I may regret starting this one

flossie said:
Are those the ones that had perfectly and brightly lit studio shoots - all they showed is the pro photographer knew how to light and had thousands of pounds of lighting gear to hand - in such a perfect situation you could get a great portrait on a disposable camera being waved approximatly in the right vercinity...
Click to expand...

No, one was in a stairwell, the other was walking around hong kong with a small point and shoot. The start of the video was in a studio where he was using a D3 and what looked like a 70-200.
 
stumac said:
A full frame camera with a fast lens makes shallow DOF 'easy' (or, compared to some compacts, possible).


so its the equipment that makes the photo better in this case
Click to expand...

utter rubbish

DOF is to do with
1. how far the subject is from the camera
2. what aperture the lens is set to

Shallow DOF is one tool in the artistic box of choices a photographer can make, it has nothing to do with quality or "better"

People are confusing what professional photography is about
That is... We deliver images of a superb standard to the client in the required format. We often wouldn't choose to shoot cleaning products, wheelie bins or brides, we do it for the money, and we do it well. We are paid to deliver the product, and there is no wriggle room. When a professional shoots for pleasure, there is often a lot of wriggle room, there are no consequences for getting a duff shot etc. The professional will choose the best tool for the job. That could be a compact, or a large-format sheet film camera. Usually it is a high end DSLR or MF camera. Most professionals will be pretty platform agnostic. I.e. if they have to shoot on a MF digital today, and a wide format film camera tomorrow, then they just do it. If they focus on work where they only need one set up, then the only impact it has is on their bottom line
 
lensflair said:
It like this, why do racing car drivers have such fast cars, to go faster and compete with other racing car drivers.

They use the best tool for the job and yeah they will do a better job with a good car. But if a spectator jumped into the best car on the track and they had only ever driven an auto passenger car, they would be coming last in the race.
Click to expand...

When this topic of kit vs talent crops up I am reminded of an episode of Top Gear where Richard Hammond tried to drive an F1 car. I don't think the equipment helped him much at all....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGUZJVY-sHo
 
There's no definitive answer to this. What you shoot, subject knowledge, preparation, conditions, kit, skill and luck all play a part.

Ask me to set up a studio for a model shoot - and I wouldn't have a clue. Similarly, take an urban portrait photographer out to the country and tell him to get shots of a Hen Harrier or Stoat - and he/she probably wouldn't know where to start.

What is always true is that better, more expensive kit will enable you to get shots that you would miss or be of poor quality with lesser equipment - especially when conditions are challenging. It doesn't guarantee success but increases your chances. It's then down to you as the "man (or woman) behind the camera" to make the most of what you have.
 
stumac said:
"Its not the camera but the man/woman behind it"

I must have read that comment 1000 times on this forum and if thats the case why are we not all running about with £100 compacts and being super creative with them.
Click to expand...

I doubt any kit will help with creativity. Some of the most inspiring and creative photography I have seen has been taken on comparitively basic equipment. And some of the most deriviative drivel I have seen has been produced with high end cameras and lenses. I've watched a few photographers on Flickr that for a long time I found extremely creative and inspiring then become stale and repetitive once they upgraded and focussed on the gear rather than the idea.

Creativity follows a different path to the pursuit of sharpness, pixel-peeping and micro-focus.

But photography is too wide a subject to be encompased so easily though, the requirements of what makes a good sports/portrait/reportage/fine art photograph are all different.
 
It's quite obviously both in my opinion.
Some shots are not possible without certain kit.
Some shots are not possible without certain knowledge.
 
Richard King said:
utter rubbish

DOF is to do with
1. how far the subject is from the camera
2. what aperture the lens is set to

Shallow DOF is one tool in the artistic box of choices a photographer can make, it has nothing to do with quality or "better"
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you are wrong.

DOF is also affected by sensor size (as this affects the 'circle of confusion').
Consider a macro with a compact; typically this will have a depth of field much larger than that for an SLR.
 
Faldrax said:
Sorry, but you are wrong.

DOF is also affected by sensor size (as this affects the 'circle of confusion').
Consider a macro with a compact; typically this will have a depth of field much larger than that for an SLR.
Click to expand...

I haven't the energy for the whole "focal length multiplier" debate again

Some people (like me) see things in terms of pure optics - that is dioptres, distances, image size, object sizes

Some people see things only in terms of the image output on the screen (and in that case sensor size is relevant, because the focal length multiplier is in action)

For me a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens. The image it produces is exactly the same on a large or small sensor. The difference is that the large sensor records a wider view of the same image in the same plane

If you do the maths, and ignore the focal length length multiplier, you will understand what I mean. The focal length multiplier is born from marketing laziness, and poor lens design. If you put a "DX" lens on a Nikon D3x, the camera knows, and ony uses the central part of the sensor (equivalent of a DX sensor) If you put a FX lens with the same (real) focal length as the DX lens on a D3x, the camera knows, and uses the whole sensor. If you look at both pictures, and scale to the same size (100%) the DOF will be exactly the same for both lenses (assuming the same apeture/subject distances)

Lenses didn't suddenly become sharper when they launched focal length multiplied DX lenses... Companies like Nikon just cleverly chose to only bother using the central portion of the lens. Equivalent MF lenses are even more expensive, because they need to be sharper over a much wider angle

If we take your logic on CLC's we need to consider the size of the photosites. it isnt given a larger sensor has larger photosites, it is also resolution dependant
 
Last edited:
Are you regretting this yet, Stumac?? :bang:
In a little more light-hearted aside to this thread, aren't we all forgetting to consider the "man jewellery" aspect of photography equipment, never mind the practical use?
(Apologies to any feminists who may be offended, but I don't know what else to call it!)
I am in the habit of having a smoke before I go into work each morning (yes, I know it's filthy & disgusting and I promise not to do it in the forums!)
Most mornings around the same time I see a guy, also on his way to work I assume, with a shoulder/satchel type camera bag (you know, the ones that try not to LOOK like a camera bag) with a D700 strap rather obviously and deliberately draped out of it.
I say deliberately because it's the same every time I see him, never with the printed side hidden, or even partially hidden - always arranged with the "Nikon D700" in obvious sight!
Now, there may well be a good practical reason for this, but I can't think of one - and if any of you know one, please enlighten me, as I can only assume that "civilians" or "lesser" camera owners, such as myself, are meant to drop to one knee and bow their heads as this obviously more accomplished photographer walks by!
Maybe I should ask him about it? - Maybe it's YOU?? - Maybe I should buy a D3x strap for my old & battered D300??? ..... and before any of you suggest it .... I will NOT buy a Canon strap!!! ;)
 
Tongue firmly in cheek for my above post - btw!
 
dentedshed said:
Well, quality gear is expensive :D
Click to expand...

:clap: Nice one, Dentedshed! - I should really have seen that coming, shouldn't I? :lol:

Note to self: Do NOT drive a motor vehicle, operate high-speed machinery, or post on public forums on a Saturday night whilst under the influence of a few pints! :bonk:
 
Richard King said:
I haven't the energy for the whole "focal length multiplier" debate again

Some people (like me) see things in terms of pure optics - that is dioptres, distances, image size, object sizes

Some people see things only in terms of the image output on the screen (and in that case sensor size is relevant, because the focal length multiplier is in action)

For me a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens. The image it produces is exactly the same on a large or small sensor. The difference is that the large sensor records a wider view of the same image in the same plane

If you do the maths, and ignore the focal length length multiplier, you will understand what I mean. The focal length multiplier is born from marketing laziness, and poor lens design. If you put a "DX" lens on a Nikon D3x, the camera knows, and ony uses the central part of the sensor (equivalent of a DX sensor) If you put a FX lens with the same (real) focal length as the DX lens on a D3x, the camera knows, and uses the whole sensor. If you look at both pictures, and scale to the same size (100%) the DOF will be exactly the same for both lenses (assuming the same apeture/subject distances)

Lenses didn't suddenly become sharper when they launched focal length multiplied DX lenses... Companies like Nikon just cleverly chose to only bother using the central portion of the lens. Equivalent MF lenses are even more expensive, because they need to be sharper over a much wider angle

If we take your logic on CLC's we need to consider the size of the photosites. it isnt given a larger sensor has larger photosites, it is also resolution dependant
Click to expand...

I made no mention of 'focal length multiplier' (which is a misnomer, 'crop factor' being a more accurate description - for the reasons you mention - the optics are unchanged).

I was not suggesting a lens designed for APS-C sized sensors would show a different DOF to a 'full frame' lens of the same focal length on the same body.

However, if you put the same lens on two different bodies, on with a full frame sensor, the other an APS-C sensor, then typically the DOF on the full frame body will be less (dependant on the resolution, and so pixel density, of the two sensors).
 
Ouch !!! :eek:

Meanwhile ....... back at the thread ....................

........ for everyone here, and with particular deference to my unknown friend and his D700, didn't a wiser man than I once say "The camera that you have with you is ALWAYS far better than the one you've left at home"? :thumbs:
 
Richard King said:
I haven't the energy for the whole "focal length multiplier" debate again

Some people (like me) see things in terms of pure optics - that is dioptres, distances, image size, object sizes

Some people see things only in terms of the image output on the screen (and in that case sensor size is relevant, because the focal length multiplier is in action)

For me a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens. The image it produces is exactly the same on a large or small sensor. The difference is that the large sensor records a wider view of the same image in the same plane

If you do the maths, and ignore the focal length length multiplier, you will understand what I mean. The focal length multiplier is born from marketing laziness, and poor lens design. If you put a "DX" lens on a Nikon D3x, the camera knows, and ony uses the central part of the sensor (equivalent of a DX sensor) If you put a FX lens with the same (real) focal length as the DX lens on a D3x, the camera knows, and uses the whole sensor. If you look at both pictures, and scale to the same size (100%) the DOF will be exactly the same for both lenses (assuming the same apeture/subject distances)

Lenses didn't suddenly become sharper when they launched focal length multiplied DX lenses... Companies like Nikon just cleverly chose to only bother using the central portion of the lens. Equivalent MF lenses are even more expensive, because they need to be sharper over a much wider angle

If we take your logic on CLC's we need to consider the size of the photosites. it isnt given a larger sensor has larger photosites, it is also resolution dependant
Click to expand...

But just to confuse things a bit more, then you get a truly digital system like Four Thirds where the lenses match the 'cropped' sensor perfectly, i.e. the image circle of the sensor uses up all of the glass, not just the centre. That's not lazy, it's the exact opposite when it comes to lens design.
 
Back on the original topic, I would say it is the camera and the person in the right place at the right time; I have had some praise for some of my point-and-shoot output and it's only when I hit the limits of point and shoot that I went for a dSLR. Now, I'm finding that there is a whole new learning curve and again it is a combination of the camera and the person. The ability to change lenses makes it a whole lot more complicated, but nothing I can't get used to.
 
Faldrax said:
However, if you put the same lens on two different bodies, on with a full frame sensor, the other an APS-C sensor, then typically the DOF on the full frame body will be less (dependant on the resolution, and so pixel density, of the two sensors).
Click to expand...
Only if you frame the pictures the same - that is, move closer for the full frame. Try it here: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html stick the same lens on the different bodies and see that for the same focal length, aperture and subject distance, the DoF is actually smaller for the crop cameras. The framing will be totally different though....
 
Photographer every time.

Give a good photographer a canon 20d 50mm 1.8

Give a lucky photographer a 5d mark 2 with 50mm 1.2

Who will win. The truth is it comes down to how you compose a image, what you choose to include in the image, angle of shot, settings used. So many different ways to take a photo. A good photographer will take amazing shots no matter what he/she uses.
 
r-play said:
Photographer every time.

Give a good photographer a canon 20d 50mm 1.8

Give a lucky photographer a 5d mark 2 with 50mm 1.2

Who will win. The truth is it comes down to how you compose a image, what you choose to include in the image, angle of shot, settings used. So many different ways to take a photo. A good photographer will take amazing shots no matter what he/she uses.
Click to expand...




The thing is most pros use pro gear, and there's many reasons why. One reason is it is usually more robust and you need reliability when its your job. Another reason can be its required for the purpose the final images will have, you might need to shoot medium format or the best dslr because the client requires high res files of very high reproduciblity.

If you shoot the public it can in part be because it doesn't look good when uncle bob turns up with better gear than you, it won't mean he will get better shots but in the business its all about the public's perception.

It can often make your job easier, when you do it everyday for hours on end anything that makes your job easier is a good thing.

And finally, it can be less limiting, you can shoot lower light, remove the need for a tripod, shoot faster etc.

None of this means the camera will do the work for you, the camera isn't creative, it makes incorrect metering decisions, it doesn't know which aperture to use for creative effect, it doesn't know which bits of a scene need to be in focus. It doesn't know what light to put your subject in or even what your subject is. It doesn't know what to leave in and out of a composition or which focal to use for a shot. It doesn't know when the decisive moment is about to occur or where you need to be at that moment.

Yes you need the right gear for the job but if you think that getting the best camera money can buy will make you a great photographer, you will spend the rest of your life thinking 'if only I had that persons gear I could make images like them'.
 
It's the photographer that presses the shutter release at the right time.
It's the photographer that frames the scene.
It's the photographer that selects the correct settings.
It's the photographer who selects the right kit for the job.

But having the right kit to allow the photographer to do all the above is also important.
 
Equipment limits you, better equipment the higher your limit is.
But thats just the limit. you still need to make use of it. When you hit your limit with the equipment consider upgrading.

But its the user being creative, taking the photos and editing them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top