We Need To Get Real

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's a puzzling thread this; on one hand there seems to be some sense talked regarding just what kit people actually need and why (as opposed to what they can afford), and on the other there's a lot of posturing and chest-puffing about what people actually know and what they're going to let others know they know if it kills them.

The OP's initial post is a rant, no doubt about that, but he highlights a few key things that are wrong (I use that word for lack of a better one) with TP in that there's an incredible assumption that knowing about and talking about kit makes you some kind of photography God. Yes, we all like to speculate about our next purchase, talk about deals we've seen (and wished we'd bought) and generally look good with our knowledge of the latest gear but in reality, for the vast majority of TP members, it's just confusing the issue. I'm as guilty as the rest, although I generally only talk about what I know, but it's just one of those things that follows anonymous internet forums around - the ability to rattle on about all sorts without fear of confrontation you'd get in the real world.

Let's not kid ourselves; photography is subjective so shots being better or right is purely associated to what the viewer's tastes are. I can point you to no end of what i call utter s*** in any of the critique sections but that's purely my view. It's when that view multiplies and becomes the view of the majority when we have problems because many of us don't know how to take that evaluation and use the bits that are most relevant to us.

On the subject of getting real within TP, the forum is being bogged down by some utter tripe lately and it seems that for all the talk, all the chest-puffing about what is known and what is owned, very few are actually producing exciting work. I've lost count of the number of shots I've seen that are like the one before and the one before and the one before.... for all the talk there's not much learning. I suppose that it's maybe down to there being so much 'advice' being given that it's become harder to pick and choose the stuff that's going to help you as an individual.

But then again, what do I know....


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...

Don't believe that half these people actually own this expensive kit they talk about.

KIPAX said:
....Oh and while we are willy waving.. I get at least 20 pics a week published... thats every week.
Click to expand...

I'll join in on this - I probably get 600+ shots published a month and usually 4-5 covers seen by 100,000 pairs of eyes..... so there!! :razz: :D
 
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.

Those like me who photograph sport at the Amateur or very Semi Pro level manage quite well with 4 FPS or even less but yes we would love a D3,1DS etc etc if we ever had the chance.

The number of times we are told we must get fast aperture L glass or its Nikon equivalent is all very well but the reason all manufacturers make more humble optics and that they sell well is that the majority cannot shop at the top end of the market and from the shots I see here and at Flickr and Fotopic etc they take superb images with their standard comsumer level kit.

So to those who are fortunate enough to have top end kit (And yes we do envy you) just think when giving advice that the majority of us have to live life at a slightly more humble level
Click to expand...

To be fair mate, the first two quotes were in a thread that I started regarding having the right equipment to shoot football professionally. I had stated the lens I was after and the cost of a second hand 300mm f2.8 is cheap, in comparison to new.

I was looking for this kind of information as I am going to be investing money from my business into buying high end kit. If the thread was started by someone asking about shooting matches in their local park, I could understand your point.

Dave
 
Voyager said:
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?
Click to expand...

Simple, they didn't.

Certainly not during the ceremony (You know, the important bit)

And no, he simply could not get a sharp image in the conditions we were in. His shutter speeds were too low to obtain a properly exposed sharp image at 1/15 sec.

He went out the next day and bought a new camera because it is simply not acceptable to not be able to shoot. He was very happy that I had arranged to go with him because I ended up having to shoot the majority of the wedding for him.

You could try being somewhat less patronising in your responses.
 
No no no, they flew here first in order to deposit a stargate on Earth. ;)
 
Duncan.F said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great picture, Duncan. I alway like it when someone actually posts a photograph to illustrate or prove a point. :)
 
specialman said:
It's a puzzling thread this; on one hand there seems to be some sense talked regarding just what kit people actually need and why (as opposed to what they can afford), and on the other there's a lot of posturing and chest-puffing about what people actually know and what they're going to let others know they know if it kills them.

The OP's initial post is a rant, no doubt about that, but he highlights a few key things that are wrong (I use that word for lack of a better one) with TP in that there's an incredible assumption that knowing about and talking about kit makes you some kind of photography God. Yes, we all like to speculate about our next purchase, talk about deals we've seen (and wished we'd bought) and generally look good with our knowledge of the latest gear but in reality, for the vast majority of TP members, it's just confusing the issue. I'm as guilty as the rest, although I generally only talk about what I know, but it's just one of those things that follows anonymous internet forums around - the ability to rattle on about all sorts without fear of confrontation you'd get in the real world.

Let's not kid ourselves; photography is subjective so shots being better or right is purely associated to what the viewer's tastes are. I can point you to no end of what i call utter s*** in any of the critique sections but that's purely my view. It's when that view multiplies and becomes the view of the majority when we have problems because many of us don't know how to take that evaluation and use the bits that are most relevant to us.

On the subject of getting real within TP, the forum is being bogged down by some utter tripe lately and it seems that for all the talk, all the chest-puffing about what is known and what is owned, very few are actually producing exciting work. I've lost count of the number of shots I've seen that are like the one before and the one before and the one before.... for all the talk there's not much learning. I suppose that it's maybe down to there being so much 'advice' being given that it's become harder to pick and choose the stuff that's going to help you as an individual.

But then again, what do I know....




Don't believe that half these people actually own this expensive kit they talk about.



I'll join in on this - I probably get 600+ shots published a month and usually 4-5 covers seen by 100,000 pairs of eyes..... so there!! :razz: :D
Click to expand...

Got to take issue with my original post being a rant I was and am not angry about the whole posh kit tatty kit arguement I just thought a reasoned discussion was needed and 17 pages later it appears I was correct
 
AliB said:
You could try being somewhat less patronising in your responses.
Click to expand...
And you could try and actually answer the pertinent part of the question. Remember, you chose to reply to where I asked for an example of where a picture was better for being from equipment in the 'top 20%' price range, by telling us of how your colleague couldn't work indoors with a 5D with 24-105mm f4.

So I'll try again. Was the 5D not considered 'expensive' kit? Was it not one of the 'top 20%' of kit that was what was defined by Slimbert as necessary?
 
goldenlight said:
Great picture, Duncan. I alway like it when someone actually posts a photograph to illustrate or prove a point. :)
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is a shame that there is no photographic record of musicians on stage before the advent of 'pro' digital equipment..... :thinking:
 
Voyager said:
And you could try and actually answer the pertinent part of the question. Remember, you chose to reply to where I asked for an example of where a picture was better for being from equipment in the 'top 20%' price range, by telling us of how your colleague couldn't work indoors with a 5D with 24-105mm f4.

So I'll try again. Was the 5D not considered 'expensive' kit? Was it not one of the 'top 20%' of kit that was what was defined by Slimbert as necessary?
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, so try reading what Slimbert wrote before quoting it at me. :cuckoo:

And if the 5D would not cope with the conditions do you really thing a 450D is going to be any better?

I'll happily stand by that as an example. You arguement is utterly baseless and I will not invest my time in engaging with pointles arguements for the sake of it.
 
AliB said:
No it wasn't, so try reading what Slimbert wrote before quoting it at me. :cuckoo:.
Click to expand...
Yes, this.
Slimbert said:
Rubbish user + rubbish gear = Rubbish photos

Rubbish user + expensive gear = Less rubbish photos
Click to expand...
Slimbert seems to think that if you have 'expensive gear' you will produce 'less rubbish photos'.

It is that with which I fundamentally disagree, you appear not to.
AliB said:
And if the 5D would not cope with the conditions do you really thing a 450D is going to be any better?
Click to expand...
Although I doubt that the 5D would really be unable to 'cope with the conditions' - it might not take identical images to whatever you managed, but it would be usable. But I don't know the answer as I have no experience of what the minute difference is between the two cameras.
AliB said:
I'll happily stand by that as an example. You arguement is utterly baseless and I will not invest my time in engaging with pointles arguements for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
How are you going to 'stand by that as an example' if you are not going to defend it? :cuckoo:
 
Gooooooood Grief (apologies to Charles M Schultz)

Can this just stop now. I think the majority of people need to phrase their questions properly.

Of course if someone asks "whats the best lens for football" I'll reply with "Canon 400L f/2.8 IS or Nikkor 400 f/2.8 ED VR"

If someone asks "I'm shooting my kids playing football in the park, and I only have around £400 to spend, what's the best lens to use" my reply would be very different...I'd probably even offer a bit of advice on settings, composition, and PP...because I'm just that nice a person! :D

Perhaps just the same as people say to someone who asks "why arent my pics right" and then doesnt post an image, "show us a pic"...we should be saying "whats your budget and what are you using it for?"

To be fair, a lot of the sport questions do include that issue...certainly when someone asks me.

I really think this thread was just a rant that ran on for 6 pages....I mean please.
 
jamesb84 said:
Gooooooood Grief (apologies to Charles M Schultz)

Can this just stop now. I think the majority of people need to phrase their questions properly.

Of course if someone asks "whats the best lens for football" I'll reply with "Canon 400L f/2.8 IS or Nikkor 400 f/2.8 ED VR"

If someone asks "I'm shooting my kids playing football in the park, and I only have around £400 to spend, what's the best lens to use" my reply would be very different...I'd probably even offer a bit of advice on settings, composition, and PP...because I'm just that nice a person! :D

Perhaps just the same as people say to someone who asks "why arent my pics right" and then doesnt post an image, "show us a pic"...we should be saying "whats your budget and what are you using it for?"

To be fair, a lot of the sport questions do include that issue...certainly when someone asks me.

I really think this thread was just a rant that ran on for 6 pages....I mean please.
Click to expand...


IT WAS NOT A RANT


If you want a rant you shuld have heard me watching the athletics last night when I saw convicted drugs cheat Dwayne Chambers wearing a GB vest
 
Does anyone miss the old days, you know when it was just Canon v Nikon.. I do! :)
 
ding76uk said:
Voyager as you didn't see it first time round, what kit do you currently shoot with?
Click to expand...
I did see it first time round but ignored it as I consider equipment is not an important part of making pictures.

But since you have asked nicely, I have a Contax G1 with the T* 35 and 90 lenses and Ricoh GR1s. I shoot mostly with Velvia.
 
Voyager said:
Who won? :p
Click to expand...

We did..

...and by 'we' I mean the camera-buyers, whichever system they choose.

Their competitive drive to beat each other just means ever-better kit for the rest of us to choose from.
 
Voyager said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not true. I struggled to keep focus on my dags when they were running about, using a Tamron 70-300, but with a Canon 70-200, its stayed firmly locked on, allowing me to shoot when I liked.
 
CaptainPenguin, sorry, meant to say you were getting something off your chest, not ranting. My literary mind has gone AWOL of late :)

I'm off to see if the Scanning Is Theft thread is still going.....
 
Voyager said:
:bang:
Click to expand...

You use a bloody Contax - what do you know about it?

Unless you're fibbing to us and you actually have practical experience with all the kit that's available and being discussed here right now?

Well...? Do you?

Many people here are offering opinions on what they actually use on a regular basis - you seem to be picking arguments with everyone just for the sake of it now.
 
Go on then... 5 minutes or full half hour?
 
Should've got a Leica then - they take the pics for you you know...
 
Voyager said:
Yeah, it is a shame that there is no photographic record of musicians on stage before the advent of 'pro' digital equipment..... :thinking:
Click to expand...

Maybe it was the fast glass that made Duncan's shot possible rather than his digital camera. Fast glass has, of course, been around for decades. Back in those days, if only we had forums like this, I'm sure there would have been many fast glass/slow glass debates with some people whinging they couldn't afford it and others flaunting it and saying you can't be a real photographer without it. :)
 
Now we got fast glass, fast film, and 12000th sec at 5.5 fps too!
 
Voyager said:
I thought I'd explained it (more than once) already.
Click to expand...

So your argument is that expensive kit is useless because there might be one brain-dead idiot who can't operate a simple point and click? Genius...

Weighing up a hypothetical situation versus real life experience, I'm afraid it sounds like you're arguing for arguments sake, that or you're jealous of those who can afford it and are trying to justify the difference (or lack of) to yourself.

Are you the kind of person who likes to key expensive cars?
 
goldenlight said:
Maybe it was the fast glass that made Duncan's shot possible rather than his digital camera. Fast glass has, of course, been around for decades. Back in those days, if only we had forums like this, I'm sure there would have been many fast glass/slow glass debates with some people whinging they couldn't afford it and others flaunting it and saying you can't be a real photographer without it. :)
Click to expand...
Apparently Pennie Smith thought the semeiotic image of Paul Siminon used on the album London Calling was too out of focus to use.

It has been heralded, amongst many other plaudits,'The Best Rock and Roll photograph of all time' by Q magazine. :D
 
And perhaps it was, but today, a shot like that probably wouldn't even make it past the photo editor, in fact, it probably wouldn't make it past the delete button. There are a million out of focus images like that out there now.
 
Kaouthia said:
And perhaps it was, but today, a shot like that probably wouldn't even make it past the photo editor, in fact, it probably wouldn't make it past the delete button. There are a million out of focus images like that out there now.
Click to expand...

I had this exact conversation with a friend last week. Some of the classic images you see about are in all honesty rubbish from a technical view point.
 
andyroo1986 said:
So your argument is that expensive kit is useless because there might be one brain-dead idiot who can't operate a simple point and click? Genius...
Click to expand...
No.
andyroo1986 said:
...you're jealous of those who can afford it and are trying to justify the difference (or lack of) to yourself.
Click to expand...
Do you have a lot of difficulty with your reading?
Voyager said:
It's fine spending money, collecting kit and enjoying it. It gives a lot of people a lot of pleasure.

But it isn't the kit that makes you a better photographer - it's you.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top