We Need To Get Real

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe prefectly good shots can be obtained from any kit.. I used to love my oly (see avatar) and thought my canon 10d + sigma 70-200 would never need replacing... I am by no means saying you cant get a good pic unless you ahve good kit.. never have said that..

In some situations only the latest kit will get you the picture... people keep saying practice not kit.. sorry but thats total rubish (you need both sometimes) and I can prove it any day of the week..

As we are going around in circles thats my last word on it ..


happy happy :)
 
KIPAX said:
In some situations only the latest kit will get you the picture... people keep saying practice not kit.. sorry but thats total rubish (you need both sometimes) and I can prove it any day of the week..
Click to expand...

2nded. I know togs that will not touch evening showjumping (indoors and floodlit) due to lack of light. I cope with a 50D and 70-200 f2.8, which for the body's part at least is hardly perfect. Anything less though and even infinite talent would result in a mess. My setup really is on the ragged edge for those conditions.
 
Photography is just like any hobby, whether it be fishing, radio controlled cars / planes etc.
You start of with what you can afford then if you really get into the hobby, you may end up buying better kit.
I wish I had a bottomless pit of money to throw at this hobby and like a lot of other members, I save up so I can buy the kit I want.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking with cheaper kit if it does the job but as an example, when it comes to low light, people then realise that f2/8 lenses don't come cheap.
 
Ah the regular thread where the people that wish they had better kit whine about those that do :lol:

;)

Joking aside, we got my 4 yr old daughter one of these for her birthday:

41jYzhUfcL_SL500_AA300_.jpg


I took some pics with it, and a friend happened to pick it up and started going through the pics and said in disbelief "Bloody hell he can even get great pictures on one of these!" and started showing someone else.

On the other hand, I NEED tough gear for weddings, I NEED fast glass, I NEED backups.

/thread closed ;)
 
Slimbert said:
And can you define exactly what you mean by "It's" and "."?
Click to expand...
'It's' is a commonly understood contraction of 'it is' and '.' is a full stop that is used to punctuate the end of a sentence.
Slimbert said:
Anyway, just for the record, by "do better", I mean take better photos. I guess "better" is subjective and isn't definable so make of that what you will, but I know what I meant! :thumbs: By "expensive", I loosely meant "Pro" gear, D3 (inc the s and x models), D700, 1D3, 1D4 etc etc.....
Click to expand...
So 'better' is now subjective...

Don't you think 'you can definitely do better with an expensive DSLR and an expensive lens' any more or do you need to have this desperately expensive (see below) this 'Pro gear' to be able to be definite?
Slimbert said:
I'd say overall, in any given range or category, equipment that is in the top 10-20% of the price range, is the expensive stuff.....obviously this is ball park and again subjective.
Click to expand...
Could you give us an example?
 
Arkady said:
For general photography that's true enough, but for some applications, you do need the latest and fastest kit, otherwise your competition will leave you behind...
Click to expand...
What competition? :thinking:
I'm not competing with any body.
I do the best I can and leave it for the rest of you to tell me where I'm going wrong and learn from it.
 
KIPAX said:
Oh and while we are willy waving.. I get at least 20 pics a week published... thats every week.
Click to expand...

Proof indeed that it's the kit that matters, not the photographer. I take your point entirely. :)
 
As usual, opinions in this thread are becoming a bit entrenched and views polarized. Let's just accept that it's up to the pros to worry about their competitiveness and whether or not they need better kit and the rest of us can concentrate on enjoying whatever kit we have to hand. In fact it becomes all the more rewarding when you know you've got a good shot despite all the odds and the limitations of your equipment. As long as the pros are getting paid and the hobbyists are enjoying themselves that's surely all that matters? :)
 
Well, I'm off to polish my Hasselblad!

It's all that talk of big hairy willies! :)
 
AliB said:
Well, I'm off to polish my Hasselblad!

It's all that talk of big hairy willies! :)
Click to expand...


I've got a Canon kit 18-55IS and I just KNOW how much better "I would look" brandishing some big L glass.

Whether my photos would be any different is debatable.


:naughty::naughty:
 
goldenlight said:
As usual, opinions in this thread are becoming a bit entrenched and views polarized. Let's just accept that it's up to the pros to worry about their competitiveness and whether or not they need better kit and the rest of us can concentrate on enjoying whatever kit we have to hand. In fact it becomes all the more rewarding when you know you've got a good shot despite all the odds and the limitations of your equipment. As long as the pros are getting paid and the hobbyists are enjoying themselves that's surely all that matters? :)
Click to expand...

The words Hit the nail on the head come readily to mind John
 
goldenlight said:
Let's just accept that it's up to the pros to worry about their competitiveness and whether or not they need better kit and the rest of us can concentrate on enjoying whatever kit we have to hand. In fact it becomes all the more rewarding when you know you've got a good shot despite all the odds and the limitations of your equipment.
Click to expand...

:agree:

For what it's worth - I subscribe to the view that some aspects of photography are certainly more difficult and in some cases impossible unless you have the appropriate kit. Lesser lenses may be able to get a decent wildlife shot for example when you can pick your days and conditions suit but for the pro's it's all about having to get that shot when conditions are poor. It's a law of averages thing I guess.

Landscape photography has always been a good measure of the man as a modest camera / kit lens / tripod can produce fantastic results.
 
:sigh:

Voyager said:
So 'better' is now subjective...
Click to expand...

Not the definition of the word, no.

Who has any authority at all to tell people what photo is better than another? No one does. I decide what photos I like and you decide what photos you like, as should everyone else. We decide for ourselves what photo is better than another.....that is what makes the word "better" in this case subjective :thumbs:

Voyager said:
Don't you think 'you can definitely do better with an expensive DSLR and an expensive lens' any more or do you need to have this desperately expensive (see below) this 'Pro gear' to be able to be definite?
Click to expand...

If someone (who has learn't the basic functions of the equipment involved) can't take a better picture with a "Pro" DSLR and an "expensive" Lens over entry level equipment, then I doubt they can't take a decent photo at all....

As time goes by, my gear gets better as I upgrade it and my level of skill gets better, thus my photos improve (obviously that's only in my humble opinion!). I think this is a mixture of my gear and skill level. If only one of those elements had improved, then the quality of my photos (IMHO) would still have improved, but to a lesser extent.

Voyager said:
Could you give us an example?
Click to expand...

Yes :thumbs:

Now rather than being a Pedant, please give us reason(s) to back up your opinion......whatever that may be?! :thinking:
 
Certain types of photography certainly need top quality kit from a commercial perspective. If you want to be on a level playing field with your peers. Not only that but you won't be able to help yourself from comparing your results to those of published images and you'll be disappointed. For anyone interested in those areas might it be an idea to rent some gear first?
 
Slimbert said:
...Who has any authority at all to tell people what photo is better than another? No one does. I decide what photos I like and you decide what photos you like, as should everyone else. We decide for ourselves what photo is better than another.....that is what makes the word "better" in this case subjective...
Click to expand...

...except when dealing with purely technical considerations - focus in low light conditions; sharp subject matter; correct exposure; well-framed, etc etc.

An image can still be technically comptetent and remain artistically 'bad' because it's boring or whatever. Therein lies the subjective aspect, which I think is what you mean here...

Therefore better (more expensive, more advanced etc) equipment may assist the photographer get technically 'better' images, but it won't help improve those images artistically, which is a totally different argument.
 
So objectively better kit doesn't necessarily means objectively subjectively better pictures :thinking:

And there's me wasting huge pennies on film kit that would have got me a 40D... (TIC comment- ignore).

Surely there's a point to be made about kit confidence here - pro-level kit tends to work and keep working, and knowing you have the kit means you can relax a little (more) and concentrate (more) on the shots?


*** Edited so it now makes sense... sorry Rob :D
 
Arkady said:
which I think is what you mean here...

Therefore better (more expensive, more advanced etc) equipment may assist the photographer get technically 'better' images, but it won't help improve those images artistically, which is a totally different argument.
Click to expand...

Surely it could help improve them artistically too - more control over DOF with a faster lens, and better high ISO performance allowing a bigger range of apertures to be used, etc? No use if the photographer doesn't know how to make use of them of course...
 
Ambermile said:
So objectively better kit doesn't necessarily means objectively better pictures :thinking:
Click to expand...

Not artistically, no. Just because an image is technically good, does that mean it's artistically satisfying also?

Ambermile said:
Surely there's a point to be made about kit confidence here - pro-level kit tends to work and keep working, and knowing you have the kit means you can relax a little (more) and concentrate (more) on the shots?
Click to expand...

That too - I never worry about getting the shot due to equipment malfuntions or shortcomings - I 'know' I have the best kit available to me right now therefore any shortcomings with my images are the fault of my abilities as a photographer - not the capabilities (or lack thereof) of my kit...
 
grum said:
Surely it could help improve them artistically too - more control over DOF with a faster lens, and better high ISO performance allowing a bigger range of apertures to be used, etc? No use if the photographer doesn't know how to make use of them of course...
Click to expand...

It could be argued that way, but it all depends on your photographic objectives...

We've mostly been concerned with professional news and sports photographers saying they need the best kit to get the images the client wants and expects.
Those images may or may not be works of art, but I think the argument for using the most technologically advanced kit is perhaps less of an issue for those whose photographic priorities are more artistically-orientated as opposed to commercially driven.
 
err... proofreading eh? Who does it... that should have read *subjectively* better - I take the point about artistically though, as ever it's the beholder.
 
This thread reminds me about the guy who breaks a wrist and asks his doctor: "Doctor, will I be able to play the piano after this heals?" The doctor replies "Absolutely, no problem!" The man laughs, and points out that that's great, because he never could play the piano before!:D:D

Buying a Bösendorfer doesn't mean you can play the piano. Buying a great camera doesn't mean you can create compelling photographs. Good pianists can play on anything and a good photographer can make great images with a disposable camera.:)

The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.:thumbs:

And another thing even though everyone knows that Photoshop can be used to take any bad image and turn it into a masterpiece, that even after hours of massaging these images look worse than when one started?
Maybe because it's entirely an artist's eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools.
 
I think it is quite clear. The pro's need the kit they need to get the job done. Sometimes that may be the latest kit sometimes they stick with what works for them regardless of the job.

If I was paying a pro to to a job I would expect him or her to have the skills and the knowledge to use that kit to obtain the best results possible, regardless of conditions.

Would anybody be happy to have surgery with 18th century kit? Or would you prefer the surgeon had the latest technology and training?

Does anybody still use dial-up? Why not it still works. Oh it's not as fast, easy or reliable and the modern world wide web is unusable at 9600 Baud.

Pros need to be competitive in their chosen marketplace and they need to be consistent or they don't make a living.

Often I see posts asking what is the best lens for sports, portraits etc etc. The recommendation is often given as a "pro" lens. It is the best tool for that job. However if a budget is given then the answer will normally be in that range, which is the best tool for the money.

Why don't we all chill out and realise we have different needs but often simular wants.
Buy what suits your needs and budget, seek advice from these pros, who are generally very generous with tips, tricks and recomendations. This place is a fantastic resource lets not spoil it with petty moans and segregation.

Tony.

If we are going to split into pro vs hobbyist then I think we can take em lads as long as Arkady does not borrow tanks or other hardware.:D
 
Where would we be without the pro tog? To be honest, I never bought new. Ever. But, I do have one of the best "pro" film cameras ever made which I bought s/h. *Somebody* bought it new and sold it on, and you can bet your bum it was a pro... think on it - this year the pro's use it, in one or two years it'll filter down at a decent price. Of course the pro's'll then have better but at what price... if you ain't a pro then you either got to be silly rich or mortgage/family/bill-less to keep up.

PS - if Rob aims tanks like his camera we'll be OK :D
 
This thread reminded me of a comment my Dad made last night.

I had copied pics from memory card to pc for him. "They should be good,
I was standing right next the the photographer" (a wedding he attended last weekend)

He then looked shocked to find the indoor shots were underexposed, blurred, or too low shutter and streaky light. He's not into photography, just took his p&s with him.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
I am beginning to wonder,with respect,what planet some of us are on occasionally on TP,today I have seen comments like "4 frames per second is no good for sports photography","You could pick up a 300 f2.8 for a very reasonable £1500", and "I would never think of doing a wedding with a 400D even if its only for a frriend"

Well guys my guess is that the majority of TP ers are fairly normal folk without thousands of pounds of disposable income to slash out the very best of kit although we would happily ransack Warehouse Express of the lottery came up.
Click to expand...

Life is about choices. I (as an amateur) choose to spend some of my money on lenses. Some people choose to spend their money on replacing their car every few years with a new / nearly new (by which I mean "less than 10 years old") one. Or having a pension. Or life insurance. Or eating / drinking out. Or going to sports events / films / gigs. Or having kids. Or ... you get the picture.

If someone asks "I wish to do <this>, what kit do I need" and the correct answer is a 70-200/2.8 or even a 300/2.8, no-one should feel inhibited from saying so because the person asking may not put that high a financial priority on their hobby. An honest, accurate answer leaving the person asking to decide if it is worth that much to them is better than fudging around the issue.
 
jabbermack said:
What competition? :thinking:
I'm not competing with any body.
I do the best I can and leave it for the rest of you to tell me where I'm going wrong and learn from it.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the bit where Rob distinguished between general photography and certain applications?

Equipment has limits. Low light and shutter speed is most immediate example. If you're pushing the limits of your current equipment and that's becoming a hinderance to your photography (especially if that is your career) then it's time to look for the next level of equipment which will normally carry a larger price tag. If you're not finding the limitations of the gear you have then fantastic. The need to be at the top is obviously greater if you're a professional where you are in competition with others. Thus, better gear should help you stay on top of the competition.

If you ever try and make money from your photos you will be in a competitive market and then you'll understand the value of top price gear. For now, it's great that you're producing the goods with what you have.
 
It all depends on what the objective is and what the the images will be ultimately for.

A pro wedding tog is goign to want fast glass with a high perfomance ISO body to get sharp low noise images so he can charge more as his pictures are perfection so charging more money. A sports photographer has needs, a photojournalist has needs...... A hobbyest has needs but has the constraint of a budget to work in. Is someone wants to chuckle at my kit let them I have more important things to concern myself with.

I dont see the big deal, yes if I could get a 5D mark ii with a selection of L Glass from 18 - 400mm I would be over the moon but I dont think I need iot for what I do. Would it improve my images? Definitiely, but I dont wanna spend £1000's of pounds for the benifits :). I enjopy what I am doing and I am slowly building up my stuff, lens hold there value well when kept in good condition so I will buy and upgrade and buy and upgrade all i want.
 
AliB said:
Yes Hairy! I kid you not! Nod. Post No74. I don't miss things like that with all your manly techie mumbo jumbo you know! :D
Click to expand...

Haha :) Well spotted Ali :)
 
AliB said:
Yes Hairy! I kid you not! Nod. Post No74. I don't miss things like that with all your manly techie mumbo jumbo you know! :D
Click to expand...

I could post a pic but that would mean taking one first. Fortunately, I have a lens wide enough to get it all in frame (without needing too many shots in the panorama...) but I have far too much self respect to do so and wouldn't want to give others inferiority complexes in showing off my pro-grade and priceless equipmewnt!:D
 
Slimbert said:
Now rather than being a Pedant, please give us reason(s) to back up your opinion......whatever that may be?! :thinking:
Click to expand...
If you don't know what my opinion is, try reading my post again.

And I'd still like you to explain the point of this statement of yours...
Slimbert said:
I think that whatever you can do on a cheap DSLR with a cheap lens or indeed a P&S compact etc, you can definitely do better with an expensive DSLR and an expensive lens.....
Click to expand...
Can't you even give an example of what equipment that is in the top 10-20% of the price range and a show how a photograph is 'better' from it?
 
Going back to the OP I think the problem is created by Someone posting a question with too little information...

e.g. "I like shooting motorsport. What's the best lens for the job?" - and yes the answers will come back a 70-300 f2.8L etc etc.........

whereas if the question was. "I like shooting motorsport, what's the best lens I could get for this whilst keeping it under £500" - you'll probably get some decent answersa nd things wouldn't escalate.

Interesting debate on the pro bodies and having never held one probably not the best to comment....... but, hey ho, I'm going to.........:lol:

Surely it has to be horses for courses. Yes a sports togger will probably want/need insane ISO and a long fast lens and s/he can have that now thanks to the latest offerings but there were plenty of decent images prior to the latest pro bodies.......(interesting comments above about f2.8, separate the background etc, and i am sure that catches the picture editors eye, which if you are a pro is what it all matters about, however I wonder how many of the paper's readers will look at that and comment about the aesthetics of it?)

My perception is it used to be a megapixels war, because we all know that 14 MP is infinitely better than 12MP - in fact anything less than 12MP just bin it :lol::lol: and I am guessing cramming more and more pixels into the sensor without the price of the sensor going stupidly silly was getting to the laws of diminishing returns, so the new big thing is ISO and HD recording....:shrug: If the big players cannot advertise and market new goodies and gimmicks then people won't buy them etc etc..........

Then I look at something such as a 1D Mk IV...... £3650 on a well known website.(and for that price you don't even get full auto mode :thinking:- it's a rip off I tell you!!) ....... If I were a pro would it be worth be chopping and changing its predecessor for one? Probably not, as my perception is that whilst the latter one is possibly marginally better with its new functions the old one didn't have, is it worth the £2k (?) outlay for these small benefits? Or from a non pro point of view the 50d is £665 so is the ID IV 5.5 x better????

However the difference between a pro body of say 10 years ago and today is huge....... and pretty much your average consumer DSLR will outperform the older original pro digital bodies......... obviously the advancements model to model back then were much greater and more significant than they are today......
 
Lynton said:
...Surely it has to be horses for courses. Yes a sports togger will probably want/need insane ISO and a long fast lens and s/he can have that now thanks to the latest offerings but there were plenty of decent images prior to the latest pro bodies.......(interesting comments above about f2.8, separate the background etc, and i am sure that catches the picture editors eye, which if you are a pro is what it all matters about, however I wonder how many of the paper's readers will look at that and comment about the aesthetics of it?)...
Click to expand...

Lynton, I've snipped massive bits of your post, simply because I want to address the point I've kept.

Yes, there were photographs that documented the action and were acceptable in terms of their exposure etc. However, now that we have the pro-spec bodies and insanely good glass, picture editors have come to expect images that good. To be fair, we as sports photographers have made a rod for our own backs. If only we'd been luddites and said "ooh no, you'll not get any better than the shots of the 1980 FA Cup final" (and those that know my team affiliation will understand that one ;):p:D ) we could have all saved a lot of cash.

Whether or not the public really appreciates the technicality of the images, I don't know. A lot of people just expect good images (certainly when they take their camera to the game) and don't realise it can be challenging, so I suppose there is an element of them just expecting to see images at the level which exists currently. Though strangely, sport is one of the only remaining areas in a newspaper where technically excellent photos prevail...look at the rag mags, they're all shot at extreme focal lengths or by monkeys who don't know how their camera works. News stuff is being shot by citizen journalists or TV crews who give out some still images.

All that said, I'm not honestly sure if the wider public would really notice a difference... damn. Now I'm depressed thinking that no-one cares about my images.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top