Bit of a Rant , The Cost of Photography

[Byker28i]

Whenever someone offers you advice, you need to ask them how they are qualified to offer that advice and ask them for proof.

Hi DAn,
How qualified are you to offer that advice?

 

[Pookeyhead]

...or is it a warbler... or a tit... (shrug).

Little ****er wouldn't sit still either way

 

[Byker28i]

ROFLMAO As I said; as a beginner how are you supposed to figure that out

You don't take stuff as gospel, it's an opinion, perhaps some suggestion as to a direction to go, but thats just a starting point for your own investigation and final decision. Obviously if there's a few people saying the same thing then it may weight those opinions

 

[Byker28i]

remember there are no pockets in a shroud !

Ah but if sir upgraded to the deluxe shroud, with pockets...

 

[dancook]

Hi DAn,
How qualified are you to offer that advice?

We could go round in circles here

 

[Pookeyhead]

You don't take stuff as gospel, it's an opinion, perhaps some suggestion as to a direction to go, but thats just a starting point for your own investigation and final decision. Obviously if there's a few people saying the same thing then it may weight those opinions

Exactly. You ca sit there saying to yourself... "I'm a beginner, and know nothing", or you can go, "ok... I'll take that on-board, and do some reading around the subject".


It's called educating yourself.

 

[Byker28i]

We could go round in circles here

Thats easy - I'm not - I'm now a university dropout so all I can offer is an opinion

 

[odd jim]

Gear does matter. It obviously matters more to those who don't have it too. This thread isn't a moral crusade - it's the politics of envy.

I'm probably the nemesis of any anti gear-head and have more kit than a lot of the pro's. So what? I do my kind of photography almost every day (for pleasure) and the results with better gear are significantly better.

Anyone who tells you that a bird on a stick 20m away looks just as good with a 1000D/kit lens versus a 1Dxii and L-glass is seriously deluded. What I choose to practise my craft with is my business. End of.

You're not going to try and shoot birds with a wide angle kit lens.

But you could still get a bloody good pic of it with a 1000d and Sigma 150-600, at a fraction of the cost of a "1dx2 and L glass".

 

[Pookeyhead]

But you could still get a bloody good pic of it with a 1000d and Sigma 150-600, at a fraction of the cost of a 1dx2 and "L glass".

Heresy!! He's a witch... burn him!

 

[dejongj]

You don't take stuff as gospel, it's an opinion, perhaps some suggestion as to a direction to go, but thats just a starting point for your own investigation and final decision. Obviously if there's a few people saying the same thing then it may weight those opinions

Exactly! Bingo, it is an opinion. Everyone got one The point I made when I raised this when @Pookeyhead to it to some extreme, was exactly that. And funnily we are now at educating yourself which is what I said in the beginning opposed to just listen to the experts which is what @Pookeyhead suggested earlier. Funny how circular this goes; then again some studies suggest that words only make up about 7% of communication so it shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Exactly! Bingo, it is an opinion. Everyone got one The point I made when I raised this when @Pookeyhead to it to some extreme, was exactly that. And funnily we are now at educating yourself which is what I said in the beginning opposed to just listen to the experts which is what @Pookeyhead suggested earlier. Funny how circular this goes; then again some studies suggest that words only make up about 7% of communication so it shouldn't come as a surprise.

My point is, you're saying "how does the beginner know".. well, first of all, does the person giving you advice seem to have anything to back up what they're saying, and then of course, you can just check out their advice yourself.. which amounts to the same thing... checking out the advice given. Checking the person, or the advice will usually end you up in the same place: Whether you can trust that advice or not.

 

[FourRingCircus]

But you could still get a bloody good pic of it with a 1000d and Sigma 150-600, at a fraction of the cost of a "1dx2 and L glass".

Fraction of the cost - yes. Bloody good pic - you decide.

Sigma 600 zoom sat next to me last weekend. The difference is perfectly clear to me. Maybe my idea of bloody good is just different to yours.

 

[odd jim]

Fraction of the cost - yes. Bloody good pic - you decide.

Sigma 600 zoom sat next to me last weekend. The difference is perfectly clear to me. Maybe my idea of bloody good is just different to yours.

Don't be such a snob, [emoji38], both are great images (and I'm very happy indeed with my Sigma 600, could have bought the 100-400L2 but the slight increase in IQ wasn't worth the much larger outlay). If you want to see how good the sigma is for birding, just look at the sport and contemp' threads for the lens.

But you're missing the point. You can get great images from kit that isn't "L", top of the range or whatever, if you know what you're doing, you work around it, prove your worth as a photographer and produce the goods. Or does that seem a little old fashioned?

 

[gothgirl]

This thread seems to go on and on , I've created a monster !

Reading back , there could be a bit of GAS or gear envy involved

Thing is , for what I shoot , I do need faster lenses

And I appreciate the people who looked at what I shoot , and told me I have gas.... I don't actually post every photo I take on here or Flickr , surprisingly enough when a photo hasn't turned out the quality I want ( because I'm shooting on a f/4 lens when I really could do with an f/2.8) , I don't post it for the world to see.

For example, shooting equine and dog sports in a dingy arena where you cant use flash

As much as I would like to just invest in better glass I can't afford now i think I'm going to look at some more old m42 fast lenses, a 2.8 m42 can be had a lot cheaper than modern ones , and some of those old metal lenses are still good quality , and produce great bokeh...sure they're manual focus only, but that can't hurt me in the long run

 

[odd jim]

This thread seems to go on and on , I've created a monster !

Reading back , there could be a bit of GAS or gear envy involved

Thing is , for what I shoot , I do need faster lenses

And I appreciate the people who looked at what I shoot , and told me I have gas.... I don't actually post every photo I take on here or Flickr , surprisingly enough when a photo hasn't turned out the quality I want ( because I'm shooting on a f/4 lens when I really could do with an f/2.8) , I don't post it for the world to see.

As much as I would like to just invest in better glass I can't afford now i think I'm going to look at some more old m42 fast lenses, a 2.8 m42 can be had a lot cheaper than modern ones , and some of those old metal lenses are still good quality , and produce great bokeh...sure they're manual focus only, but that can't hurt me in the long run

A 35mm f/2 mk1 and 85mm f/1.8 aren't that expensive used? Looking back at some of your posts you do seem look to replace like for like with a view to an "upgrade" (your Canon 55-250 thread). That is a massive waste of money! Always make sure the upgrade is significant and worthwhile.

 

[FourRingCircus]

You can get great images from kit that isn't "L", top of the range or whatever, if you know what you're doing, you work around it, prove your worth as a photographer and produce the goods.

I started out with a Canon T70 in the 1980's, moved onto filming wildlife in the 90's, had a sabatical for 20yrs and came back to it with a 550D and a few kit lenses. Only when I worked my way up to prime L glass did the IQ of my shots actually improve. To suggest otherwise, or that perhaps I don't know what I'm doing is your opinion and perogative I suppose. Snob? I know I'm not a snob about my gear, as I share my toys and give freely to strangers in hides for a play. Last weekend, a chap in a hide was having a shot of both my 400F2.8 & 500F4. Is that a snobby thing to do?

 

[arthurbikemad]

Funny how it works though, some of the worse images IQ wise I have taken have been the biggest success with Joe public etc, in my case it's only me who looks too deep at my images, often I spoil my own love for a shot by looking to hard at focus, DR, IQ and so on (unless out to get certain effects), others come along and say "Oh I love that" on the other hand even with the best kit (that after 30 years I now have some great gear) once I look through the viewfinder it's all about the shot, no doubt 14fps and so on help get the shot, but no matter what camera or lens combo as said by all, its you who presses the shutter, composes the shot and creates a great photograph, not the camera

 

[odd jim]

I started out with a Canon T70 in the 1980's, moved onto filming wildlife in the 90's, had a sabatical for 20yrs and came back to it with a 550D and a few kit lenses. Only when I worked my way up to prime L glass did the IQ of my shots actually improve. To suggest otherwise, or that perhaps I don't know what I'm doing is your opinion and perogative I suppose. Snob? I know I'm not a snob about my gear, as I share my toys and give freely to strangers in hides for a play. Last weekend, a chap in a hide was having a shot of both my 400F2.8 & 500F4. Is that a snobby thing to do?

"Snob" as in gear snob, not as a person (come on, slating the very good Sigma image, when it's a great birding lens was a bit snobbish!).

I have L lenses, I have non L fast primes and EX, Art, and Contempory Sigma glass, and a Samyang.

Of those, the L lenses do not show image improvements over the others, or stand out. But then my primes, Sigmas and the Samyang have been carefully selected.

My point and the point made pretty much throughout is that it's not all about gucci kit, it's more important to use what you have well.

 

[FourRingCircus]

the L lenses do not show image improvements over the others.

Ah well, it must be true, it's all down to the operator.....

 

[odd jim]

Ah well, it must be true, it's all down to the operator.....

...and thinking about other options than Canon L glass [emoji6]

 

[gothgirl]

A 35mm f/2 mk1 and 85mm f/1.8 aren't that expensive used? Looking back at some of your posts you do seem look to replace like for like with a view to an "upgrade" (your Canon 55-250 thread). That is a massive waste of money! Always make sure the upgrade is significant and worthwhile.

the 35mm f2 is something I've considered next to the 24mm 2.8 stm

I'm very happy with primes, my 50 1.8 stm lives on my camera, but I needed something wider

 

[odd jim]

the 35mm f2 is something I've considered next to the 24mm 2.8 stm

I'm very happy with primes, my 50 1.8 stm lives on my camera, but I needed something wider

I love primes too, I actually enjoy using them more than zooms for landscape / mid range walkabout stuff, and the end result is normally a lot nicer

There's plenty of good wide ones out there, especially the new Sigma 20mm f/1.4 (but that is quite dear!).

 

[Ed Sutton]

Maybe this wildlife malarky isn't as difficult as some make it out to be. ...if only I had the gear... LOL

It isn't. I got back into photography through wanting to take wildlife pictures back in 2010. After twelve months I got bored because it was too easy. The main things you need to get good wildlife pics are being in the right place at the right time and fieldcraft. Two things most hobbyist wildlife photographers don't get to grips with. They try to buy their photos with longer lenses and more pixels so they can crop the crap out of their shots.

You're not going to try and shoot birds with a wide angle kit lens.

Why not? Stick the camera on a tripod and use a remote and you can get some corkers. They won't be the generic bird on twig with out of focus background picture either.

Hobbyist wildlife photography is as set in its ways as every other genre hobbyists indulge themselves in. But then most hobbyists aren't interested in making original pictures or what they could do with photography. I think that's where David's frustration lies.

 

[odd jim]

...snip



Why not? Stick the camera on a tripod and use a remote and you can get some corkers. They won't be the generic bird on twig with out of focus background picture either.

Hobbyist wildlife photography is as set in its ways as every other genre hobbyists indulge themselves in. But then most hobbyists aren't interested in making original pictures or what they could do with photography. I think that's where David's frustration lies.

Very true, I meant in the traditional sense but yes, and this is my point, use what you have well, creatively and with some foresight and you'll do well with whatever you're using.

 

[danny_bhoy]

the 35mm f2 is something I've considered next to the 24mm 2.8 stm

I'm very happy with primes, my 50 1.8 stm lives on my camera, but I needed something wider

If you're after something wider why not have a look at the Tamron 17-50 (either VC or non-VC). Both I believe are well under £200 used these days and have the constant f2.8 which will be fast enough for most things. Great lenses for crop bodies.

 

[Chris J]

One thing that has annoyed me of late is something that happened about 3 weeks ago, I was down at the Humber Bridge taking photos... well... of the bridge. Long exposure etc.

A fellow photographer showed up too as i was finishing up actually and asked did I get any good shots and I said yeah Im happy with them... as you do. Showed him them on the screen of my Nikon D70S. His response was "Wow A Nikon D70s....thats old. Modern Cameras can take better photos.. watch Ill show you on my Canon". So out of pure interest I went and had a look - I couldnt tell the difference. He also mentioned my tripod was really old and wondered what make it was as its not a Manfrotto (like the one he was sporting) or a Velbon. I just said ... well it works. And thats all you need.

As long as it works, and it does what you want IT to do be it a lens, camera or tripod then it is good enough for what you want. I typically have my Lumix FZ-20 and my Nikon D70S as my main cameras. Im happy with them and have had some good results. Ultimately, I'll upgrade when I feel an upgrade is needed.

I use a 28-80 Tamron mostly on my Nikon, I also have a 500 mm Mirror Lens, 100-300mm manual Centinon lens and a 135mm manual. Not had some bad results.

 

[gothgirl]

I love primes too, I actually enjoy using them more than zooms for landscape / mid range walkabout stuff, and the end result is normally a lot nicer

There's plenty of good wide ones out there, especially the new Sigma 20mm f/1.4 (but that is quite dear!).

hence my problem , and I gave a distrust in3rd party lenses (sigma/tamron)

If you're after something wider why not have a look at the Tamron 17-50 (either VC or non-VC). Both I believe are well under £200 used these days and have the constant f2.8 which will be fast enough for most things. Great lenses for crop bodies.

I had a sigma 18-50 2.8 and didn't get on with it , found it too slow for my needs

 

[odd jim]

hence my problem , and I gave a distrust in3rd party lenses (sigma/tamron)

I had a sigma 18-50 2.8 and didn't get on with it , found it too slow for my needs

Sigma make some of the best lenses out there, seriously, it's a non issue! The Sigma 18-50 was never a very good lens, but all manufacturers have their duff lenses, Canon has lots [emoji38]

 

[dejongj]

My point is, you're saying "how does the beginner know".. well, first of all, does the person giving you advice seem to have anything to back up what they're saying, and then of course, you can just check out their advice yourself.. which amounts to the same thing... checking out the advice given. Checking the person, or the advice will usually end you up in the same place: Whether you can trust that advice or not.

But in context of what I wrote you are missing the point that the beginner doesn't know at that stage what they want themselves. They will have to grow into that, learn and experiment and figure it out. They think they know, but it will take time and experience to figure that out. And then they likely ask a very different question which will warrant a very different response.

 

[danny_bhoy]

hence my problem , and I gave a distrust in3rd party lenses (sigma/tamron)

I had a sigma 18-50 2.8 and didn't get on with it , found it too slow for my needs

I've got no idea how fast it focuses as I mainly used it for landscapes. Although I did use it a fair bit at 50mm back in the day when I used to do kids lifestyle shoots and it coped well with fast moving ankle-biters.

Don't discount third party lenses because of one or two bad experiences though. That'd be daft. The difference in quality between the best and the worst third party lenses is vast!

 

[rjbell]

I started out with a Canon T70 in the 1980's, moved onto filming wildlife in the 90's, had a sabatical for 20yrs and came back to it with a 550D and a few kit lenses. Only when I worked my way up to prime L glass did the IQ of my shots actually improve. To suggest otherwise, or that perhaps I don't know what I'm doing is your opinion and perogative I suppose. Snob? I know I'm not a snob about my gear, as I share my toys and give freely to strangers in hides for a play. Last weekend, a chap in a hide was having a shot of both my 400F2.8 & 500F4. Is that a snobby thing to do?

I don't think anyone is suggesting iq isn't better it doesn't make it a better picture though which is what people are getting at.

 

[Byker28i]

Don't be such a snob, [emoji38], both are great images...

Hum, second is clearer, sharper, more detailed, but as the exif is stripped, without knowing the details it's hard to compare. First could have a slower shutter speed causing a little shake focus issues. In the examples the second is much better quality and would take printing large for an exhibition.

 

[Jelster]

I enjoy buying new kit, and right now I can afford it, so make hay while the sun shines. However, one of my favourite shots:

val05 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Taken back in 2005 on my old Olympus C5050Z, before I ever had a DSLR (in fact it was this trip to Valencia and the enjoyment I got from the images which pushed me towards a new camera set up).

I still have the Olly, well, at least my Son has it at present.

However, there are other shots I've taken (birds in flight are a good example) where having better kit made the capture easier. There is no getting away that better kit helps, but you have to have an understanding of photography, your kit, and an idea of what you want your image to look like before you'll get consistently good results. My lacking is the last bit - I have issues with my artistic side, or lack of it, at times.....

 

[Byker28i]

Thing is , for what I shoot , I do need faster lenses... because I'm shooting on a f/4 lens when I really could do with an f/2.8
For example, shooting equine and dog sports in a dingy arena where you cant use flash

As much as I would like to just invest in better glass I can't afford now i think I'm going to look at some more old m42 fast lenses, a 2.8 m42 can be had a lot cheaper than modern ones , and some of those old metal lenses are still good quality , and produce great bokeh...sure they're manual focus only, but that can't hurt me in the long run

With a 60D it's ISO 6400? (high at 12800) so noisy at 3200? Something like a 5D mk3 with it's better ISO range may give you more than the 1 stop increase of f4 to f2.8.
Could be a few around second hand soon when the Mk4 comes out (announced end of month?).

Manual focus lenses are fine. I used to shoot motorsport all the time on film with one. Preselect a point and focus on it and pan and shoot when the object passes.

 

[dejongj]

I enjoy buying new kit, and right now I can afford it, so make hay while the sun shines. However, one of my favourite shots:

val05 by Steve Jelly, on Flickr

Taken back in 2005 on my old Olympus C5050Z, before I ever had a DSLR (in fact it was this trip to Valencia and the enjoyment I got from the images which pushed me towards a new camera set up).

I still have the Olly, well, at least my Son has it at present.

However, there are other shots I've taken (birds in flight are a good example) where having better kit made the capture easier. There is no getting away that better kit helps, but you have to have an understanding of photography, your kit, and an idea of what you want your image to look like before you'll get consistently good results. My lacking is the last bit - I have issues with my artistic side, or lack of it, at times.....

I don't know about that shot, I mean looks at the background it is all blurry, not in focus at all.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Fraction of the cost - yes. Bloody good pic - you decide.

Sigma 600 zoom sat next to me last weekend. The difference is perfectly clear to me. Maybe my idea of bloody good is just different to yours.

Clearly the second is better, but the first one is noisy... is it cropped more? Without EXIF it's really hard to tell where the "fault" lies.

 

[odd jim]

Clearly the second is better, but the first one is noisy... is it cropped more? Without EXIF it's really hard to tell where the "fault" lies.

TBH I think the first may be suffering a little from camera shake (and looking at this in more detail on my desktop it is rather noisy and underexposed. Different camera?)

His point is mute re the two lenses though as I could post plenty of shots from the Sigma at 600mm that are pin sharp but that wasn't really the point I was trying to make.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Any way.... I'm out, as it's just going nowhere. Amateurs just love cameras more than photography and you'll never talk them around. If you need kit, then buy it.. otherwise, just save your cash for beer/petrol/drugs/prostitutes... delete as appropriate depending on your interests/tastes/moral compass (again, delete as appropriate).

If you just like buying kit, then do so, but just admit it, and stop trying to use photography to justify it.


They're tools to do a job.. nothing more. I admit that wildlife has a certain gear requirement, but that just makes the point I've always insisted upon - which is that wildlife of this sort (birds on twigs) is not skilful photographically: It's all about patience, field craft, and knowing the animals you are shooting. Photography has little to do with it, and almost certainly why it's so popular amongst amateurs - you can buy results and creativity doesn't even enter the equation. Having tons of gear doesn't make you Andy Rouse though, no matter how much you convince yourself it does.

 

[odd jim]

Any way.... I'm out, as it's just going nowhere. Amateurs just love cameras more than photography and you'll never talk them around. If you need kit, then buy it.. otherwise, just save your cash for beer/petrol/drugs/prostitutes... delete as appropriate depending on your interests/tastes/moral compass (again, delete as appropriate).

If you just like buying kit, then do so, but just admit it, and stop trying to use photography to justify it.


They're tools to do a job.. nothing more. I admit that wildlife has a certain gear requirement, but that just makes the point I've always insisted upon - which is that wildlife of this sort (birds on twigs) is not skilful photographically: It's all about patience, field craft, and knowing the animals you are shooting. Photography has little to do with it, and almost certainly why it's so popular amongst amateurs - you can buy results and creativity doesn't even enter the equation. Having tons of gear doesn't make you Andy Rouse though, no matter how much you convince yourself it does.

Wasn't Andy Rouse a British Touring Car Champion...? I'll get my coat.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Wasn't Andy Rouse a British Touring Car Champion...? I'll get my coat.

LOL... indeed. I used to watch him when he drove that Merkur XR4Ti back in the 80s



....now I'm out.