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

[c.cloudwalker]

When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions

You also have to define what a "great shot" is; because most of the time when people say that very low end gear can take great shots because its the photographer, they are talking purely from an artistic point of view with regard to content and composition - quality of the photo and the possible end-uses of it are often not considered factors.
You can take good photos with any gear provided you work within its limitations - however almost anyone who takes photography more seriously than snapshots aims to ensure that they have the best possible tools to produce the best results possible and to have the fewest limitations upon them when shooting - allowing them to better realise and create the art and compositions they want with the tools they have.

Very true. Both.

Not to mention a little something called client expectation: I bought my first Hasselblad to do weddings way back when because, in my market (DC), wedding photogs using 35 mm were considered jokes by the high paying customers who all had fancy 35mm gear.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

This thread delivers

So beat the quality of my cell phone cam pic, but please don't judge the poor photo-takin' skillset. Renee wouldn't stand for such chatter

 

[Neil S.]

When you hear examples of worldclass photographers taking great shots with i-phones, it's because they are operating within the limitations of that camera or under very controlled conditions. Here is a good example... Professional Fashion Photo Results with an iPhone 3gs Professional fashion shoot using an Iphone...and tens of thousands of dollars in lighting, tripods, and a team of guys, hair/mua, professional retouching, etc. The ironic part, is the point of his video was that equipment doesn't matter...sure, whatever.

Very well said.

Why on earth would you spend so much time setting everything up (pro lights, etc.) and then shoot with a call phone camera lol.

And imagine what a really good camera could do in the same exact setup.

Here are two images from the Leica S2 that I originally posted in this thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ou-could-have-any-camera-body-what-would.html

1)

This is an actual pixels crop from the the 37.5 MP file that this monster of a camera sipts out.

2)

And heres one at full res

Go and do that with a cell phone, ill be here waiting for the results.

Please don't quote me and use selective color in the same post. It makes me sad.

I didnt "use selective color".

That is a photo I found when reading this review of the camera Leica S2 Field and Studio Review, and I did not edit it.

So you can see just how much resolution and image detail we are talking about, here is the eye shot again and then the full res of it.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Very well said.

Why on earth would you spend so much time setting everything up (pro lights, etc.) and then shoot with a call phone camera lol.

And imagine what a really good camera could do in the same exact setup.

Here are two images from the Leica S2 that I originally posted in this thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...ou-could-have-any-camera-body-what-would.html

1)

This is an actual pixels crop from the the 37.5 MP file that this monster of a camera sipts out.

2)

And heres one at full res

Go and do that with a cell phone, ill be here waiting for the results.

Please don't quote me and use selective color in the same post. It makes me sad.

I didnt "use selective color".

That is a photo I found when reading this review of the camera Leica S2 Field and Studio Review, and I did not edit it.

So you can see just how much resolution and image detail we are talking about, here is the eye shot again and then the full res of it.

A couple things: If you didn't take the shot, you aren't supposed to post it. Kind of part of the guidelines. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by full res shots, but generally, the first shot would be referred to as a 100% crop and the second is just a normal resized shot. Neither are full resolution. Both are resized, resampled, and compressed.

Regardless, two things are obvious:
1) the first edit was horrible
2) a cell phone camera is never going to be able to reproduce the results from a Leica or even a mid-range DSLR.

 

[Neil S.]

A couple things: If you didn't take the shot, you aren't supposed to post it. Kind of part of the guidelines. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by full res shots, but generally, the first shot would be referred to as a 100% crop and the second is just a normal resized shot. Neither are full resolution. Both are resized, resampled, and compressed.

Regardless, two things are obvious:
1) the first edit was horrible
2) a cell phone camera is never going to be able to reproduce the results from a Leica or even a mid-range DSLR.

Your missing the point here lol, and I can see you are one of those people who picks apart posts.

Those photos are clearly for the public because it was a camera review. There is no copyright or watermarks anywhere in the article, so I am pretty sure they wouldn’t care if people use them. Especially just as an example (like I did).

And who are you lol? The police of these forums? No you aren’t, so let the moderators do their job and don’t tell me what to do.

What does the edit have to do with anything? Who cares if it had selective color? Why does that matter for the context of this discussion? Oh that’s right it doesn't lol.

We are talking about image quality of cell phone vs very high end digital cameras here, and the way someone edited a photo isn’t very relevant.

I was agreeing with you before by the way, so I don't see why you are arguing with me.

Troll perhaps?

Edit:

Oh ya I forgot to say "full res resized" which is clearly what I meant.

The image files are 7500x5000 which is like 4x the ENTIRE resolution of my 1080p monitor. Do you really think I didnt know it was resized?

Keep reaching.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Troll perhaps?

Sure, why not.

You've been here long enough to know that the moderation on this forum is just about nill. Heck, I couldn't care less what you post. Actually, I agree with you. You used an image that was availble to the public in an editorial and example manner. I don't see anything wrong with that at all, but just about anytime somebody does it, there are at least a few members that jump all over them about it. Heck, we've had threads where somebody will post a picture just asking how they can achieve those kind of results and they get jumped on.

In any case, if you would have credited the original photo(which you should have), then I wouldn't have assumed you had done the edit or said anything about it, which was kind of a joke to start with...You just take yourself too seriously.

And whoever is using a Leica and decided it was a good idea to use selective color on that photo should be shot. It still makes me sad.

 

[Neil S.]

Troll perhaps?

Sure, why not.

You've been here long enough to know that the moderation on this forum is just about nill. Heck, I couldn't care less what you post. Actually, I agree with you. You used an image that was availble to the public in an editorial and example manner. I don't see anything wrong with that at all, but just about anytime somebody does it, there are at least a few members that jump all over them about it. Heck, we've had threads where somebody will post a picture just asking how they can achieve those kind of results and they get jumped on.

In any case, if you would have credited the original photo(which you should have), then I wouldn't have assumed you had done the edit or said anything about it, which was kind of a joke to start with...You just take yourself too seriously.

And whoever is using a Leica and decided it was a good idea to use selective color on that photo should be shot. It still makes me sad.

Right.

Right.

And right.

Maybe I had the wrong idea about you lol.

I didnt really like the selective color either, and probably should have used just the normal one in both this and the other thread.

The grey does look pretty strange, but you got to admit that camera takes some kick ass photos!

Ya I should have credited it at first, Ill start doing that.

Neil

 

[Kerbouchard]

The grey does look pretty strange, but you got to admit that camera takes some kick ass photos!

Neil

Well, it's no I-Phone, but I guess you gotta work with what you got...

 

[Neil S.]

The grey does look pretty strange, but you got to admit that camera takes some kick ass photos!

Neil

Well, it's no I-Phone, but I guess you gotta work with what you got...

Although I am somewhat impressed with those photos in the article you linked, they aren't really very good lol. The only reason I am impressed, is because my expectations were so very low.

The iphone 3GS has a 3MP camera, so lets just say you wouldn’t be able to print them very large.

The dynamic range was terrible, and many of them showed really noticeable image noise. For a studio shot with that kind of lighting (tripod, etc.), its simply unacceptable.

And the article says "Have you ever felt that your digital camera is holding you back and that if only you could afford to buy the latest and greatest DSLR that your images would get that ‘Pro’ look that everyone strives for?"

"Pro look" lol? Really?

The photos I posted of the mighty Leica S2 have a "Pro look". Those iphone photos have more what I would describe as an "Ugly look", at least in the context of pro fashion photography.

I could take far better photos than that with just my little 7D, which I love by the way.
:hug::

 

[Kerbouchard]

The grey does look pretty strange, but you got to admit that camera takes some kick ass photos!

Neil

Well, it's no I-Phone, but I guess you gotta work with what you got...

Although I am somewhat impressed with those photos in the article you linked, they aren't really very good lol. The only reason I am impressed, is because my expectations were so very low.

The iphone 3GS has a 3MP camera, so lets just say you wouldn’t be able to print them very large.

The dynamic range was terrible, and many of them showed really noticeable image noise. For a studio shot with that kind of lighting (tripod, etc.), its simply unacceptable.

And the article says "Have you ever felt that your digital camera is holding you back and that if only you could afford to buy the latest and greatest DSLR that your images would get that ‘Pro’ look that everyone strives for?"

"Pro look" lol? Really?

The photos I posted of the mighty Leica S2 have a "Pro look". Those iphone photos have more what I would describe as an "Ugly look", at least in the context of pro fashion photography.

I could take far better photos than that with just my little 7D, which I love by the way.
:hug::

You either give me so little credit that you are assuming I am a moron or you have no sense of humor at all. Both of those options disturb me.

 

[Neil S.]

You either give me so little credit that you are assuming I am a moron or you have no sense of humor at all. Both of those options disturb me.

Na I got it.

Don't worry, the "sky is not falling".

Why do you get disturbed so easy lol?

I was in Kuwait in 03' for the "shock and awe" and the invasion of Iraq.

We had missiles shot at our base for like 2 weeks, and I had to slap on full chem warfare gear and go hide in a bunker EVERY TIME they shot one, day or night.

It takes a lot more than someone not getting my sense of humor to "disturb me".

.....Toughen up soldier!

 

[usayit]

Of course gear matters... You want to be a world class photographer, you got to go broke buying equipment. Forget about affording a house, car, vacations, and skip a couple meals a day.... none of that matters... pure image quality and camera performance is all that is important.



If photography isn't important in your life, sh!t.... forget everything. Don't even consider anything but a cell phone... you ain't worth it.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Of course gear matters... You want to be a world class photographer, you got to go broke buying equipment. Forget about affording a house, car, vacations, and skip a couple meals a day.... none of that matters... pure image quality and camera performance is all that is important.



If photography isn't important in your life, sh!t.... forget everything. Don't even consider anything but a cell phone... you ain't worth it.

Are you really saying Equipment is the most crucial thing in taking world class photographs?? Or are you being sarcastic??

 

[usayit]

Or are you being sarcastic??

To be taken as seriously as the comparison of the Leica S2 to a Cell phone....

The basic underlying premise of both sides of the discussion is generally incorrect.

 

[Derrel]

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.