Cheap/Expensive Gear

jackbauer

jackbauer

Suspended / Banned
Messages
420
Edit My Images
No
there is alot of people that believe u can achieve amazing pictures with really cheap equipment, hell even i'm starting to believe it.
whenever someone posts "i cant achieve high quality pictures with my camera" there will be a few people that point out its not the camera rather the man behind it. some will even quote people like ansel adams. others will say u just need to get the composure and exposure right.

now my question is if u dont need the expensive equipment, why is there sooo many people who arnt even pros with cameras worth well over hundreds and thousand!!!???
 
Because we can? No seriously- sometimes the gear really does help- like having the ability to take 5frames a second.
 
A lot of people probably do have equipment that is better than they 'need' but their is pleasure in owning it and if they can afford it - well - why not. You can often take better pictures with very simple equipment - especially if you are a beginner - don't let the technicalities get in the way. As you get more experienced you realise that you can do more and some of that IS down to equipment. Pro cameras focus faster - in poorer light - have better high ISO performance - and faster fps - 9fps on a D3 - and are built to withstand hard daily use - day in and day out - for years. Good pro glass gives images of superb quality - even wide open - and at almost any size of print. Just depends what you need. The main thing is get out and take the pics - with whatever you have.
 
or outofocus on fast moving object

or blow images up REALLY big for detailed editing

or shoot in dark places at high ISO

It all depends on the subject and conditions you are expecting to shoot in.
 
I think its a case of a good photographer can achieve better results with higher quality equipment, but if you don't have the skills or knowledge it is irrelevant how good your equipment is.IMO
 
Depends on what you want out of your camera - if it's just the ability to take a good image then some of the cheapest kit out there will suffice...if you want it to take a good images day-in, day-out in sometimes appalling conditions, have a wi-fi capability, 2 memory-card slots, an advanced menu allowing total control over each and every aspect of your image-taking process, then you 'need' something a little more advanced...

It should also be noted that this hobby (Pros tend to go for top of the range kit in any case, almost as a default setting), like any hobby, is susceptable to 'shiny-kit' syndrome...'need' can aften be generated by 'want'...

And there's nothing wrong in that...
 
You don't need a good camera to take great photographs.

Did people like Cartier Bresson and Yousuf Karsh - two of the worlds greatest ever photographers have all-bells-and-whistles cameras? No they didn't, they were able to produce iconic images from cameras that were primative by todays standards. But what they had was an eye for a photograph. They knew how to control light, compose their images/subjects and release the shutter at the right moment. Something that some of us can't do with top of the range cameras - or indeed any camera!

Granted, a high spec camera will produce slightly sharper and clearer images, but what people must remember is that the camera is simply a device that exposes a bit of light-sensitive material to light for a fraction of a second. That's all it does. You do the rest.
 
At the end of the day, you tend to get what you pay for.

What you pay also depends on what you want to use it for.

With tripods, if you plan on only using it in mild weather with light equipment, then a cheap one will do but a bit of wind and those long exposures will suffer from shake. Youcan help get round this by adding weights to the underside of the tripod to make it more stable but then you may suffer from bendy legs and sagging. Likewise, if you use larger lenses or camera bodies, it may sag.

You've also got the wear factor, one member on here is always wearing out tripods due to the style of photography he does, so he's invested in one to last .. you have to weigh up wether its best to go through maybe five or six cheaper tripods or invest in a good one to last you. The same can be said for any camera gear though.

I tend to shoot wildlife therefore I need a good lens with a good zoom, they aren't cheap whatever brand you go for but for normal shooting I still use the kit lens and I find that is adequate for my everyday needs.
 
Metal God said:
Did people like Cartier Bresson and Yousuf Karsh - two of the worlds greatest ever photographers have all-bells-and-whistles cameras? No they didn't...
Click to expand...

Yes they did - by the standards of the day, they were using state of the art equipment and optics... HCB used a Leica for most of those 'iconic' images you mention (after a while he didn't even have to pay for them as they were 'gifted' to him by Leitz) ... and Youssef Karsh used an 8x10 Calumet plate camera - hardly amateur kit...

If our own 'modern' kit had been available then, most of those 'iconic' photographers of the past would have used them...to ignore the advances in technology would have left them at a disadvantage...
 
Metal God said:
Did people like Cartier Bresson and Yousuf Karsh - two of the worlds greatest ever photographers have all-bells-and-whistles cameras? No they didn't, they were able to produce iconic images from cameras that were primative by todays standards. But what they had was an eye for a photograph. They knew how to control light, compose their images/subjects and release the shutter at the right moment. Something that some of us can't do with top of the range cameras - or indeed any camera!
Click to expand...

That's like saying that Stirling Moss or Fangio were great drivers with primitive equipment by modern standards. The fact is that they had the best cars and the best support teams available at that time. The same is true of Bresson and Karsh and if they were around today you can bet they'd be using the best available equipment as they did then.
 
LOL. Beat me to it Rob. :D
 
I don't need my kit but I take great pleasure from it

some of the photos I take though, I need f2.8 glass, a decent flash and high FPS.
other than that, my phone would do the job mostly :) but it's just as fun!
 
I have far more expensive kit than I need. In the last 4 years I've gone from a £150 to about £3,000 worth of Nikon gear. In that time I've earnt £50 from my photography. It's been expensive getting to where I am today but I enjoy photography so it's worth every penny to me. The spending should slow down significantly now I have the gear I have but I'll still get better gear gradually because I'll always want better. Will my photography get better with the better gear? I hope so but there is no guarantee.
 
In some situations is it necessary. You might have seen the link on here recently about David Bailey doing a Photoshoot as an advert for a Nokia phone camera.

One of the quotes was that it was a very good camera, and managed to get some great photos.
What they didn't make a lot of fuss of, was his comment on the surroundings not being really good enough for this camera. The inference here is that with his normal camera, he would be able to compensate better for the lack of light.

There are situations where the equipment really does need to be good.
There is an Opteka 500mm lens, costs around £80 I think. It can take pictures of the moon, has some really nice shots on their website. However, if compared to the Canon 400mm (£3k I seem to remember) prime when taking a shot of a bird in flight, I am guessing there would be some comparable difference in the images, even if you had to crop massively on the 400mm (I think there is a 500mm from Canon, no idea of the price though)
 
coldpenguin said:
In some situations is it necessary. You might have seen the link on here recently about David Bailey doing a Photoshoot as an advert for a Nokia phone camera.

One of the quotes was that it was a very good camera, and managed to get some great photos.
What they didn't make a lot of fuss of, was his comment on the surroundings not being really good enough for this camera. The inference here is that with his normal camera, he would be able to compensate better for the lack of light.

There are situations where the equipment really does need to be good.
There is an Opteka 500mm lens, costs around £80 I think. It can take pictures of the moon, has some really nice shots on their website. However, if compared to the Canon 400mm (£3k I seem to remember) prime when taking a shot of a bird in flight, I am guessing there would be some comparable difference in the images, even if you had to crop massively on the 400mm (I think there is a 500mm from Canon, no idea of the price though)
Click to expand...

seriously?? is it any good?
 
Coldpenguin has really hit the nail on the head there.

I can take a crappy little box with a plastic lens out to shoot and come back with an image I really like and can be proud of. But when we do this we shoot to the strengths of what we have and work within the limits of the kit. It's easy enough to find subjects and locations that suit what you have.

To be able to take great shots in a wide variety of situations and conditions, you need kit that can cope with extremes, work quickly, accurately and produce high image quality. That costs.
 
coldpenguin said:
In some situations is it necessary. You might have seen the link on here recently about David Bailey doing a Photoshoot as an advert for a Nokia phone camera.

One of the quotes was that it was a very good camera, and managed to get some great photos.
What they didn't make a lot of fuss of, was his comment on the surroundings not being really good enough for this camera. The inference here is that with his normal camera, he would be able to compensate better for the lack of light.
Click to expand...

Please bear in mind that his normal camera is a 10" x 8" view camera. He would not be using the Nokia if he wasn't being paid to advertise it.


Steve.
 
we live in a society of if you can afford it and want it then have it..... i ride a harley but a yamaha would get me there just the same..... but hell who wants to ride a yamaha if you can afford a harley ...lol
 
I think "need" has nothing to do with many peoples' decisions, "want" is responsible for most purchases I would imagine, including mine :D
 
i was always told the expensive lenes i.e. the canon "L" accept light with wide open arms where was the bog standard ones although do accept light but with kids arms! therefore u wont need to mess about as much with the colours at the end.
 
Metal God said:
Did people like Cartier Bresson and Yousuf Karsh - two of the worlds greatest ever photographers - have all-bells-and-whistles cameras?....
Click to expand...

In the great scheme of things, Leicas were pretty swish back in the day (still are) - probably equivalant to using a D3X these days. Just because it was all mechanical and not electronic didn't mean they were using crap gear.
 
jackbauer said:
i was always told the expensive lenes i.e. the canon "L" accept light with wide open arms where was the bog standard ones although do accept light but with kids arms! therefore u wont need to mess about as much with the colours at the end.
Click to expand...

That's a wonderful justification for indulgence.

Complete rubbish too.

Why can't people accept that we just enjoy owning and playing with big boys toys? Preferably small, finely engineered, and with lots of buttons :D

Some of my favourite pictures were taken on a disposable. Cheap camera, priceless subject :) But I'm keeping my DSLR and L lenses thank you.

My car is far bigger, far faster, and far more expensive than I need to get around. And I'm not changing that either ;)
 
-Rob- said:
I have far more expensive kit than I need. In the last 4 years I've gone from a £150 to about £3,000 worth of Nikon gear. In that time I've earnt £50 from my photography. It's been expensive getting to where I am today but I enjoy photography so it's worth every penny to me. The spending should slow down significantly now I have the gear I have but I'll still get better gear gradually because I'll always want better. Will my photography get better with the better gear? I hope so but there is no guarantee.
Click to expand...

Your photography probably will get better but that'll be through experience rather than the equipment.

I agree that taking the same picture with an expensive set-up and a cheap set-up there will be differences, but sometimes not as noticeable as some may think.
 
adverts help to sell the most recent models
an older model which was top when it was first introduced still takes good shots
i am not convinced that one should overstep ones requirements
but it is nice to have something which wont 'hold you back'
i stick with my old oly c765 because it still works and takes the shots which i really need rather than want
i dont do any big prints and find my audience...my family.. are happy with the family album shots
i would however like to see my compositions with more edge and finer feel to them
but i am not prepared to go over 200-250 for a new cam
so will remain in the group of buyers who remain in the 6-9 Mp bridge cam regime

horses for corses...or should that be hourses for courses

perhaps chacun à son goût is more to the point

no...the eyes have it...the beholder etc??
 
i have a 3 year old 400D and a 430EXii and i dont think i could shoot the pictures i do without the 430ex, the only things i need to add to my collection is a softbox (on its way :D) a wireless flash trigger, and a side grip battery pack. unless you truely are "professional" as in 1 shoot can pay for the latest camera, then whats the point?
 
Better gear does produce better image quality imo. Doesn't make the picture any good of course but at least it should be of a decent quality (sharpness/noise/colour etc).

The lens I'm enjoying most at the moment was less that £200 - a lensbaby Muse. The lens I use least cost nearly £1500 (Nikon 14-24mm)!!
 
I think it all depends on who is looking at the image. I look at some of my images and think they look pretty good, I know all about the shot and what I needed to do to get it. I also know the emotion in the shot. If I take a photo of a family member on my compact, it may be one of my best ever shots, I really like the way they look. Technically though someone else may see it as a poor image, not up to standard. I would have been better to use more high end kit.

For me faith in my kit goes a long way and it gives me confidence. That is as important to me as is all the rest of the skills required. I trust my gear to deliver the image I am looking for. I know that generally if that doesn't happen it is down to me and not the kit I am using.

As far as some of the legends of photography using any old camera to produce an amazing image goes, it is fairly simple. It is exactly BECAUSE they are legends that they are able to it. Us mere mortals stand little chance of recreating the skill involved and so lean on the technology available to help us as much as we can.
 
For static subject in good light needing no special ISO capabilities then pretty much any kit is equal, its the artists composition and development (aka PP) thats the win/loose on it.

Anything else you are probably creating an inferior image to someone with the latest ninja kit.

And thats me talking from the viewpoint of someone who shoots very fast action motorsport with the aim of producing magazine quality images, not some "abstract blurry arty effect".

I'd love to say my photography has moved on a lot due to my own personal talent, but thats crap to be honest, my motorsport photos have moved on because my kit is ten times better (aka "more expensive") than that which I started with.
 
I've just had a look at the stats on my website. The most viewed picture on there is an Ullswater landscape taken on my little compact camera. I also have a picture on there that's ahrdly been viewed at all that was taken with a £10,000 Hassleblad but I'd be surprised if anyone could tell me that they can really tell the difference in image quality when it's being displayed at about 800x600 pixels on a monitor.
 
Its still possible to take ***** photos with expensive gear Rob, the recycle bin on my desktop is testament to that most weekends :D
 
jackbauer said:
seriously?? is it any good?
Click to expand...
I have trouble determining when people are being sarcastic.
It is good for taking pictures of the moon. Not great at a lot else, as any background bokeh is a tad odd.
Try a search on google/forum

jackbauer said:
i was always told the expensive lenes i.e. the canon "L" accept light with wide open arms where was the bog standard ones although do accept light but with kids arms! therefore u wont need to mess about as much with the colours at the end.
Click to expand...

HoppyUK said:
That's a wonderful justification for indulgence.

Complete rubbish too.
Click to expand...

Not entirely, just 90%? If we get filters, we get the best possible, because the coatings are better than the cheap ones. The same holds true to an extent on L to non-L glass.
Also, consider the 70-300 IS, and the 100-400 L IS. The L lens is L due to the fact that the optics are great, and it is built well. The 70-300 is a good lens, but really not as good (or at least mine isn't). I posted a snippet up 2 weeks ago, when I was really impressed that the quality of a 1" high area of text I shot at 8m away, there was no way that my 70-300 could have made a representative image (at a closer distance). The image is always, somehow different.
 
jackbauer said:
now my question is if u dont need the expensive equipment, why is there sooo many people who arnt even pros with cameras worth well over hundreds and thousand!!!???
Click to expand...

My philosophy is buy the best you can afford at the time of purchase. And after a few "testers" on the lens front, i have now arrived my happy line up. Some i dont use as much as others, but they wont dissapear and i dont need to sell anything (yet).

No i dont need any of it, but its a hobby and i enjoy it. If i were a cyclist i would have a very light weight (expensive) bike. I could use an old steel one that weighs a ton, but i wouldnt like that so..... Same as my camera gear. I doubt i will feel the urge to upgrade anytime in the near/distant future. I have no hankerings to go FX, so thats my theory/story anyway for what its worth.
 
jackbauer said:
now my question is if u dont need the expensive equipment, why is there sooo many people who arnt even pros with cameras worth well over hundreds and thousand!!!???
Click to expand...

in london traffic you will see many marques making frustrating progress homewards... i had a big V8 then bought a fiesta 950
i got home around a minute later..

you always get the overkill in a situation..musical instruments as well which is an area i have spent too much on 'the right gear'

its a part of life and growing up not just taking the pictures
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top