We Need To Get Real

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Click to expand...

Not up to me to give an example, as the question is not aimed at me, however here's a theoretical example..........based on what I think KIPAX mentioned above.

My imaginary pro friend togger (Dave) goes to take pictures of a premiership match with a Camera that can shoot ISO12800 and a 400mm f2.8.

As I am a keen amateur and love football (I don't) I ask if I can tag along and pick up some tips.......

I have a pentax K20D, good enough at ISO 1600, a bit ropey at 3200 (as confirmed with some test shots on here - shooting my black cat in a coal bunker at night.) I don't have a 400mm f 2.8 prime, but oh I have a Sigma 120-400 f4-5.6 - so same reach...:thumbs: everything's good.

However Dave forgot to charge his battery up or bring a spare and after 3 shots his camera is dead (what a numpty!) so being the nice person that I am, and I've got a touchline seat for the game, I lend him my set up. :thumbs: Bonus, he can take some pics.

How many pics with my set up will he get in the papers the next morning? - given the competition there? (Oh I forgot to mention his clever camera was tethered to the macbook in his rucksack, and sending pics back to the newsdesk every few mins)
 
Bawbee said:
There is no such thing as a Nokin equivalent to L glass. :nono: ;)
Click to expand...

There is, it's called ED glass, but 95% of Nikon lenses use ED glass, so we don't make a big fuss about it. :)
 
Voyager said:
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?
Click to expand...

I can :) give me an example setup that you think is OK for everyhting and I will show you a picture you simply cant get wiht it... but I can with pro gear..

I have football shot at iso 6400 f2 and under exposed at a shutter speed of 250 on a 300 lens..(shot at an amtuer ground (bacup fc) with only three corner floodlights working and only able to sit at one side of the pitch... long lens needed).... underexposed but saveable.. tell me what mid end gear will get the same shot? I ahve many other examples from different sports where the ligthing was so poor I would ahve given up with a 1dmkIII let alone a mkIV
 
Lynton said:
My imaginary pro friend togger (Dave) goes to take pictures of a premiership match with a Camera that can shoot ISO12800 and a 400mm f2.8.

As I am a keen amateur and love football (I don't) I ask if I can tag along and pick up some tips.......

I have a pentax K20D, good enough at ISO 1600, a bit ropey at 3200 (as confirmed with some test shots on here - shooting my black cat in a coal bunker at night.) I don't have a 400mm f 2.8 prime, but oh I have a Sigma 120-400 f4-5.6 - so same reach...:thumbs: everything's good.

However Dave forgot to charge his battery up or bring a spare and after 3 shots his camera is dead (what a numpty!) so being the nice person that I am, and I've got a touchline seat for the game, I lend him my set up. :thumbs: Bonus, he can take some pics.

How many pics with my set up will he get in the papers the next morning? - given the competition there? (Oh I forgot to mention his clever camera was tethered to the macbook in his rucksack, and sending pics back to the newsdesk every few mins)
Click to expand...
I understand all that, but that was never my point(!).

Take the same Dave, this time with a charged battery, and you with a p&s. Can you get any pictures at the football match?

If all you come away with is a bunch of snaps of tiny blurred out-of-focus tiny players in the distance then even a D3x and a bag full of lenses will not give you the inspiration to take photographs. If you turned round and took some of the supporters cheering or booing and captured the atmosphere then I don't doubt that greater 'quality' kit will give you even more opportunities to get creative.
 
jamesb84 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Today's news is tommorow's chip wrapper :thumbs:
 
KIPAX said:
I can :) give me an example setup that you think is OK for everyhting and I will show you a picture you simply cant get wiht it... but I can with pro gear..

I have football shot at iso 6400 f2 and under exposed at a shutter speed of 250 on a 300 lens..(shot at an amtuer ground (bacup fc) with only three corner floodlights working and only able to sit at one side of the pitch... long lens needed).... underexposed but saveable.. tell me what mid end gear will get the same shot? I ahve many other examples from different sports where the ligthing was so poor I would ahve given up with a 1dmkIII let alone a mkIV
Click to expand...
I refer you to my post above.
 
Voyager said:
And I'd still like you to explain the point of this statement of yours...
Click to expand...

Awwww didums :'( did I not give you what you wanted? Awwww there there poor baby! :p

I would do, in fact I can easily name quite a few, but I can't be bothered, because you are completely side stepping the very valid points I've made and are just in this for the argument.....i.e trolling.....if I thought for a second you were genuinely interested in this discussion, then I'd play ball :thumbs:

Voyager said:
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?
Click to expand...

As I've already said, yes I can! :thumbs:

Very sad day for me this is, as this is going to be the first time ever on any forum I've ever posted on, that I'm going to press the ignore button on another member.....:shake:
 
hahaha... I love this thread - for the first time ever I wish we still had the popcorn smiley...:lol:

It's so nice not to be the one involved in the bun-fight...lol
 
Voyager said:
I understand all that, but that was never my point(!).

Take the same Dave, this time with a charged battery, and you with a p&s. Can you get any pictures at the football match?

If all you come away with is a bunch of snaps of tiny blurred out-of-focus tiny players in the distance then even a D3x and a bag full of lenses will not give you the inspiration to take photographs. If you turned round and took some of the supporters cheering or booing and captured the atmosphere then I don't doubt that greater 'quality' kit will give you even more opportunities to get creative.
Click to expand...



But it was exactly your point? :shrug:

"can you show me an example from something in the top 10-20% of the range and show how a photo is better?"

Yes , I did. In the example, and which KIPAX has also alluded to below my post.....

"Dave" with his D3S or Mk IV and a 400mm f2.8 would get good pictures. If he borrowed my set up (not in the top 10-20% of the price range) he wouldn't. A P&S is irrelevant to this as the comment was entry level DSLR compared with top end pro gear.

You seem to be arguing with yourself?????????
 
buy my oly C-765 and cool down
 
grum said:
Do you have this post saved on your desktop so you can paste it straight in every time (every other day or so)? :p
Click to expand...

I've only said it twice :P
 
Voyager said:
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?
Click to expand...

Easily. Last Wednesday I was at a wedding with a colleague. We walked into the ceremony room and his face fell. He is shooting with a Canon 5D with a 24-105mm f4. All he can manage at his highest ISO is 1/15 sec. Utterly useless. Yes he could put it on a tripod and tell the couple not to breathe and he'd be fine but at those speeds subject movement is inevitable.

The solution? I shot it for him. The D700 with 24-70mm f2.8 and at perfectly useable ISO I could get 1/60 to 1/125 no problem.

So in this case it was not a cse of shooting a "Better photograph" but ANY photograph.

Now given a D3s do you think he would have had a problem? :naughty: (Other than not having a flipping clue how to use it!)
 
When you see people on other forums dropping £20k on a Leica S2, £4k on a 35mm and £12k on an M9 + Noctilux it makes me glad I shoot with such a relatively cheap format :p
 
If you are a pro and making a living off photography then your camera and lenses are the tools of your trade. I'm sure you must have to accept that good tools will cost a LOT of money.
The more expenive something is the less of a % increase in qualiy per £ becomes less and less. Where I work at present (not photo realted) they spend £1000s on needless ****** just to keep up with what others are doing even though it makes NO difference to the work. At least with cameras there IS a difference.

(I'm not a pro 'toger btw).
 
All I can say is that I am at a point where my camera is holding me back. Yes it's a entry level D60 and no, my skills isn't great, there is still an awful lot I need to learn about, exposure compensations etc but I do realise that my camera isn't good enough.

What's next? Well, I would love to go pro, so a D3s please. I can't afford it but will be hoping to make money back on it. If you want to compete on a professional level, then you need to buy the best. It's just the way it is.

I recently shot a friends wedding, got some lovely shots but struggled like hell come the night do, even with a 70-200mm 2.8

The difference is, people are lumping pro's and amateurs together and they shouldn't. An amateur can get away with having entry/mid class gear. They build it around what they can afford and what they like to shoot, it's a hobby that will probably not make them any money. Nothing wrong with that at all. You can still take very good pictures with the gear as long as you know the limitations.

Think of this argument from a different view. Image this was a car forum.

Pro's are driving F1 or touring car, they wouldn't be telling people that they needed the same cars for road use, but then road drivers need to realise that they are never going to be able to drive at 180mph.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
Pro's are driving F1
Click to expand...

I can tell you this though, I'm not pulling over to let Rob get the win, no matter what my engineer tells me over the radio :D
 
desantnik said:
I can tell you this though, I'm not pulling over to let Rob get the win, no matter what my engineer tells me over the radio :D
Click to expand...

As I keep saying to a mate of mine - you have to get to the corner first in order to go round it quicker...:D
 
Arkady said:
As I keep saying to a mate of mine - you have to get to the corner first in order to go round it quicker...:D
Click to expand...

POM-Z in your locker, gets 'em everytime :wave:
 
Lynton said:
But it was exactly your point? :shrug:
Click to expand...
It is still. . that if you can't take pictures with a cheap point and shoot then you'll be struggling just as much with a DSLR and bags of lenses.

That is not necessarily taking the same pictures. Not creating identical images, as clearly you would have to be thick as mince to imagine that a pocket camera is always going to be as capable of operating at the edge of the envelope that a highly developed DSLR can - but that the photographer can work within the limitations of the equipment (and even the most 'expensive' kit has limits) see an image and capture it.

That is all. It is nothing to do with 'better', more 'expensive' or lending your kit to 'Dave'. Can you frame an image that works? Tells a story? Captures the moment? That is all to do with how you can see and not what you are using.
 
I can take better pictures with a compact than most people could if you gave them a DSLR. Some of you could take better pictures than me if I handed you that same compact.

I could go on about the incessant need for f/1.2 glass and weather sealed, magnesium-framed, 10fps, matrix-metered, triple-LCD'd bodies, but what do I care? I'm a hobbyist who couldn't give two hoots about whether my pics are published or not.

Anyway, what do I know? To quote the thread, I operate with 18th century equipment [and that's not too far from the truth - most of our useful equipment was invented in the annals of history.... it's just been manufactured more recently].

Not everything needs to be cutting edge [no pun intended]; skill and dexterity are still far more relevant qualities.
 
AliB said:
Easily. Last Wednesday I was at a wedding with a colleague. We walked into the ceremony room and his face fell. He is shooting with a Canon 5D with a 24-105mm f4. All he can manage at his highest ISO is 1/15 sec. Utterly useless.....
Click to expand...
Was the Canon 5D with a 24-105mm f4 not 'expensive' kit then? Is (was) it not in the top 20%?

I don't doubt that you think your colleague had the 'wrong' kit to take the same pictures as you, but are you suggesting that they were they unable to take any pictures at all? How did the poor guests manage with their useless point and shoots?
 
Laudrup said:
When you see people on other forums dropping £20k on a Leica S2, £4k on a 35mm and £12k on an M9 + Noctilux it makes me glad I shoot with such a relatively cheap format :p
Click to expand...
I'm happy that people want to buy this stuff. I'm happy that they enjoy it when they do.

But I don't think they are superior photographers making great photographs because of what hangs round their necks.
 
Dey's 1st Law : Competence remaining same, better kit produces better images
Dey's 2nd Law :Kit remaining same, competence produces better images
Dey's 3rd Law : Competence and kit remaining same, better looking models produce better images
Dey's Great Law : Competence, Kit and Model remaining same, great togs generate greater arguments

:D
 
Voyager said:
How did the poor guests manage with their useless point and shoots?
Click to expand...

:lol:

...they probably got home only to realise that their crummy, built-in flashes only served to illuminate the back of the person's head in the pew in front of them...
 
Not read all the posts as there are too many, but i get the jist.

People seem to forget that back in the day (before Digital) togs were making an obscene amount of money off thier trade, gold plated chissles don't mean that the carpenter will make a better table.

If you are getting payed to shoot a hummin birds wings then you will buy high end gear, simple, but because you have high end gear does not mean that you are a better photographer, someone once sung, "clothes do not make the man" if you cant take pictures, then you cant take pictures.
 
Lunaticsamurai said:
People seem to forget that back in the day (before Digital) togs were making an obscene amount of money off thier trade, gold plated chissles don't mean that the carpenter will make a better table.
Click to expand...

No, but a harder, sharper and more precise chisel will mean he can do better detailed engravings for a longer period before he has to resharpen :)
 
Can we now argue over who built the pyramids

Man or Goa'uld?:)
 
:shrug: I don't understand all the arguments over this.
For me it's all incredibly simple :

1) For certain shots in certain conditons, you will need to invest in high end kit to be able to get a decent result - Fact.

2) For some shots in some conditions you can achieve a decent result with basic kit, but you will achieve the same result easier and more consistently with higher end kit - Fact.

3) For other shots, you will be able to achieve a decent result consistently with basic kit - Fact

4) If you have no photographic knowledge or skill, you will struggle to get a decent shot in scenarios 1,2 and 3 no matter what kit you're using.


- If you're a scenario 1 shooter, you will need to invest in more sophisticated equipment in order to get a decent photograph.

- For scenario 2 shooters, if you want or need to get reliable, consistent results it would be wise to invest in higher end equipment.
But if you're not under any pressure to get reliable, consistent shots then there can be a certain satisfaction and enjoyment in pushing the limits of the kit you have and getting a good result out of it.

For scenarios 3 and 4, save your money and focus on improving your own skills and getting the most out of the kit you have.
 
boyfalldown said:
I'd thought it was pretty obvious :shrug: So how many thousands of people mad the pyramids, over what time period?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter the end result is the same. Look at Leonardo Davinci.

SarahLee said:
:shrug: I don't understand all the arguments over this.
For me it's all incredibly simple :

1) For certain shots in certain conditons, you will need to invest in high end kit to be able to get a decent result - Fact.

2) For some shots in some conditions you can achieve a decent result with basic kit, but you will achieve the same result easier and more consistently with higher end kit - Fact.

3) For other shots, you will be able to achieve a decent result consistently with basic kit - Fact

4) If you have no photographic knowledge or skill, you will struggle to get a decent shot in scenarios 1,2 and 3 no matter what kit you're using.


- If you're a scenario 1 shooter, you will need to invest in more sophisticated equipment in order to get a decent photograph.

- For scenario 2 shooters, if you want or need to get reliable, consistent results it would be wise to invest in higher end equipment.
But if you're not under any pressure to get reliable, consistent shots then there can be a certain satisfaction and enjoyment in pushing the limits of the kit you have and getting a good result out of it.

For scenarios 3 and 4, save your money and focus on improving your own skills and getting the most out of the kit you have.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what i said. :)
Lunaticsamurai said:
If you are getting payed to shoot a hummin birds wings then you will buy high end gear, simple, but because you have high end gear does not mean that you are a better photographer, someone once sung, "clothes do not make the man" if you cant take pictures, then you cant take pictures.
Click to expand...
 
Re-enters the fray.... I took this shot at a gig with really poor lighting. I was using a 35mm 1.4L and 5D. 1600 1/350 @1.4.

RBFsupport.jpg


I doubt I would have got any shot at all without really fast glass and AF.
 
PsiFox said:
Can we now argue over who built the pyramids

Man or Goa'uld?:)
Click to expand...

Definitly the Goa'uld. Everybody knows they're landing sites for alien space ships!
 
ah the pyramids - easy - they built a huge sandcastle, started, at the top, and worked down, clearing the excess sand on the way...........

all this crap about tugging large rocks hundreds of miles with camels / donkeys and sophisicated (at the time) scaffholding, pulleys and winches.......... pah!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top