Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry, looked like an accusation, although I'm perfectly calm, and have not thrown anything out of my "pram"; hence the smilies.
Is your equipment your priority?
- Thread starter AliB
- Start date
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Not for professional use, which was the point of that little detour to the topic.
It's not only production volume that decreases the price, but also the materials with which the unit is constructed and the care & quality control over their construction.
Many of the higher end lenses (£1,000+), regardless of manufacturer, have much stricter quality control practices, and an overall higher quality of construction. This is where your extra £s are going, to help guarantee you have a lens that will give you a good couple of decades of daily use and won't fall apart after a year or two, as well as better distortion control, sharpness, contrast, less chromatic aberration, etc.
If you're shooting a D3x (or any other pro body), you're going to notice a difference between those two lenses. If you're shooting a D70, possibly not.
My point ended with '...some perceived benefits weigh more highly than any difference in the images created from them' for a reason.If you're shooting a D3x (or any other pro body), you're going to notice a difference between those two lenses. If you're shooting a D70, possibly not.
There will sometimes be a measurable difference in otherwise identical images. But these are relatively unimportant.
Newly-weds want nice pictures of their wedding, the boss wants pictures of his factory that makes it look impressive, the magazine editor wants sharp shots for print. Nothing that can't be done by someone with a bit of technical knowledge and a D70 and a Sigma 28-300 is it? Sure that a weather sealed body and fast zoom will help at the margins (and probably last longer under duress) but a practised photographer will not let that hinder the image.
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
By your argument then, you could go so far as to say "why not shoot weddings with a disposable camera from Sainsbury's? It has a lens, ok, sure, it's plastic, but it's the IMAGE!"
As I said, there's a reason there is cheap plastic consumer crap, and highly quality controlled, well constructed professional equipment, and there's a reason it costs so much more.
You can make a hole with a £25 B&Q's own generic brand drill, but a professional would still go out and spend £500 on a professional model DeWalt or other higher end brand if it was in daily hard working use and demanded professional results.
- Messages
- 26,617
- Edit My Images
- Yes
We've been here so many times before! I don't know which is worse -people who ask for advice/critique then whack their dummies when they get it, or those who get it and don't even bother responding to the effort people make to reply.
alistair.o
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 410
- Name
- Alistair
- Edit My Images
- No
We've been here so many times before! I don't know which is worse -people who ask for advice/critique then whack their dummies when they get it, or those who get it and don't even bother responding to the effort people make to reply.
^^^ Good job that's a small bore otherwise her eyes a gonner! Sheesh women!
Why not? There are plenty of very good images from disposable cameras out there - I'm sure if a professional could use them creatively and work inside their limitations and the results could be great.
I know. And thought I wrote that the difference between the two, in the hands of someone who knows how to use them, would be far less than the cost difference suggests.
Do you not think it is the photographer that creates an image rather than the box they are holding?
You suggested a 'professional' might need 3 or 4 lenses 'to replace your little £250 Sigma 28-300mm' - I was simply suggesting that if a professional can't get a sellable an image from a 'little £250 Sigma' they are simply not that good.
Sorry your argument is getting ridiculous now. Why is it people who make comments like this to stir it are always annonymous?
trencheel303
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
Voyager, the photographer can't make a good photograph if the 'box he is holding' is a bag of proverbial *****e.
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Key word being "if", and the same goes for the cheap consumer equipment.
Just out of curiosity, what do you shoot? Are you one of those I mentioned earlier who promotes consumer level gear for professional work simply because you've never had the opportunity to use or own professional equipment and understood the advantages they hold?
alistair.o
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 410
- Name
- Alistair
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry to parrot on about this but - photography is art. Have a look at this:
Thomas Gearty - Near Columbia, South Carolina 1995
This moody landscape, which is well known around the globe, was taken on a cheap plastic Holga!
Regards
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Tyke Tiler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,980
- Name
- Tomas
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry to parrot on about this but - photography is art. Have a look at this:
Thomas Gearty - Near Columbia, South Carolina 1995
This moody landscape, which is well known around the globe, was taken on a cheap plastic Holga!
Photography is indeed art but is Gearty's picture known for being taken on a cheap plastic camera or for it's artistic qualities?
Anyway, I agree = it ain't always about the gear, but the attitudes similar to: 'A true pro can take a belter with anything, anytime, anywhere and in any given situation..' is poo and rattle.
Swap Bill Frake's sports gear for that cheap plastic Holga for example.
When your sitting hundreds of meters away from the action, that cheap plastic stuff isn't doing squat.
The point that is trying to be made, is that no amount of talent can replace the tools, just as no amount of tools can replace talent.
alistair.o
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 410
- Name
- Alistair
- Edit My Images
- No
Points well made - thanks.
In what way am I any more anonymous than 'awp'?
You have no information about you in your profile - no name - no website - no nothing!
I think if a 'professional' can't create a good image working with anything and instead rely on technology they are simply not very good.
Currently a Contax G1 with 35 and 90mm and a Ricoh GR1s. (I've played with my wife's D700 and 14-24 though) and I don't think I've 'promoted' anything for 'professional work' - but if someone proposing to be 'professional' tells me they need special equipment to take 'professional' pictures I think they are deluded.
Does anyone need to know what camera it was taken on to have an opinion about an image?
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
And anybody who thinks they can shoot indoors low light with no flash on a lens that has a sweet spot of around f/11 and a body capable of nothing usable above ISO400 is more deluded.
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course not, I've seen many crap images produced with professional equipment too.
Who thinks they can?
I'll remind myself next time I'm shooting a wedding in the low light environs of a castle that I could have saved all that money and shot it on a holga. I'm sure the couple will be delighted with my attempts at "Art"
It's all very subject specific guys. Yes I should have my a*** slapped if I cant take a decent pic (of a fairly stationery subject in decent light) on almost anything. But there are, as Tomas pointed out, applications where the technology goes a long way to the production of the image. Think of some of the shots from the Olympics. Cameras rigged with Pw's in the ceiling above the gymnasts (I'm sure there is a law against that somewhere!) the shots of the swimmers etc. No way could you shoot that with anything other than pretty top flight gear.
There is a time and place for everything so I'm off out to play with some macro before that snail makes a bolt for it.
It's all very subject specific guys. Yes I should have my a*** slapped if I cant take a decent pic (of a fairly stationery subject in decent light) on almost anything. But there are, as Tomas pointed out, applications where the technology goes a long way to the production of the image. Think of some of the shots from the Olympics. Cameras rigged with Pw's in the ceiling above the gymnasts (I'm sure there is a law against that somewhere!) the shots of the swimmers etc. No way could you shoot that with anything other than pretty top flight gear.
There is a time and place for everything so I'm off out to play with some macro before that snail makes a bolt for it.
Tyke Tiler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,980
- Name
- Tomas
- Edit My Images
- No
Of course not. How is your question relevant to the topic?
No offence, but I'm certain that you don't understand exactly what's being discussed here.
Equipment is not a priority all the time but it most certainly can be. The point is that gear can and does matter, ignorance of this fact is detrimental.
Deluded, nice choice of words.
Surgeons use 'special equipment', I'd say at the expense of risk that it's possible to go with the more rudimentary alternatives if they disregard delusion a little.
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
You. Equipment doesn't matter, right?
No. I wrote and you even quoted '..work inside their limitations..'.
Which bit of that did you find too hard to understand?
Time to show us some of your great images I think!
trencheel303
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
I have noticed this seems to be a bit of a problem on this website - I have had 'words' from a member on here who didn't like the fact that I don't have my name on the left there, and that I don't generally shout out who I am. Odd bunch.
Voyager, here's a hypothetical situation.
Let's say I own two lenses - A canon 50mm f/1.4 and an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6. I also own a 450D (I do actually) which is good enough at ISO 800 but only good at ISO 1600 when the light is acceptable to correctly expose.
I've left my 50mm f/1.4 at home by accident and am stuck in a dark area (I'm into Urbex
) with only my camera and the slow 18-55 lens. I want to take a picture of the room I am in, but it's too dark to handhold the camera, get a correctly exposed image WITHOUT camera shake. If I use the flash, it reflects off of dials and stuff that ruins the image, so that's out of question - as is a tripod as I don't have one.We have a situation here where I have reached the limit of my equipment - had I remembered to bring the more expensive prime lens along, I'd have got the shots.
Comments...
Moos3h
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,769
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Part of my reasoning for this is that quite frankly I have beggar all interest in anyone's shots but my own
I don't wish to sound too harsh, but it's mine that make me money and photography is a job rather than a hobby for me so I'm here for the gear!
Cheers,
James
I don't wish to sound too harsh, but it's mine that make me money and photography is a job rather than a hobby for me so I'm here for the gear!
Cheers,
James
You were the one questioning the use of Gearty's picture.
No offence, but you seem to be another who has not bothered to read what I have (clearly) written.
Come back when you have, eh?
Moos3h
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,769
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's probably going to get me pitchforked but I kind of agree with what (I think) Voyager is getting at here. However:
1). No-one is (I think?) saying top end gear is pointless
2). EVERYONE agrees that gear is only half of the story (otherwise quite frankly we are all screwed)
3). You don't NEED top end gear to produce a photo, but if you livelihood and/or pride rely on consistent quality results that are the best they can be in their field, then to ignore top end gear would be foolish
4). We all need to shut up and go take some pictures
Cheers,
James
1). No-one is (I think?) saying top end gear is pointless
2). EVERYONE agrees that gear is only half of the story (otherwise quite frankly we are all screwed)
3). You don't NEED top end gear to produce a photo, but if you livelihood and/or pride rely on consistent quality results that are the best they can be in their field, then to ignore top end gear would be foolish
4). We all need to shut up and go take some pictures
Cheers,
James
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't find it hard to understand at all, however as I said, there's A REASON (well, more than one) why there is such a thing as professional equipment, and why it costs so much extra.
Which bit of that did you find too hard to understand?
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
The only problem I have is when people don't even list what camera they use and the images they've produced. Chances are, I'm going to take the opinion more seriously of somebody with decent equipment and good images (and in some instances, crap equipment and outstanding images), than somebody with no gear listed and no examples of their work.
I don't care what their name is.
4). We all need to shut up and go take some pictures
I'm off out to do just that. have fun folks.
Tyke Tiler
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,980
- Name
- Tomas
- Edit My Images
- No
trencheel303
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,888
- Edit My Images
- No
Voyager, here's a hypothetical situation.
Let's say I own two lenses - A canon 50mm f/1.4 and an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6. I also own a 450D (I do actually) which is good enough at ISO 800 but only good at ISO 1600 when the light is acceptable to correctly expose.
I've left my 50mm f/1.4 at home by accident and am stuck in a dark area (I'm into Urbex
We have a situation here where I have reached the limit of my equipment - had I remembered to bring the more expensive prime lens along, I'd have got the shots.
Comments...
That is not contrary to what I have written is it?
I simply suggested that a professional should be able to get good images working within the limitations of more prosaic equipment. You were just one of those that seems to think that is not possible.
Kaouthia
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,308
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
In the circumstances I listed, no, it's not possible, and a professional would not limit their abilities or options that much.
Rob 80386
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,385
- Name
- Emily
- Edit My Images
- No
Imho, i think its a mixture of two things,
like in the DJ/music industry,
it doesn't matter what the DJ is playing on, he/she could have the most expensive decks/ mixer but it's the person behind it that makes the difference, as long as the gear is half decent and the operator knows what they are doing it shouldn't matter what they use.
the camera only records the image, the photographer behind it has to find that image.
so to summerise I don't realy care about the kit as long as it can do what i bought it for...... and the end result is usable pictures, whether they are snaps or photographs
like in the DJ/music industry,
it doesn't matter what the DJ is playing on, he/she could have the most expensive decks/ mixer but it's the person behind it that makes the difference, as long as the gear is half decent and the operator knows what they are doing it shouldn't matter what they use.
the camera only records the image, the photographer behind it has to find that image.
so to summerise I don't realy care about the kit as long as it can do what i bought it for...... and the end result is usable pictures, whether they are snaps or photographs