. for all the people telling me equipment isnt important.. feeel free to join me and I will show you otherwise..

I think youre missing the point of the thread?
No one said equipment isnt important, the point was that he does a great job with a 7 year old camera and a fixed 35mm lens which is one of Nikons cheapest AF-S lenses. Obviously he wouldnt be able to shoot sports with the equipment, no one said otherwise.

 

[KIPAX]

Just shows how unimportant sensor size, low light performance and all that technical stuff is!

The above statement is like a red rag to a bull..

 

[philwillmedia]

...just goes to show that you don't need the newest and best to produce good results!...

Don't forget that at one stage, and not that long ago, it probably was the newest and best.
The gear doesn't produce any better or worse images now than it did then.
To illustrate the point, essentially a Canon 1100d which is, more or less, an entry level camera is better in many ways than the original Canon 1D, which was a pro body that cost a small fortune when it came out.

 

[badboy1984]

I think the OP is more referring to people always complain their shots is not good because of gear. The answer is yes and no depend on what you shoot. The guy on flickr did a good job with limited gear.

 

[jacob12_1993]

Bring this guy on one of my jobs.. he will go home crying with no photos

equipment is important when required and not important when not required.. for all the people telling me equipment isnt important.. feeel free to join me and I will show you otherwise..

Is that a necessity to get good images or to get the best quality available? I understand to stay at the top of what is essentially a very small market you need the best gear but sports photographers have been shooting great images since way back. About 5 years when I first started out I was shooting cycling on manual focus lenses, it is possible it just requires a knowledge of the sport and focussing on a spot (you obviously wouldn't do this for Pro jobs)

I think it's important to distinguish good images and technically good/consistent images, you can get a good image off an iPhone but a technically good image maybe not. A Pro sports photographer not only needs technically good images but he also needs consistent results and the ability to nail every shot. That's the difference in my eyes

 

[ernesto]

The guy on flickr did a good job with limited gear.

For the shots he is taking it is not limited gear, that is the point.

 

[Phil V]

For the shots he is taking it is not limited gear, that is the point.

And this^

It's never about 'all the gear' it's always about 'the right gear for the job'

You can take great pictures with an iphone. But you can't take sports photo's with an iphone, or Macro, or night shots. But on a nice sunny day, a little imagination will get you very usable shots.

 

[badboy1984]

To behonest i don't see a point to argue about the guy on flickr use a d40 or whatever. He had a camera and a lens in his hand and took shots then put it to flickr. Whether is a good shot or not thats subject to opinion.

I personally think the photo is pretty decent regardless what gear he use and thats end of for me.

 

[DrGed]

Wouldn't "Horses for courses" be the best way of summing up here?

 

[Phil V]

Wouldn't "Horses for courses" be the best way of summing up here?

I think there's more to it than that, the original premise being that the guy isn't 'using great gear' but a fairly modern DSLR and a prime lens ought to be deemed good enough for recording a photograph. I suppose I'm not a target audience for a comment like that though

It may be better in an equipment post aimed at the usual slew of camera owners with their top of the range cameras and lenses who specialise in taking out of focus poorly composed photo's of their pets.

 

[Thrash]

I think there's more to it than that, the original premise being that the guy isn't 'using great gear' but a fairly modern DSLR and a prime lens ought to be deemed good enough for recording a photograph. I suppose I'm not a target audience for a comment like that though

It may be better in an equipment post aimed at the usual slew of camera owners with their top of the range cameras and lenses who specialise in taking out of focus poorly composed photo's of their pets.

Nope, you werent the target audience for this Nor were most people who have commented in here!

Just reiterating that it was aimed at beginners (hence posting in the basic forum) in order to show them that you dont need the latest and most expensive gear to get good shots. When I started I thought if I had a D3 and a load of fast lenses id take amazing pictures too and I think a lot of beginners are the same.

 

[Ivan S]

Nope, you werent the target audience for this Nor were most people who have commented in here!

Just reiterating that it was aimed at beginners (hence posting in the basic forum) in order to show them that you dont need the latest and most expensive gear to get good shots. When I started I thought if I had a D3 and a load of fast lenses id take amazing pictures too and I think a lot of beginners are the same.

Is he a beginner to photography though?

I doubt it myself, plus he lives or travels to nice places, which will help anybody take nice shot's, I mean where I live I am really hard pressed to find anything of interest.

 

[Thrash]

Is he a beginner to photography though?

I doubt it myself, plus he lives or travels to nice places, which will help anybody take nice shot's, I mean where I live I am really hard pressed to find anything of interest.

No idea, dont think so but it doesnt really matter. You always see pros using thousands of pounds worth of kit and sometimes its interesting to see what they do with something older and cheaper (Pro Photographer Cheap Camera by DRTV is good for this too).

But yeah I do agree about the places, I feel like ive took so many photos of my city that I cant do it anymore!

 

[Phil V]

No idea, dont think so but it doesnt really matter. You always see pros using thousands of pounds worth of kit and sometimes its interesting to see what they do with something older and cheaper (Pro Photographer Cheap Camera by DRTV is good for this too).

But yeah I do agree about the places, I feel like ive took so many photos of my city that I cant do it anymore!

You're wrong on both counts here I'm afraid. Plenty of Pro's shoot with relatively modest gear (you only need what's required for the shot, and we don't all shoot cricket).

And the mistake I made as a newbie? Believing that glamorous locations were required for great pictures

 

[steelneil]

You're wrong on both counts here I'm afraid. Plenty of Pro's shoot with relatively modest gear

Phil's got some great shots on his website that prove you don't need a big expensive camera to take great shots. Even an iPhone will do if you know what you're doing

 

[Tirpitz]

i had a look & enjoyed his images
if anything they made me want to go out & shoot a whole lot more
all i seem to have done in the last year or so is be ill or spend most of my time working long hours trying to get my life back on track..
the only times i've had the camera out lately is when walking the mrs new puppy for a couple of the poorly composed out of focus pet shots that Phil mentioned a couple of posts above! shame on me lol :bonk:

 

[DrGed]

A couple of months ago I came across the website of an American photographer called Ken Rockwell.

He made the point that if you see someone taking photos with all the latest and most expensive equipment then they're like to be an amateur who has a very good job and can afford top price gear. He went on to say that many professional photographers simply don't make enough money to have all the latest kit.

It seemed a fair point to me but I'd like to know what people on here think about his view.

 

[DemiLion]

A couple of moths ago I came across the website of an American photographer called Ken Rockwell.

He made the point that if you see someone taking photos with all the latest and most expensive equipment then they're like to be an amateur who has a very good job and can afford top price gear. He went on to say that many professional photographers simply don't make enough money to have all the latest kit.

It seemed a fair point to me but I'd like to know what people on here think about his view.

Ken Rockwell is a comedian and protagonist- quite literally. That's how he drives up the page views on his website and increases his revenue. He makes no bones about that at all.

As regards his camera advice and commentary on professional photographers ( or any photographers to be honest), they are best ignored!

 

[Phil V]

Ken Rockwell is a comedian and protagonist- quite literally. That's how he drives up the page views on his website and increases his revenue. He makes no bones about that at all.

As regards his camera advice and commentary on professional photographers ( or any photographers to be honest), they are best ignored!

Although not necessarily wrong on this occasion?

I'd say Pro photographers are just the same as amateur photographers when it comes to gear. Some will insist on the latest and greatest - some won't.

Some Pro's will believe that it's critical that they use the best gear available, and their customers deserve no less. Others believe that to run a profitable business, all kit purchases need to make economic sense, and whilst kit is reliable and servicable there's often no point in replacing it (and every iteration in between).

 

[TheTimeChamber]

I have always been told the following mantra to distinguish the two:

A pro will spend the money on the equipment he needs to get a job done
An amateur will buy the equipment he wants to have some fun.

 

[Flightphoto]

Couldn't agree more with Nick, at the end of the day a camera is a tool for one person but a gadget to another. I used my redundancy money to cover the costs of my 1DX as my wife agreed that if I didn't spend it on my camera equipment, it would either go on a new jet engine for one of my planes (Radio control) or the TVR Cerbera fund which she doesn't approve of because I wrote off our Brera on a roundabout being an idiot

 

[Hell on earth]

Ken Rockwell is a comedian and protagonist- quite literally. That's how he drives up the page views on his website and increases his revenue. He makes no bones about that at all.

As regards his camera advice and commentary on professional photographers ( or any photographers to be honest), they are best ignored!

I like Ken


As for the guys photos on flickr, I like a lot of his comprehensions and there are some that are really good but many are a let down, a bit dull, flat, out of focus

Like most of my stuff

 

[ernesto]

many are a let down, a bit dull, flat, out of focus

Probably because of that crap camera he is using

 

[Hell on earth]

Probably because of that crap camera he is using

Don't know... only heard the D80 is crap, does not explain why mine are crap... must be me

It looks very wet were he is maybe the camera got wet too

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I like Ken


As for the guys photos on flickr, I like a lot of his comprehensions and there are some that are really good but many are a let down, a bit dull, flat, out of focus

Like most of my stuff

We all know that all cameras get progressively worse as they get older and cheaper. 7 years - it's a like a radioactive decay half life, only half as good or less. Some get so bad that it is only advisable to gaffer tape the camera name - but that seems to work but only until EXIF comes to light. I know there are some Hex editors out there to treat that... or delete the EXIF altogether. Then suddenly the ageing process is reversed like in a time machine
Lenses are more immune, but they'd better have a big brand name and cost big ££££



On a more serious note it is all about light and skill. Light can be natural or created, the former being free (apart from travel budget) and latter being anything from cheap to very expensive.

 

[Southdowns]

Well, I've tried to make this point before, and got slammed for it, but I'm a gluten for punishment, so here goes:

First off, this guy's equipment is hardly basic crap. Any reasonably modern DSLR will be good, especially when paired up with a fast prime. In terms of what it will allow you to do, the difference between his camera/lens and a top DSLR is far smaller than the difference between his camera and a cheap compact, so even though it's not the latest and greatest, in the scheme of things he does have good gear.

"A great photographer can get a great photo regardless of the camera, a poor one can't despite the camera" is true, but is only part of the story. IMHO, the equipment does matter. A great photographer will get great pictures out of an iPhone and out of a 5D MkIII, but they won't be the same pictures. You can do everything that's possible on the iPhone with the 5D, but it doesn't work the other way around.

Perfect example; this shot by the guy the OP linked to: http://flic.kr/p/dSUkGP.

There is no way, regardless of skill, that that shot, with it's very narrow DoF, could have been taken on an iPhone. It's merits are NOT all down to skill; the camera selected is critical to it. And if that's the kind of image you're striving for, no amount of "practice with the camera you have; it's not the kit it's you" will help.

So yes, that guy is really good, and sticking to the camera/lens combination he has has probably honed his skill, but having a "better" camera, and especially a wider range of lenses, would open up possibilities for him to apply his skill to a wider range of photo styles.

Kit doesn't make you a good photographer. But kit does allow a good photographer to do more. Simple as!

 

[itsme93]

Well, I've tried to make this point before, and got slammed for it, but I'm a gluten for punishment, so here goes:

First off, this guy's equipment is hardly basic crap. Any reasonably modern DSLR will be good, especially when paired up with a fast prime. In terms of what it will allow you to do, the difference between his camera/lens and a top DSLR is far smaller than the difference between his camera and a cheap compact, so even though it's not the latest and greatest, in the scheme of things he does have good gear.

"A great photographer can get a great photo regardless of the camera, a poor one can't despite the camera" is true, but is only part of the story. IMHO, the equipment does matter. A great photographer will get great pictures out of an iPhone and out of a 5D MkIII, but they won't be the same pictures. You can do everything that's possible on the iPhone with the 5D, but it doesn't work the other way around.

Perfect example; this shot by the guy the OP linked to: http://flic.kr/p/dSUkGP.

There is no way, regardless of skill, that that shot, with it's very narrow DoF, could have been taken on an iPhone. It's merits are NOT all down to skill; the camera selected is critical to it. And if that's the kind of image you're striving for, no amount of "practice with the camera you have; it's not the kit it's you" will help.

So yes, that guy is really good, and sticking to the camera/lens combination he has has probably honed his skill, but having a "better" camera, and especially a wider range of lenses, would open up possibilities for him to apply his skill to a wider range of photo styles.

Kit doesn't make you a good photographer. But kit does allow a good photographer to do more. Simple as!

I 100% agree with you on most of that. But you can't always take a good photo with any camera yes a good photographer to make the most of what he has and get great results. But you wouldn't take a iPhone to a low light gig would you. You would take a dslr due to low light performance.

Also same with Motorsport it would be quite hard to get a great shot with a compact or a iPhone

 

[Southdowns]

I 100% agree with you on most of that. But you can't always take a good photo with any camera yes a good photographer to make the most of what he has and get great results. But you wouldn't take a iPhone to a low light gig would you. You would take a dslr due to low light performance.

Also same with Motorsport it would be quite hard to get a great shot with a compact or a iPhone

Well yes, that's what I was saying . You can get great photos from an iPhone, just not the same great photos as from a DSLR. So great photos yes, but not great gig or Motorsport photos. The great photographer would know to use the iPhone for crowd shots, shots of the cars before the race, or pictures of the pit girls

In other words, the kit does matter