SO, you just got a new DSLR.

[Buckster]

Perhaps I overstated it a bit

No, actually, you leaped whole-heartedly off the tallest Fail Cliff you could find while rocketing at full throttle and clinging to an anvil like Wile E. Coyote, and now you're trying to justify it, which is nothing more than the tiny *POOF!* of dust at the end of that cartoon sketch.

Yes, it was comical. Ignorant, but comical. Thank you for the laughs. :thumbup:

 

[Kerbouchard]

Perhaps I overstated it a bit

No, actually, you leaped whole-jeartedly off the tallest Fail Cliff you could find while rocketing at full throttle and clinging to an anvil like Wile E. Coyote, and now you're trying to justify it, which is nothing more than the tiny *POOF!* of dust at the end of that cartoon sketch.

Yes, it was comical. Ignorant, but comical. Thank you for the laughs. :thumbup:

I'm not trying to justify anything, and I couldn't give a rat's behind about your opinion.

Put simply, and I'll try to use small words this time...you need the right equipment to perform a certain task. Whether that is a hammer, a flash, or a lens, there are certain jobs that cannot be done unless you have the appropriate tools. And yes, Sherlock, you have to know how to use those tools also.

But, in a battle between inadequate tools and inadequate experience, I will take the guy with the right tools and an instruction manual over the guy who knows exactly how to do the job but doesn't have the right tools to do it.

 

[Buckster]

LOL! More laughs!

You should put a whole comedy act together and book yourself at Photokina type events. You could be the Larry the Cable guy of photographer audiences!

 

[Kerbouchard]

LOL! More laughs!

You should put a whole comedy act together and book yourself at Photokina type events. You could be the Larry the Cable guy of photographer audiences!

I haven't been around much lately, and my memory may be a bit fuzzy, but don't you shoot with a Hassy and some medium format stuff?

Wasn't sure, so I looked it up.
Here is your profile...

My Cameras:Canon 5DMKII, Canon 7D, Canon 40D, Mamiya RB67 Pro S, Mamiya 645, Mamiya C330, Hasselblad 500C, Nikon F, Canon IIS2, Yashica FX-7, and a bunch of other antique cameras on the shelves that don't see much action anymore.

Yeah, sure, equipment doesn't matter...

 

[mjhoward]

This post is moronic and I can't believe people are still reading it.

Skill has nothing to do with this hobby/profession. If you hand me a pro camera, a fast lens, and a good flash, I can make magic in a dark reception hall. If you hand me a mid level body and a kit lens in the same circumstances, I might as well go home.

I don't know why photographers get so egotistical as to assume that they are the deciding factor. They simply aren't.

On many occasions, I have loaned out my camera to somebody else. I ask them what kind of circumstances they will be shooting in, and then I set the camera up for them. The only thing they are responsible for is pushing the shutter release.

Honestly, it isn't that complicated.

So what you're getting at is that if someone gave you an entry level rebel, a fast cheap prime, and three flashes with a kit that's under $1000, you'd shoot worse photos than someone who just picked up a camera for the first time that has a FF DSLR, a suite of top of the line lenses, and $10,000 in professional lighting equipment? If that's the case, I wouldn't pay you to shoot anything.

You can be pretty dense some times.

Perhaps I overstated it a bit, but then again your choice of gear was very telling. In your scenario, I have three lights and a prime. With three lights and a prime, I can do almost anything. In the scenario I was basing my statement on, it was a mid level body and a kit lens in a dark reception hall. The point is, a piece of gear makes all the difference. The lighting is essential. Without it, no amount of skill is going to change the fact that it is dark or that you need light to make a photograph. As was said earlier, there are certain types of shots that a specific set of gear is required. No amount of skill is going to turn an 18-55 kit lens into a 300mm 2.8.

This post is moronic and I can't believe people are still reading it.

Skill has nothing to do with this hobby/profession. If you hand me a pro camera, a fast lens, and a good flash, I can make magic in a dark reception hall. If you hand me a mid level body and a kit lens in the same circumstances, I might as well go home.

I don't know why photographers get so egotistical as to assume that they are the deciding factor. They simply aren't.

On many occasions, I have loaned out my camera to somebody else. I ask them what kind of circumstances they will be shooting in, and then I set the camera up for them. The only thing they are responsible for is pushing the shutter release.

Honestly, it isn't that complicated.

I'm still new(got my DSLR like 2 weeks ago), but the thought process of a seasoned pro vs someone like me is completely different. The way you approach the shot in your mind, the setup of the camera, what perspective, how to expose the photo, what changes to make in post processing, uh isn't that the skill?

To have the knowledge and equipment is one thing, but to understand and capture a great photograph does in fact require skill.

So... based on your logic I would be able to give my 15 year old cousin a canon mark 5d iii with the best lens against you(same equipment) and his photos would be of equal quality and greatness?

"If you hand me a mid level body and a kit lens in the same circumstances, I might as well go home."

So... there have never been great photos taken by a kit lens EVER? You sir have blown my mind, i might as well throw my t3i and kit lens in the trash as Ill never take great photos because i cant afford a mark 5d. Good bye all!!!

Sure, there have been a lot of graet photos taken with a kit lens. Just not in a dark reception hall. The gear requirements for an outdoor shot in good light is much different than your living room at dusk.

Yes, there is skill required in setting up your camera to achieve what you want it to do, but honestly, that's relatively easy, and in digital, you can always take a look at the lcd and reshoot it.

But the first skill, and perhaps one of the hardest to learn, is knowing what equipment you need to make consistent photos in a certain environment.

The biggest limitation on a new photographers development is that they don't know why there shots aren't turning out and they don't know what equipment they need to change their results. Instead, they keep trying the same thing over and over again. Then they go on some online forum and they will be told to buy a prime lens. A few months later, they will have improved, but still can't figure out how to take the next step. Then they will be advised to buy a flash to which they will argue that they 'hate the flashed look'. Then someday the light will click on and they will have figured out that they hate direct flash, but a directional flash can be magical.

Some time after that, they will finally have gotten to where they thought they were going to be when they bought their first DSLR...and all it took was a better lens, a flash, and a little bit of experimenting.

The hammer doesn't build the house, but it sure is hard for a Carpenter to get those nails in the wood without a hammer.

I think you may have some reading comprehension problems. Nowhere did the OP say that equipment doesn't matter. In fact, points 8 and 9 state nearly the opposite. Not every beginner will be shooting people in a dark reception hall. And if you you were referring to point no 1, you've clearly missed it as the point wasnt that equipment doesn't matter, rather, the photographer does. A beginner can have the very best equipment available and still produce crap photos with it. You can give me the best hammer available, even a nail gun, but that still doesnt mean I can build beautiful furniture. Get your head out of your a*s

 

[Village Idiot]

So what you're getting at is that if someone gave you an entry level rebel, a fast cheap prime, and three flashes with a kit that's under $1000, you'd shoot worse photos than someone who just picked up a camera for the first time that has a FF DSLR, a suite of top of the line lenses, and $10,000 in professional lighting equipment? If that's the case, I wouldn't pay you to shoot anything.

You can be pretty dense some times.

Perhaps I overstated it a bit, but then again your choice of gear was very telling. In your scenario, I have three lights and a prime. With three lights and a prime, I can do almost anything. In the scenario I was basing my statement on, it was a mid level body and a kit lens in a dark reception hall. The point is, a piece of gear makes all the difference. The lighting is essential. Without it, no amount of skill is going to change the fact that it is dark or that you need light to make a photograph. As was said earlier, there are certain types of shots that a specific set of gear is required. No amount of skill is going to turn an 18-55 kit lens into a 300mm 2.8.

The above still stands. Same set of gear shooting the same model in a studio. Is the noob going to shoot better that you because of the better gear?

The point is it's a mixture of both. A person with no skill and excellent gear may suck just as bad as someone with skill and a crappy point and shoot. Pair a master photographer with excellent gear and what do you get? Art.

 

[Village Idiot]

I think you may have some reading comprehension problems. Nowhere did the OP say that equipment doesn't matter. In fact, points 8 and 9 state nearly the opposite. Not every beginner will be shooting people in a dark reception hall. And if you you were referring to point no 1, you've clearly missed it as the point wasnt that equipment doesn't matter, rather, the photographer does. A beginner can have the very best equipment available and still produce crap photos with it. You can give me the best hammer available, even a nail gun, but that still doesnt mean I can build beautiful furniture. Get your head out of your a*s

Right. A beginner cabinet maker with a router can probably do some neat stuff they find in a book but I bet some of the amazing sculpture like stuff will elude them. A master craftsman with the right hand tools may not be able to churn out mediocre work as quickly, but they can still do some beautiful work because of all the knowledge and experience they have.

 

[Buckster]

LOL! More laughs!

You should put a whole comedy act together and book yourself at Photokina type events. You could be the Larry the Cable guy of photographer audiences!

I haven't been around much lately, and my memory may be a bit fuzzy, but don't you shoot with a Hassy and some medium format stuff?

Wasn't sure, so I looked it up.
Here is your profile...

My Cameras:Canon 5DMKII, Canon 7D, Canon 40D, Mamiya RB67 Pro S, Mamiya 645, Mamiya C330, Hasselblad 500C, Nikon F, Canon IIS2, Yashica FX-7, and a bunch of other antique cameras on the shelves that don't see much action anymore.

Yeah, sure, equipment doesn't matter...

I shoot a lot of different gear because I'm a gear nut and antique camera collector and someone who's been shooting and collecting for more than 40 years now. My first "real" camera, the one I learned my first basic photography on, was and is my 1962 Nikon F Photomic, so it has sentimental value for me when I pick it up or even when I just think about it; A flood of photographic outings and memories and lessons learned flood into my mind at the mere mention of it. Most of the cameras in my collection have at least some of that associated with them, which is the main reason I still pick them up and load them and shoot them from time to time.

So, I don't shoot the Hassy or the rest of the MF cameras and 35mm antiques because I get so much better results with them than with my digital gear, but because of the tactile and mental satisfaction I get from shooting that older gear and taking trips with it down memory lane.

For the best results, equipment matters a LOT less than photographic experience and ability, IMHO. Others have already explained that to you, and you simply don't accept it, so I won't even try. You've already established that it's a pointless excercise. You have your opinion, you can't or won't budge on it, and that's that. Fine with me.

Yes, there are things that can't be done, or can't be done as well, without the proper equipment to do it. We've all conceded that such is the case. But in the end, it ALWAYS requires the knowledge, experience and ability of the photographer to work the equipment properly for the best results. For MOST everyday shooting situations, the gear really doesn't matter at all; In the hands of a noob, you generally get noob shots. In the hands of a pro, you generally get pro shots. Therein lies the real difference.

All that's left then is to chuckle when you take your views that few would agree with and run off a cliff with them like you did a few posts ago in this thread. And you really, REALLY did that, adding much entertainment value to the thread in the process, whether you realize it or not.

Yeah, we disagree on this gear vs. experience subject, which many here disagree with you on. Que Sera - no big deal. Live long and prosper. :thumbup:

 

[sovietdoc]

Well said, well said. My number 1 would be different though.

1. Canon is better.

/troll

 

[Solarflare]

Whatever makes you sleep at night.

We dont want you to be sleepless because you're wondering if Nikon, Leica, Fuji, Sony or some other company would have been the better choice, do we ?

 

[djdelite]

thanks found the read as a newbie good info..lol

 

[Ballistics]

This list is for the most part, nonsense. I was told most of these things as a beginner, and I'm sorry I was. Because most of it is simply not true.

It doesn't take years to be proficient at a DSLR camera. Takes weeks to learn about composition and proper exposure.
If you can afford the better camera, get it. Especially if you know you are going to make it a real hobby.
Upgrading before you outperform your equipment, is better than reaching a limitation. There's no reason why you should wait.
The equipment matters, greatly. Yes the knowledge of the photographer matters as well, but the equipment makes it possible to achieve your vision. I'd love to see sports photographers get that game winning TD shot with a disposable camera.

 

[Ballistics]

But, in a battle between inadequate tools and inadequate experience, I will take the guy with the right tools and an instruction manual over the guy who knows exactly how to do the job but doesn't have the right tools to do it.

I agree with this. But there's so much room for what ifs that reasonable lines have to be drawn. The argument that someone with 0 experience with the best equipment will not do better than a pro with cheap equipment. But match the experience level with the equipment.

0 experience vs 0 equipment.

It's a hypothetical and ridiculous argument, but the fact of the matter is, without a camera, a photographer is nothing.

Now take someone who does know how to use a camera and knows a bit about composition, but is still new.
Hand them a D3s with a 24-70mm 2.8 in poor light conditions and let them take pictures.
Now, hand that same person a D3000 with an 18-55mm in the same poorly lit environment.

Are you guys saying that the pictures will look exactly the same? The quality will be equal because the equipment doesn't matter?

 

[Buckster]

But, in a battle between inadequate tools and inadequate experience, I will take the guy with the right tools and an instruction manual over the guy who knows exactly how to do the job but doesn't have the right tools to do it.

I agree with this. But there's so much room for what ifs that reasonable lines have to be drawn. The argument that someone with 0 experience with the best equipment will not do better than a pro with cheap equipment. But match the experience level with the equipment.

0 experience vs 0 equipment.

It's a hypothetical and ridiculous argument, but the fact of the matter is, without a camera, a photographer is nothing.

Now take someone who does know how to use a camera and knows a bit about composition, but is still new.
Hand them a D3s with a 24-70mm 2.8 in poor light conditions and let them take pictures.
Now, hand that same person a D3000 with an 18-55mm in the same poorly lit environment.

Are you guys saying that the pictures will look exactly the same? The quality will be equal because the equipment doesn't matter?

Your point that there are things that can't be done, or can't be done as well, without the proper equipment to do it is well understood. There's no question about that. But in the end, it ALWAYS requires the knowledge, experience and ability of the photographer to work the equipment properly for the BEST results, regardless of the gear and the environment you put it in.

If you want to make comparisons, then make it apples to apples, instead of the apples to chocolate cake comparisons you usually come up with in these discussions. Using your own latest scenarios, try this on for size:

Put the "D3s with a 24-70mm 2.8 in poor light conditions" in the hands of a noob and in the hands of a pro. Who will make the better images?

Put the "D3000 with an 18-55mm in the same poorly lit environment" in the hands of a noob and in the hands of a pro. Who will make the better images?

Bottom line in either case: In the hands of a noob, you generally get noob shots. In the hands of a pro, you generally get pro shots. Therein lies the real difference: The shooter's knowledge and experience, regardless of the equipment they're BOTH using.

 

[Buckster]

This list is for the most part, nonsense. I was told most of these things as a beginner, and I'm sorry I was. Because most of it is simply not true.

It doesn't take years to be proficient at a DSLR camera. Takes weeks to learn about composition and proper exposure.

And yet, 9 months after joining this forum, 2 months after you started shooting a DSLR, and while IN a photography course in college, you started the following thread, providing a perfect example of why you're flat out wrong:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...07-just-handed-my-first-class-assignment.html

I think it's fair to mention that even today, years later, you're STILL learning it.