Anything you buy is good enough - discuss !!!

[EMA747]

Very interesting thread.

Has anyone discussed the idea of diminishing returns on camera bodies? For a Pro if the features a top body will bring are required I guess shelling out an extra couple of grand to get that absolute top of the range is ok. For the Am it becomes a bit different. For example as I am finding out the difference between a 7D and 1DmkIV might not be as big as I was expecting for another £2500.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Safe Food is a necessity.
Clean water is a necessity.
Shelter (pref warm) for you and your family is a necessity.
A job to pay for the above (assuming you're not a dole-bludger) is a necessity.

Anything else is a luxury.

Having a camera is a luxury. Your not taking photos will not make you or your family go hungry.
They might even eat better if the money earmarked for cameras was spent on food instead.

Spoken as it truly is and should be.

It's all about money. Everything always is at the end of the day.

Those that have it, don't have a problem spending it. And those that don't, and make a virtue out of the somewhat illusory theory 'I haven't got it because I don't need it' and 'I use skill and knowledge to get the shot, I don't want expensive equipment' often with jealous overtones of 'all the gear and no idea' aimed in the direction of anyone who appears to have more disposable income than they do.*

It was always thus.

* The fact that they also have a nice car and a pretty wife often doesn't help

...and again, It's a little on the sad side side but the above nails it on the head for me really.

There seems to be this 'proverb' that floats around that has barely a shred on truth to it - 'A pro can take a great photo with anything!'

When analysed and put into context with the demands of the industry, one concludes that the above phrase, is absolute Ruby Sue.

Good pictures can be taken with just about anything that works but this largely depends on the context and the circumstance.

Take the telephoto away from (insert pro sports photographer here) at the Olympics and replace it with a camera phone for example.
Though they may take some very artistic photo's of the crowd, they'll be missing every scrap of the action they're being commissioned to cover.

When your doing your job, meeting the demands of the employer/industry is the initial priority. The human elements (skill) combined with the right technology (tools), is an unavoidable formula.

When your shooting for your own interests and enjoyment, the priorities and necessities are an entirely different world.

 

[Rovers_Andy]

Spoken as it truly is and should be.



...and again, It's a little on the sad side side but the above nails it on the head for me really.

There seems to be this 'proverb' that floats around that has barely a shred on truth to it - 'A pro can take a great photo with anything!'

When analysed and put into context with the demands of the industry, one concludes that the above phrase, is absolute Ruby Sue.

Good pictures can be taken with just about anything that works but this largely depends on the context and the circumstance.

Take the telephoto away from (insert pro sports photographer here) at the Olympics and replace it with a camera phone for example.
Though they may take some very artistic photo's of the crowd, they'll be missing every scrap of the action they're being commissioned to cover.

When your doing your job, meeting the demands of the employer/industry is the initial priority. The human elements (skill) combined with the right technology (tools), is an unavoidable formula.

When your shooting for your own interests and enjoyment, the priorities and necessities are an entirely different world.

Very well put Mr T couldn't agree more!

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Very well put Mr T

I've taken some shots on my iphone that not only have been incredibly fun but also make me happy.

However if I turned up to work with that same notion, I'd get fired.

So 'Anything you buy, is good enough', concludes too many issues in a general context to have any substance for me personally.

So - 'Everything has limitations, does it matter?' could be a little more substantial.

 

[DiddyDave]

So 'Anything you buy, is good enough', concludes too many issues in a general context to have any substance for me personally.

So - 'Everything has limitations, does it matter?' could be a little more substantial.

But when I started the thread my aim was to make amateurs in particular really think about their purchases, and that if all they have to spend is XXX and that gets them YYY then that's likely to be good enough for their usage and they ought to think about output as their starting point not ultimate IQ

Hence the general snapper who occasionally has an A4 print on their wall doesn't need to lash out for the latest Pro kit when there's plenty of cheaper or 2nd hand older kit around that will do the job perfectly for them

Of course if their starting goal is A3+ prints of birds of Britain (small shy critters that like shade) then a 500mm f4 and a good at high ISO is a must from the offset

But yes I do quite like your 'Everything has limitations, does it matter?'

DD

 

[Tyke Tiler]

But when I started the thread my aim was to make amateurs in particular really think about their purchases, and that if all they have to spend is XXX and that gets them YYY then that's likely to be good enough for their usage and they ought to think about output as their starting point not ultimate IQ

Hence the general snapper who occasionally has an A4 print on their wall doesn't need to lash out for the latest Pro kit when there's plenty of cheaper or 2nd hand older kit around that will do the job perfectly for them

Of course if their starting goal is A3+ prints of birds of Britain (small shy critters that like shade) then a 500mm f4 and a good at high ISO is a must from the offset

But yes I do quite like your 'Everything has limitations, does it matter?'

DD

...and you've done so very well Dave, I was in no way opposing your initial intents, in fact, my apologies for not clarifying my agreement of the others, it's an extremely beneficial discussion which I hope many will read over and digest.

Nice one for posting it

 

[DiddyDave]

Somewhat OT (again) Thomas - but where I live a 'Tyke' is someone from Barnsley who supports the local football team. So if you ever pop into Barnsley and introduce yourself as 'Tyke Tiler' you will be well received

DD

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Somewhat OT (again) Thomas - but where I live a 'Tyke' is someone from Barnsley who supports the local football team. So if you ever pop into Barnsley and introduce yourself as 'Tyke Tiler' you will be well received

DD

Nice one, I'll remember that It makes a change from the usual responses, one chap thought it was a pitiful excuse for a porn name, like Dirk Diggler, he wouldn't believe that it was one of my favourite books read to us in primary school:

 

[cowasaki]

Another thing to take into account is that the extra £2000 effectively comes out of the profit part so reduces tax liabilities and VAT too so might cost quite a bit less in the long run.

 

[goldenlight]

Of course if their starting goal is A3+ prints of birds of Britain (small shy critters that like shade) then a 500mm f4 and a good at high ISO is a must from the offset

DD

ISO 400, effective focal length 280mm, 1/45th sec @ f4.4. I think I just got away with it. The E-3 is often scorned and well out of date but, to me at least, it is still a remarkable camera. Part of the equation is having confidence in your gear. Once you've lost that confidence your results do take a nosedive, but mainly because you are worrying about your "inadequate" camera rather than concentrating on the job in hand. Luckily, I've still got supreme confidence in my E-3. Everytime I pick it up it feels more and more like a pair of comfy, well-worn slippers and makes me feel better as a photographer than I actually am.

[/url][/IMG]

 

[HoppyUK]

You're on form today TT and have shown DD :thumbsdown: out to be the scoundrel that he is. And I don't mean Dirk Diggler

 

[Richard King]

its a shame we are so one dimensional only thinking in terms of DSLR's

What camera formats?are typically used to shoot the front cover of national geographic, or for fine art, or for high end fashion, or for street candid's or high speed flash, or billboard sized images?

We get so hung up with whats best, but then only consider digital DSLR's

 

[Starastin]

in one of the only 2 magazines I respect, most shots are done on film. and it's not a film magazine or lomo or etc.

 

[HoppyUK]

its a shame we are so one dimensional only thinking in terms of DSLR's

What camera formats?are typically used to shoot the front cover of national geographic, or for fine art, or for high end fashion, or for street candid's or high speed flash, or billboard sized images?

We get so hung up with whats best, but then only consider digital DSLR's

Annie Leibovitz did her portraits of The Queen on a Canon 1Ds (presumably 1Ds3). That's good enough for me

 

[Tyke Tiler]

its a shame we are so one dimensional only thinking in terms of DSLR's

What camera formats?are typically used to shoot the front cover of national geographic, or for fine art, or for high end fashion, or for street candid's or high speed flash, or billboard sized images?

We get so hung up with whats best, but then only consider digital DSLR's

Money being the intial catalyst, there is a process that most follow, whether your a hobbyist or a full time working photographer, you make an effort to research the available technology and then marry the options with your requirements, the demands of your circumstances and with respect to your budget.

Camera's are tools, tools for work or tools for pleasure.

Front covers for National Geographic are taken with whatever the photographer concluded from the above. Some Phase One, Blad, Canon, some Nikon and some may still use film.

In today's industry though, film is getting more difficult to use. Sports photographers for example, shooting major events like the Olympics etc, couldn't use film even if they wanted too.

Due to the combination of the internet and the advent of digital, agencies and mainstream media want the photo seconds after you've take it and film has no place when demands are that immediate.
The tedious film V digital debate is even more pointless and futile in this context.

I suppose there are folk with one dimensional perceptions, but most experienced photographers, excelling in their chosen fields, or the hobbyists who love to pick up whatever camera they own and use it, are far, far from it.

From my personal experience, considering as you put it 'what's best' is merely a choice made on the most suitable and reliable tool for a given requirement in respect of your budget.

 

[Starastin]

lol, olympics on one film 36 shots. you would have to be Andy Warhol to do that .
If I remember correctly one tog returned with about couple of TB of pics from chinas olympics.

film is for slow photography.

 

[HoppyUK]

<snip>

Excellent stuff Tomas I really liked your line 'Everything has limitations, does it matter?'

But now you're in danger of slipping into DD's carefully camouflaged trolling trap

 

[AliB]

Very interesting thread.

Has anyone discussed the idea of diminishing returns on camera bodies? For a Pro if the features a top body will bring are required I guess shelling out an extra couple of grand to get that absolute top of the range is ok. For the Am it becomes a bit different. For example as I am finding out the difference between a 7D and 1DmkIV might not be as big as I was expecting for another £2500.

And that is a fair point Andy and I guess one of the key points of this thread.

If I wanted to go from D700 £1,700 to D3s £3,500 I would have to fork out another £1800 and what would I get for that investment? Even more ISO, longer battery life and dual card slots. (off the top of my head) are any of those worth the cost of another D700? Not at the moment. If I then look at the D3x it's even more expensive and I don't need the extra resolution (as DD pointed out the D700 is fine for my output and I don't crop a lot)

So yes there is a rather large cash jump between the 5DII/7D and the 1 series and the same in D700 to D3 variants and you dont' always see a lot of improvements in IQ. What you do get though are pro spec bodies with longer battery life, shutters rated to 300,000, extra card slots for backups and weatherproofing. To some pros those are well worth the extra investment. If you were shooting off a boat or doing what Rob used to, shooting sports or news then those features may be higher on your list that they are on mine and you may not have much choice but to pay the extra money for the features you need.

In terms of IQ though, you can get perfectly good output from most DSLR's these days.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

lol, olympics on one film 36 shots. you would have to be Andy Warhol to do that .
If I remember correctly one tog returned with about couple of TB of pics from chinas olympics.

film is for slow photography.

Indeed mate, demands have pretty much knocked film right out of the game for high profile sporting events.

Film is nowhere near dead though, take Platon for example, being a portraits chap, he has the opportunity to be as selective and as preferential as he wishes.

I respect and admire that. What is irritating, is the film buffs that sneer and suggest that digital is for passionless or soulless photographers.

It's absurd.

Use what you want to use, but leave off with the self elevation, your not better because you use one over the other. Having a preference is fine but too much pride or self appreciation for your own preferences is pretentious at best IMO.

The suggestion that digital has somehow ruined the art is equally absurd.

If you find elements with a digital photograph that prevent you from having the same personal resonance as a film photograph, then the issues are within as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Excellent stuff Tomas I really liked your line 'Everything has limitations, does it matter?'

But now you're in danger of slipping into DD's carefully camouflaged trolling trap

If there is camouflage, I've totally missed it

 

[Richard King]

Annie Leibovitz did her portraits of The Queen on a Canon 1Ds (presumably 1Ds3). That's good enough for me

The queen is a different subject matter to the Bryce Canyon