Is how expensive your camera is important or isn't it?

[Village Idiot]

I'm taking my 1968 Volkswagon Beettle to the drag races this weekend. It's gonna kick some butt. I just know it!!! It's sponsored (in part) by the fine folks at the Canon Rebel plant, Second Shift, in Japan!@!!

In 1977 my 71 VW almost dropped me onto the road beside the spare tire from the trunk due to total RUST. It was running on 2 cylinders with a rusted out muffler as well. If a police officer put his foot on the running board, the whole side of the car would have come off, also due to rust. What a terrible car!:thumbdown:

skieur

At bugout in Manassass VA, they do a primarily air cooled VW show at a strip with races and they have 6-7 second beetles. A lot of them in general have problems keeping the front two wheels from shooting up in the air on launch. That's with aircooled VW motors.

 

[usayit]

Begs the question...

Who reached "Top" first... the professional or their equipment?

^ Rhetorical Question as is the chicken or the egg

 

[usayit]

At bugout in Manassass VA, they do a primarily air cooled VW show at a strip with races and they have 6-7 second beetles. A lot of them in general have problems keeping the front two wheels from shooting up in the air on launch. That's with aircooled VW motors.

I went to the Audi/Vw meet for the first time last year in Englishtown, NJ dragway. OMG... it was so neat seeing those aircooled beetles hit well under 10 seconds.

What's the old sayin? Enough time and effort can make anything possible (go stinkin fast).
I had a good time even though the group I was suppose to meet up "forgot".


I've actually been in the market for a beetle... My life is surrounded by digital that and technology, I've grown to miss the simplicity of certain things.

 

[Scoody]

My wife loaned her camera to her sister so she could take graduation photos of her daughter and friends. The photos were all pretty terrible. They looked good as far resolution, but she could have taken photos just as crappy with a point and shoot.

 

[unpopular]

I'm not a huge fan of the argument that just because unskilled photographers produce poor images with expensive cameras, and thus equipment is somehow less important. The question should be can a good photographer create good images with inexpensive equipment?

As Scooty points out, "A [photographer] has got to know his limitations". Working within the limitations of your equipment is always essential to create successful images no matter how expensive your gear.

 

[Neil S.]

A good photographer with the best gear will take better photos than that same photographer with really crappy gear.

Gear matters.....a lot in fact.

/endthread

 

[imagemaker46]

It's really a package thing, good gear/good photographer/good images. Good gear/great photographer/ great images. Good gear/not so good photographer/not so good images. You get the point. It's all relative to the quailty of both, however a great photographer with skill and experience should be able to produce good images from a lesser quality camera, than an average photographer with great gear.

 

[usayit]

The false assumption in this thread is whether or not the camera equipment itself has anything to do with DRIVING one's photography. Both assertions are incorrect since neither, photographer nor camera, can be separated. Camera equipment, like tools in any activity, is the enabler... no more .. no less. In the end, the photographer drives their work but the equipment enables them to push past limits.

If you stay within the ideal limits of the equipment, the resulting photo can be indistinguishable between high and low quality equipment. In this case, what's the differentiator is the skill and eye of the photographer.

If you start pushing the limits (low light, harsh lighting, fast moving subjects, strong highlights where CA appears.. etc), the resulting photo will be distinguishable between high quality equipment and low quality equipment. Faster glass, faster/accurate AF, elements that correct CA, etc.. all "Enable" the photographer. They themselves don't actually create the photo. In this case, the differentiator is a combination of the photographers AND equipment.

The commonality is the photographer... after all, the camera doesn't produce a photo by itself.

So in essence... the premise or assumptions made by both sides were shaky at best from the very first post.






PS> so exactly what do people expect when they say "/endthread" LOL? Really only the mod's have that authority...

 

[unpopular]

It is true that a cell phone can't get any DOF, performs miserably in low light, and has very low resolution - no matter how many pixels it can capture. Yet Time Magazine thought this cell phone capture was worth printing (cropped and with contrast adjusted).

It's hard for me to say that a DSLR would do better. This image was taken well within the limits of the equipment. If anything the hyperfocus of the ultra short lens made it possible. The glare you're seeing is from the airplane window, which can be easily removed, and would be there even with a DSLR (polarizers would just make a mess in this case). You won't make a poster out of it, but it's still an excellent image. And since many photographers need an authority to tell them what's good and what isn't, TIME thought so too.

If someone comes out and tries to make excuses a bad image, saying things like "it was the best I could do, it was a windy day!" we all go into into b*tch mode and say "good photographers work with windy conditions!", but if someone makes an excuse saying "it's the best I can do, I only have a point and shoot!" we all say "buy a new camera!"

 

[c.cloudwalker]

It is true that a cell phone can't get any DOF, performs miserably in low light, and has very low resolution - no matter how many pixels it can capture. Yet Time Magazine thought this cell phone capture was worth printing (cropped and with contrast adjusted).

It's hard for me to say that a DSLR would do better. This image was taken well within the limits of the equipment. If anything the hyperfocus of the ultra short lens made it possible. The glare you're seeing is from the airplane window, which can be easily removed, and would be there even with a DSLR (polarizers would just make a mess in this case). You won't make a poster out of it, but it's still an excellent image. And since many photographers need an authority to tell them what's good and what isn't, TIME thought so too.

One of my mom's photos (yes you read right) made the cover of the New York Times Sunday Mag even though it was technically atrocious and shot with an instamatic. Guess what: It was the only photo of the event she happened to shoot that they could get their hands on fast enough... It was big news and they didn't have a choice.

 

[Mike_E]

I've been photographing for newspapers, myself and a business for 14 years now. I don't have the best camera, I don't have the worst. I have an SLR, but it is a Canon Rebel xt EOS and xti. I want to upgrade, believe me I do, and I'm saving my money but for now I am using what I have.

I've heard it said it isn't the camera it is the person behind the camera...

What do you think?:meh:

My turn.

OK, from this i gather that you are more than just a photographer, you are in the business of providing images for commercial use.

The photog/camera discussion doesn't apply here. What is applicable here is your getting the shot, at a high enough quality, to honor your responsibilities.

Pro level gear is designed to deliver that, consumer level gear isn't.

I fully understand trying to gather the gear necessary and pay for it and therefore understand using what you have. -really-

But, the fact is that you owe the people who pay you, and even yourself, to use equipment that is dependable for the job at hand.

 

[unpopular]

One of my mom's photos (yes you read right) made the cover of the New York Times Sunday Mag even though it was technically atrocious and shot with an instamatic. Guess what: It was the only photo of the event she happened to shoot that they could get their hands on fast enough... It was big news and they didn't have a choice.

^^ that isn't the case here. All the pros were on the ground taking yet another cliche image of the launch which would be pretty much indistinguishable from any other at any other time.

And what exactly do they expect from their $10,000 investment?

 

[c.cloudwalker]

One of my mom's photos (yes you read right) made the cover of the New York Times Sunday Mag even though it was technically atrocious and shot with an instamatic. Guess what: It was the only photo of the event she happened to shoot that they could get their hands on fast enough... It was big news and they didn't have a choice.

^^ that isn't the case here.

Unless my eyes have gotten worse without my noticing, this is shot above the clouds... What do you think they could see from below the clouds?

 

[unpopular]

Same event, different vantage point. If it was about technical quality, they'd use the same old same old from the ground.

 

[kasperjd4]

The "top professionals" from EVERY MODERN ERA of photography have pretty much used the SAME, TOP cameras as one another. This was true in the 1890's, the 1910's, the 1920's, the 1930's, the 1940's, the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's, the 1980's, and so on. The names and models have been relatively few, actually. Graflex, Rolleiflex,Graphic,Leica, Contax, Nikon F, Hasselblad 500C, Mamiya RB67, Nikon F2, Canon F1,etc.,etc.. Today, when one looks at a press lineup on CNN or any other major network, the cameras in use are pretty much Canon or Nikon high-end cameras. Canon Rebels are not seen. Neither are NIkon D3100's. "Pro cameras" from any era are "pro cameras". They handle the best, shoot the quickest, and deliver the goods, shot after shot, for almost all of the top shooters. If you have never used a top-level camera, you're in for a surprise when you do.

Agree'd. I just shot runway at MB Fashion week. Guess how many Rebel's I saw?? ZERO. D90's? ZERO.

I did see a lot of Nikon D3s & D3x, as well as Canon 1Dmk4's & 5dmk2's