Cheap/Expensive Gear

[ryank]

I don't understand Gear Whores. Keep it cheap, and enjoy your photos.

Gary

 

[VinnyB]

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..

And with fuel still left in the tank ready for the next day's journey..

 

[mrtoad]

And with fuel still left in the tank ready for the next day's journey..

good point...yes!

the north circular will never be the same without that old 1982 tin can
cheers

 

[Arkady]

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

Tools appropriate to the job in hand - I'm pretty sure if I still lived in London I'd still be cycling everywhere - but let's face it, a 2cv will get there as fast as a Jag in rush-hour traffic - not as comfortably or with as many toys, perhaps, but not much quicker...

For German autobahn-brawling though, a big V8 is just the job...

 

[mrtoad]

Tools appropriate to the job in hand - I'm pretty sure if I still lived in London I'd still be cycling everywhere - but let's face it, a 2cv will get there as fast as a Jag in rush-hour traffic - not as comfortably or with as many toys, perhaps, but not much quicker...
For German autobahn-brawling though, a big V8 is just the job...

well i can agree with you on that ...the V8 did nice quiet comfortable trips to the south coast..it was an automatic so i could fall asleep now and again

not being a city boy and hating the daily cycle..virtually in the fiesta going up hills
i retired to manchester outskirts and use a german car to go from A to B
reasonably quick and quiet...
but really down deep i would love a range rover..and a big canon...:|
just for the hell of it and so i could take better photographs

maybe

 

[HoppyUK]

Originally Posted by HoppyUK

"That's a wonderful justification for indulgence.

"Complete rubbish too."

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.

That is not what I was calling complete rubbish at all. I was referring to this quote from the OP:

"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. "

Which is complete rubbish.

 

[welsh wizard]

Image quality, always image quality. Nothing much else.

 

[joxby]

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...

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.

I think the point is, they didn't use 21st century tech because it wasn't available, so why do we need it.
If images from yesteryear still stand up in they're respective genres today, what did they have that we don't.
Well, it isn't equipment, clearly.
The improvements in tech are mainly in areas where the photo wasn't actually possible back in Dicks day, and the photos that were possible are just made easier.

 

[grumpybadger]

jackbauer - you seem to have an issue with people having expensive equipment, especially if not professional. You also had a thread on tripods.

I am not a professional photographer and doubt I ever will be (I couldn't afford the pay cut). But, I pride myself on my images and genuinely think my best stuff can hold its head up high. Yes, I use a camera that was £4.5k new and £2.2k second hand when I bought it. Yes I use a lens that cost me £4000. Does it matter whether I am a pro or not?

I take images I want to and I genuinely believe I would struggle with a lot of the wildlife images I take if I didn't have the kit. Not at 800px for web, anything can do that, but the real test for me is an A3 print.

Still, each to their own. I'll continue with my expensive kit and getting out most weekends to use it.

 

[jackbauer]

No, act i dont have a problem at all. if people wanna pay 20-30grand on equiment then so be it...just wanted to know why people spend so much esp when there are few members (inc me sometimes) that think its not the camera but the person behind it.

heck if i had 5grannd burning a hole in my pocket i'd be spending it on the state of the art camera gear too...even though i prob wouldnt know how to use it.

 

[CT]

I think the point is, they didn't use 21st century tech because it wasn't available, so why do we need it.
If images from yesteryear still stand up in they're respective genres today, what did they have that we don't.
Well, it isn't equipment, clearly.
The improvements in tech are mainly in areas where the photo wasn't actually possible back in Dicks day, and the photos that were possible are just made easier.

Joxers old thing, if those guys were around today, they'd be using the same gear we are today and they'd still be making the rest of us look like crap. It clearly isn't equipment - a finger was laid on their brow at birth and it was deemd that it would be thus. :shrug: Nonetheless they wouldn't deny themseves the best tools for the job - they didn't then and they wouldn't now.

 

[susie]

I have nice cameras and lenses, all bought second hand but it does not mean I am going to get great pictures far from it!
I got set up when I was made redundant, mostly by selling the lenses that did not fit my plan to fund the best I could get. I now have fewer numerically but I doubt I will need to upgrade them, only replace one if I kill one off or a horse treads on it

Nice kit yes, but I don't drink or smoke so what some spend on that I spend on my "habit"

 

[grumpybadger]

just wanted to know why people spend so much esp when there are few members (inc me sometimes) that think its not the camera but the person behind it.

Well actually I think it's both. You can't get top quality large prints without a high quality camera and lens.

To a large degree it depends what you are shooting. You get into the world of birds in flight and wild mammal photography and you need a combination of photographic skill, fieldcraft, equipment and luck...

Also depends what your acceptable standard is. As I said, almost anything can look good at 800px on the web

 

[GarynLea]

No, act i dont have a problem at all. if people wanna pay 20-30grand on equiment then so be it...just wanted to know why people spend so much esp when there are few members (inc me sometimes) that think its not the camera but the person behind it.

heck if i had 5grannd burning a hole in my pocket i'd be spending it on the state of the art camera gear too...even though i prob wouldnt know how to use it.

If I had 5 grand the missus would already have spent most of it

A few may be lucky enough to go out and buy the latest, expensive gear Jack but most of us are in the same boat and started small. My first lens beside the kit lens was a 75-300 mkIII which aren't the greatest but over time and by scrimping a little, save a few pennies here & there etc. your gear list soon mounts up and with experience in shooting, you can trade your unused gear in for more useful kit.

 

[ujjwaldey8165]

I have a rather different perspective on this. My view is:

Everything else remaining same, Its far easier for an accomplished photographer to get a good shot out of a not-so-good camera than a beginner.

So, it is better for a beginner to get the best kit he can afford ( assuming he knows or will learn how to use it). That way, he will not be handicapped by the limitiations of the camera; only by his own skills. As his skill level improves; he will learn the limitations of inferior gears and to use it accordingly. This also will avoid some of the frustration of using inferior gears ; and will encourage him into photography. ( I am offcourse talking of average photographers here, not the world class iconic photographers : they are magicians, who can create magic even with a pinhole camera. And cheap doesn't always mean inferior; the 35-40£ Konica S2 is a great camera for its price, for example, compared to a 400 £ CL, though the 50 mm Summicron lens on a CL is definitely sharper).

In my view its the same with many other things in life : I would get the best pen for a child to write with, that improves the handwriting much faster than with a cheap pen. It woulod be much easier for me to write a better hand with a cheap Tesco pen than for my 11 years old daughter.

Offcourse, some folks ( me inclusive) just feel happy using the high quality gears. Thats not about photography per se, but the pleasure of using wonderfully engineered machines. I also love to use the old, wonderfully made, german cameras. Its a great feeling to use a camera designed in the 30s, made in the 40; and still capable of taking great photographs.

In any case, these are all different points of view; nothing right or wrong about it

 

[desantnik]

But no matter what skill you have you can't make your lens aperture wider, your focal length longer, your glass have lower dispersion, your frame rate increase, force the AF to lock on accurately and faster or use an old jedi mind trick to reduce shutter lag...

All of those things will hinder you in action photograhy, which is what I was saying earlier.

If *none* of those things (or any other technical performance aspect) are important in whatever area of photography you choose to practice in, then yes, the photographer and not the machinery is what will yield results.

 

[mrtoad]

But no matter what skill you have you can't make your lens aperture wider, your focal length longer, your glass have lower dispersion, your frame rate increase, force the AF to lock on accurately and faster or use an old jedi mind trick to reduce shutter lag...

All of those things will hinder you in action photograhy, which is what I was saying earlier.

If *none* of those things (or any other technical performance aspect) are important in whatever area of photography you choose to practice in, then yes, the photographer and not the machinery is what will yield results.

or make the light change its quantity, quality or direction..unless you are a strober
or make the subject more photographical

if we only could fly

 

[coldpenguin]

Another way.
For an amateur, Auto mode could be useful, or rather imperative to them getting a good shot.
What if a camera cost more to have auto-mode than not? Then the more expensive camera would be most likely to be in the amateurs hand?

You can buy a cheap flash from ebay. but by buying a real/compatible flash, you get an auto-mode which will assist in not blowing highlights in your pics

 

[Galaxy66]

Here we go, all over again, like this thread.

I have expensive kit and I see no reason to defend myself by explaining why!.

 

[mrtoad]

Here we go, all over again, like this thread.

I have expensive kit and I see no reason to defend myself by explaining why!.

likewise i think we all are satisfied with our kit and hate to have to defend it
even though we may GAS
trying to be pragmatic in a world of advancing technology...#it aint easy being me#

 

[david1701]

good gear helps, an example is today I was taking some shots in the shop to use for the site and I was shooting ambient, then I had a thought shoved my 430 on a trigger and taped it to the highest rail at full power.

The results were amazingly different, the room looked more natural with flash, the lights had a bit of burn around them but not much and the windows looked good not blown

KIT made that difference, to quote a guy 'that aint no on camera flash'

 

[Marcus Geezer]

I'm on a 400D at the moment and have upgraded my lens in an effort to increase quality of pics. I'm generally happy with my shots but feel that the extra usability and low noise at high ISO's of a 40D will enable me to get a slightly better pic which will hopefully give me an edge and give me some greater satisfaction over my 'work'. I guess i feel that I've outgrown the 400D and need to step up.

I'm looking at the 40D due to budget, but would love a 5D so I'll keep buying the lottery tickets!