Because there is no such thing as a stupid question, right?

[joaopsr]

Good glass makes it easier. Good cameras make it easier.
They do not, however, make good photos by themselves.
A crappy camera with a kit lens in good light makes a way better image than a $10k kit in crappy light.
I'd pick a well lit but grainy, 4Mpx image over a dull but clean, 30Mpx image anytime.

So, back to the question. Is it possible to get good pro-looking pics with cheap gear? Yes, absolutely! Is it easier to get them with better gear? Of course it is!

 

[pgriz]

There are several specific situations where equipment matters. Among them are low-light situations, wildlife shot with "big" lenses, macro, and fast-action sports. You need the capabilities of good high-ISO performance, fast glass, and for macro, the requisite camera stabilization and focusing aids.

However, these days, most of us end up looking at images on a screen, which range from 2 to 4 megapixels in size. Some print, but again, I suspect the percentage of images that end up on prints larger than 8x10 would be in the range of 0.01% So for most of us, the resolution delivered by a basic DSLR with kit lens is more than adequate. So, the difference between a 800x600 screen image that's a stunner, and a 800x600 image that's not interesting, is usually the quality of the light, and the composition. If we look at the photos nominated for image of the month, we see many that could have been taken with basic equipment, without any loss of image quality at the image size presented. So for the most part, it wasn't the technical ability of the equipment that make the image memorable, but the ability of the photographer to construct a compelling image.

Therefore, the primary limitations are related to knowing how to use the light, and how to construct the image. And that can be done with basic kits.

 

[fotomumma09]

Thanks for your replies! I'm encouraged and working on contentment. just going to keep learning and growing.

 

[imagemaker46]

The short answer is yes. You are always limited by the equipment that you have. But, look at it this way, if you had a $14,000.00 Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM, you would be limited to the capabilities of that lens. You would be able to take a better portrait, for example, with your lens than the Big Gun. I dont know you or anything about your work, but I am pretty sure you havent utilized all of the capabilities of your lens. Seldom do we ever.

Why wouldn't you be able to shoot a great portrait wth a long lens? The only limitations are put on the by the people themselves.

 

[The_Traveler]

There is another alternative which might be a little painful at first but has long term dividends in many ways.

Sell your children.(perhaps not all of them at first)
Not only will that give you a good nest-egg to start your hobby but in the out-years you won't have to spend for food and clothes and that pesky balloon payment of college.
And you will have lots more time.

Lew

 

[fotomumma09]

You may be limited by your equipment, that's true, however the reality is that many beginners believe that the limiting factor is their equipment when in fact it's a lack of knowledge and experience. When you learned to drive did you quickly feel like your car was what was limiting your ability to drive or did you give yourself time to learn before feeling the need for a better car? Why should photography be any different? Odds are very good that if you are just developing an interest in photography that you have not reached the point where your equipment is holding you back.

The bottom line is this: Pretty much any camera and lens combination that you have has more capabilities than ANY camera had 60 or so years ago. At that time there was not one single camera with a built-in light meter, much less one that was coupled to the aperture and could automatically set the exposure in any way. There was no such thing as autofocus or anything like that. There was no optical stabilization. What you got was a camera and a lens and, if you were lucky, an external light meter. You shot on film, had it processed (or did it yourself), and found out that everything you shot was junk. Think about that and take a look at some of the photographs from that era. They were all shot MANUALLY, they were all shot on FILM, and they were all shot with equipment that is considered inferior by today's standards. And some of them are absolutely magnificent.

Learn to use what you have. Odds are it is much more capable than you are giving it credit for. Once you truly reach the point where your equipment is holding you back you WILL know it and you will know how and why it is the limiting factor.

Stop blaming your equipment and learn to use it properly. I have seen some utterly fantastic photographs come from mediocre equipment.

I don't think I'm blaming my equipment. I'm very thankful to have a 60D with a 18-135 and a 50mm 1.8. its a big difference from the a200 I used to use! I just want more from myself.

As for your car analogy...I drive with the same skill as when I had my first Pontiac Sunburst, but enjoy the comfort and capabilities of my Benz R Class much more

All in good time

 

[Designer]

We read many stories of what the "professionals" used, especially years ago. I think Ansel Adams had something like one or two lenses. Henri Cartier Besson had only one lens, as I recall. Furthermore, the glass in those days was not nearly as good as what we have available today.

The craft or art of photography is much more than simply the latest greatest gizmo. The genius of the classic artists is their vision. Adam's images were shot in nature, but refined in the darkroom.

 

[jake337]

The answer is yes.

Like in this example from Canon site
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_G12/sampleimg/sampleimg_2.JPG

The photo is taken with a Point and Shoot camera.


ALWAYS, the key is lighting. How to light the subject is something that we (Including myself) all need to learn. Either natural light(s) (including use of reflector, subject position relative to the light source ... ) or artifical light(s). If you search the kit lens in flickr site, you will see some great photos there. (At least last time I did the search)

Fixed!

Photographic lighting is, most likely, the most important tool in photography.

 

[jake337]

The short answer is yes. You are always limited by the equipment that you have. But, look at it this way, if you had a $14,000.00 Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM, you would be limited to the capabilities of that lens. You would be able to take a better portrait, for example, with your lens than the Big Gun. I dont know you or anything about your work, but I am pretty sure you havent utilized all of the capabilities of your lens. Seldom do we ever.

On the topic of light...Fstoppers iphone fashion shoot.

The iPhone Fashion Shoot - a set on Flickr


I would pick that 800mm lens for portraits over anything else if I had one. Check out the first 7 photos in their stream.

Flickr: Fstoppers' Photostream

 

[Dao]

The answer is yes.

Like in this example from Canon site
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_G12/sampleimg/sampleimg_2.JPG

The photo is taken with a Point and Shoot camera.


ALWAYS, the key is lighting. How to light the subject is something that we (Including myself) all need to learn. Either natural light(s) (including use of reflector, subject position relative to the light source ... ) or artifical light(s). If you search the kit lens in flickr site, you will see some great photos there. (At least last time I did the search)

Fixed!

Photographic lighting is, most likely, the most important tool in photography.

Always??? Let me message astrostu and see how he light the subject and I will get back to you.

 

[imagemaker46]

We read many stories of what the "professionals" used, especially years ago. I think Ansel Adams had something like one or two lenses. Henri Cartier Besson had only one lens, as I recall. Furthermore, the glass in those days was not nearly as good as what we have available today.

The craft or art of photography is much more than simply the latest greatest gizmo. The genius of the classic artists is their vision. Adam's images were shot in nature, but refined in the darkroom.

Leica had great glass back then, glass that is just as good or better than a lot of what is being produced now.

 

[usayit]

Absolutely can make professional level quality photos out of non-professional equipment. If you search you'll find a number of professional doing so... Alex Majoli comes immediately to mind.

All higher end equipment is push the limits further out and enable the photographer.

Equipment is he enabler nothing more.

 

[Derrel]

Buying top-quality or at least higher-end lenses has one really huge benefit. And that is that if and/or when your photos suck, you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that it is YOU who is at fault! Pretty sweet deal really, eh?

The biggest problem with today's kit zooms and consumer-level tele-zooms is the pathetically slow "eff five point six" maximum aperture at their longer end...that eliminates some types of photography almost entirely, except at the ultra-high ISO levels of 1,600 or 3,200. With a lens that tops out at f/5.6 at 300mm, it's hard to stop motion inj anything but good lighting levels, and it is also hard to throw the background well and truly out of focus at longer distances,regardless of the light levels. Same thing with the 18-55mmkit zooms--at f/5.6 at 55mm, the background at longer distances is always "fairly" sharp, so shallow depth of field work is not possible in many situations. Neither is easy shooting by campfire, or indoors without flash, and so on.

With a 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 prime lens, priced around $199 to $229 these days (Nikon 35/1.8-G $199 and Nikon 50mm 1.8 AF-S G $229 lenses, walk-in retail), MANY situations involving poor lighting or fast action in marginal lighting, become easily "do-able". The 85mm f/1.8 prime lens is also a life-saver for shooting in sucky lighting conditions, and coming back with GOOD frames!!! I honestly think that one of those three prime lenses (35mm,50mm,85mm) is an essential piece of gear for the photog who wants to really "leverage" his or her camera...and not spend a fortune doing it, and in the pricess, pick up a lifetime-grade piece of gear that can be migrated forward for two decades or more.

 

[jake337]

The answer is yes.

Like in this example from Canon site
http://www.usa.canon.com/app/images/cameras/powershot/PS_G12/sampleimg/sampleimg_2.JPG

The photo is taken with a Point and Shoot camera.


ALWAYS, the key is lighting. How to light the subject is something that we (Including myself) all need to learn. Either natural light(s) (including use of reflector, subject position relative to the light source ... ) or artifical light(s). If you search the kit lens in flickr site, you will see some great photos there. (At least last time I did the search)

Fixed!

Photographic lighting is, most likely, the most important tool in photography.

Always??? Let me message astrostu and see how he light the subject and I will get back to you.

Ok, Astrostu is still capturing light. Whether it's flash or sun, "natural" or "man made" it's still light. Although we may not be able to physically control some it, we can manipulate and transform it via modifiers and technology.

 

[Designer]

"

"Lens-coating technology has made higher-quality camera lenses possible. Coated lenses mean less reflection and better light transmission. The addition of computer calculation now allows much more precise lens-making, as well. Modern camera lenses may still be essentially the same as earlier ones--a curved surface with a specific focal point--but that focal point is now much more precisely calculated." - G.D. Palmer


Read more: The History of Camera Lenses | eHow.com The History of Camera Lenses | eHow.com​