My little rant

[manaheim]

I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.

Camera snobs...
The ones with pro level cameras that completely trash talk entry level photographers. Acting like the persons $800 set up is childs play and can't be tolerated.

To me I believe its not the camera that makes the pictures, it's the photographer. I've been shooting with a bridge camera and I believe I can keep up with my friend with a T1i just because I know my camera inside and out. I don't need to spend thousands of dollars to have the perfect set up to be pleased with my pictures. Granted i'll have a D5100 in hand within the next 2 weeks. It's something that will help me achieve more with higher resolution...lol

Ending rant, I wonder if anyone will be paying attention to this.

First off, I actually don't see much of that behavior on this forum. Do you?

Second, you know what's interesting is I get the reverse of this all the time. "I need to buy a big camera like that so I can take great pictures!"

You're right that it's not the camera, it's the photographer... to a degree.

Want to shoot some very low light photos? My D300 crushes a lot of entry level cameras. As someone else said... want that shallow DOF? A better lens or a full frame camera is going to crush lesser gear. The simple fact is that better gear has fewer limitations.

Honestly, almost every time I've ever heard anyone make the complaint you are making was when that person was being defensive. The person had lesser gear and their ego was tied up in that fact and they bristle when anyone else suggests that they would do better if they purchased better gear.

This is also why I said I don't really see what you're talking about here on TPF that much. I don't often see anyone bashing anyone else for their gear, but I DO see a whole lot of people getting their feathers ruffled when they THINK their gear is being bashed.


Also again on that Stradavarius point made earlier. There really is a difference in "better stuff", otherwise it probably wouldn't exist.

 

[ShutterbugSarah]

Wow guys I came back to this.
I guess I should first state that the first post was wrote in about 3 minutes so I guess I should elaborate.
At the moment I'm using a SX30IS and I will be buying the D5100.
Why not the 7000, well first off I'm pretty broke but that's besides the point lol. I didn't really need an auto focus motor because well I can focus just fine by myself, and I don't really like auto-focus that much, I find it somewhat faulty still. The D5100 share the same censor so image quality isn't any different. I know about the lack of a wireless transmitter for flash but that doesn't affect me so much. I already ordered my 50mm 1.4/g. Maybe one day I will upgrade to a full frame sensor cam, but for now I am perfectly fine with my entry level. Anything is better than my SX30IS well maybe that's an overstatement, I guess photography me is less about the megapixels and auto-focus and more about creativity.

 

[manaheim]

So you bought a lesser camera... because you could not afford a better one... and are posting complaining about people telling you that your camera isn't all that great? And in this very post you're saying things like "I don't need this and that because I can compensate for it..."?

Yeah. I'm sorry but that smacks of seriously defensive.

There's nothing wrong with purchasing only what you can afford and working with that, but being defensive about it is going to gain you nothing but frustration.

 

[MTVision]

Wow guys I came back to this.
I guess I should first state that the first post was wrote in about 3 minutes so I guess I should elaborate.
At the moment I'm using a SX30IS and I will be buying the D5100.
Why not the 7000, well first off I'm pretty broke but that's besides the point lol. I didn't really need an auto focus motor because well I can focus just fine by myself, and I don't really like auto-focus that much, I find it somewhat faulty still. The D5100 share the same censor so image quality isn't any different. I know about the lack of a wireless transmitter for flash but that doesn't affect me so much. I already ordered my 50mm 1.4/g. Maybe one day I will upgrade to a full frame sensor cam, but for now I am perfectly fine with my entry level. Anything is better than my SX30IS well maybe that's an overstatement, I guess photography me is less about the megapixels and auto-focus and more about creativity.

Well you still have a focus motor - in the lens you bought - so it will autofocus. And if your serious about full manual focus you might want to buy a different viewfinder screen since the d5100's screen isn't made for manual focus - its very small and dim. But the autofocus works fine as long as you know how to use it properly and not let the camera choose where to focus.

 

[ShutterbugSarah]

I'm not saying I wouldn't like a more expensive camera, but I'm saying no one should underestimate someone because of their tools. And yes I know my 50mm has an auto-focus motor...I wanted a lens for walking around candid shots.
I mean every camera has its potential for certain things, but automatically judging someone off their gear is a little frustrating. I'm not talking about it on this forum in particular but in some situations people wont listen to me because of my bridge camera, acting like I don't know anything about photography because I have a cheapish camera. I mean I kinda understand from certain aspect but blowing someone off is just plain unjust.

Also its also frustrating when someone has a thousand dollar camera and uses nothing but auto...but thats a different point.

 

[mishele]

Less frustration about things you can't control.....:thumbup:

 

[Dryver14]

I thought, about 18 months ago I was the bees knees when I got a panasonic G1 for my birthday, It came with the standard 14 - 45 mm lens and whilst I regret jumping so early with the G1 as all other G series have video mode which i think I would like, I am quite happy with this little camera. That said my photographs now are no better than when I used a digital pocket camera a canon IXUS 50. the 12 mega pixels are apparent against the 5 megapixels but that is about it. The camera was put away for about a year. The last few weeks I have been toying with the purchase of 2 new lenses, both £400 each a 25 mm F1.4 and the 100 - 300 mm zoom ( not both at the same time ) but then I look at something like the canon D5 and wonder whether to part ex and start over before lens purchase......decisions decisions.... my point, by the way from my perspective is the camera is a third of the battle, from what I am learning on line or I think I am learning is the lenses seem to be the difference.

 

[manaheim]

I'm not saying I wouldn't like a more expensive camera, but I'm saying no one should underestimate someone because of their tools. And yes I know my 50mm has an auto-focus motor...I wanted a lens for walking around candid shots.
I mean every camera has its potential for certain things, but automatically judging someone off their gear is a little frustrating. I'm not talking about it on this forum in particular but in some situations people wont listen to me because of my bridge camera, acting like I don't know anything about photography because I have a cheapish camera. I mean I kinda understand from certain aspect but blowing someone off is just plain unjust.

Also its also frustrating when someone has a thousand dollar camera and uses nothing but auto...but thats a different point.

You say people shouldn't judge you for your gear, and yet you're essentially judging them for theirs.

If they spent less than $1000 on a camera would it be ok for them to lock it into program mode? That also sort of implies that YOU look down on people with lesser gear, so why would you expect more of anyone else.

Face it... You're jealous and bitter that you're stuck with a marginal camera.

 

[jowensphoto]

Honest opinion, here: I think you're making a poor investment.

There's a lot more to photography than, "Oh hey, I like this, I'm going to take a picture of it." With a low-end entry level camera, you're going to find yourself very limited, very quickly.

The best advice I can offer you is stick with the camera you have until you can buy something that will not leave you limited in such a short time span.

 

[cgipson1]

You can learn with any camera! Even if your camera lacks the basic features and abilities, you can still work on composition and framing. So what's the problem?

 

[jowensphoto]

You can learn with any camera! Even if your camera lacks the basic features and abilities, you can still work on composition and framing. So what's the problem?

That can be done with her current equipment!

 

[jowensphoto]

Additional thought, to clarify what I was trying to say earlier: there's really no point, IMHO, to go from entry level to another entry level. Unless your original is broken, of course.

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.

Camera snobs...
The ones with pro level cameras that completely trash talk entry level photographers. Acting like the persons $800 set up is childs play and can't be tolerated.

To me I believe its not the camera that makes the pictures, it's the photographer. I've been shooting with a bridge camera and I believe I can keep up with my friend with a T1i just because I know my camera inside and out. I don't need to spend thousands of dollars to have the perfect set up to be pleased with my pictures. Granted i'll have a D5100 in hand within the next 2 weeks. It's something that will help me achieve more with higher resolution...lol

Ending rant, I wonder if anyone will be paying attention to this.

My 5D MKII with my awesomely fast primes and L series zooms along with my thousands of dollars of lighting gear make me a better photographer than you will ever be.



Equipment does matter at a certain point. I'm sure it's been iterated already, but I skipped the entire thread.

 

[RedVixen81]

To me I believe its not the camera that makes the pictures, it's the photographer.

I am not a pro by any means but i would like to say that your statement here sometimes can be true. But think about it this way.. Would a painter paint with cheap paint? maybe but it may not look great on canvas, it may not dry properly. Yes he/she may know how to manipulate the paint to create a great picture but if high quality paint isnt used they could be limited in the outcome..or we can use a sculptor as an example.. they could buy the cheap clay to use but it may not heat right in the kiln or it may not hold its shape and there again that artist is limited...the same goes for photography.. i myself know that eventually my camera gear will limit me, but because i don't have a lot of money to burn on better lenses or a body i have to go with what i was able to afford at that time.

 

[STM]

Allow me to add a few points to this discussion. In some respects your rant is spot on, but in others it is clearly not.

I have been doing photography for going on 40 years. That being said, I learned on film, and still shoot almost all of my personal stuff on film. I agree that it is the photographer BEHIND the camera and not necessarily the camera itself that makes the photograph. But on the other side of the coin, a low end consumer quality DSLR and kit lens like you have is going to fall far short of professional quality gear in many incidences beyond "every day" photography.

I would never denigrate someone who is just starting out on the quality of their gear. Let's face it, photography gear is expensive. Consumer DSLR's and kit lenses are capable of making some very good images. But as your skills progress, you are going to find that that cheap camera and lens is just not going to cut it any more. At least I would HOPE you will, otherwise you will have relegated yourself just to an also-ran amateur photographer making ordinary photos. If you really want to learn about REAL photography, go get or borrow a MANUAL 35mm film camera and take a basic photography course at a local community college.