SO, you just got a new DSLR.

[Bitter Jeweler]

Takes weeks to learn about composition...

...and years to master it.

 

[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...

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:

Yes. You have to know how to spin a dial and push a button....Heck, in complicated cases, you might even have to spin two dials. In a worst case scenario, you might even have to push an extra button with flash compensation. But then, you get to look at the picture and see if you adjusted the right dials and pushed the right buttons. If you didn't, you get a chance to do it over again.

Get over yourself. It's not that complicated.

 

[Derrel]

"Three lights and a prime". And a bottle of tequila. That's all a guy needs. Oh, and a pair of high-class hookers...errrr.... I mean skinny models. And a Benz. And a computer. And $1,000 in software.

 

[Ballistics]

Takes weeks to learn about composition...

...and years to master it.

Composition, or the art element of photography is so subjective that it can be argued that it would be impossible to master. But it wouldn't take even months to be extremely versed and very good at composition.

 

[Derrel]

Nonsense. It takes 10,000 hours of practice just to become "good" at almost any skill. If it did not take literally YEARS to master complete skill sets, I would ALREADY be,among other things, a master baker/pastry chef; welder; carpenter; plumber; painter; auto mechanic; fighter jet pilot; surgeon; dentist; racecar driver; novelist; and of course, fine art painter. Don't confuse apprentice/journeyman/master/grand master levels of competence...

 

[amolitor]

Much as I dislike jumping in to what is basically a pissing match, I will offer this:

Some people are naturals at composition, and some people seem to never be able to get it. Most people fall somewhere in between. Saying 'it takes <X> to master composition' fails to take into account the person making the attempt, and fails to define what "master composition" could even mean.

What does it even mean to "master" composition? You can teach someone how to pose a half a dozen of the standard wedding shots in an afternoon, and they can get pretty good at them in a couple of sessions if they pay attention. That's not "mastery of composition" to me, but it might be to a guy who just wants to shoot some weddings. Does "mastery of composition" mean being able to instinctively nail a perfect echoing of shapes, tones, and mood in a street photograph, consistently day in and day out? That's mastery, in my book, and also completely unattainable for most people.

This thread, like all such threads, is pretty much all about people choosing to use different definitions of words and phrases so they can continue to yell at each other. Welcome to the Internet. Sometimes, it sucks and is stupid.

 

[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?

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.

Rarely, if ever, do I make comparisons or analogies. So for you to say that I usually come up with uneven comparisons is flat out bs.

Your argument, is the age old argument and a broken one.

Why give 2 different people, 2 different sets of gear? Because it's a rhetorical,unreasonable, immeasurable cop out question and it's a one way street.
Who will take better pictures? A newbie with a nikon coolpix? Or a cup of coffee with 2 sugars?

That's why I said reasonable lines need to be drawn. I make better pictures, with better gear. It's really that cut and dry.

I now have the honor to use a hasselblad in class, and was instructed to take comparison pictures with my gear, and the hasselblad. I promise you, that I stopped using my camera after 11 shots.
I can supply the images if you don't believe me.

 

[Ballistics]

Nonsense. It takes 10,000 hours of practice just to become "good" at almost any skill. If it did not take literally YEARS to master complete skill sets, I would ALREADY be,among other things, a master baker/pastry chef; welder; carpenter; plumber; painter; auto mechanic; fighter jet pilot; surgeon; dentist; racecar driver; novelist; and of course, fine art painter. Don't confuse apprentice/journeyman/master/grand master levels of competence...

Takes 5000 hours to become a master plumber in NY.

Edit: I guess it's 6-8000 now

 

[Kerbouchard]

Sorry about all the fuss, guys. I think many of you who have been around a while know I will play Devil's Advocate when allowed to. This debate just happens to be one of my favorites.

When I was starting out, I read every book I could find and every forum post I could find to try to get better. I understood the concepts. The problem was that I was limited by my equipment. Perhaps that is why I take this stance now.

Yes, maybe that is not the typical route people take, but having 3 flashes, a prime, and a bottle of Tequila would have greatly reduced my learning curve.

 

[mjhoward]

Sorry about all the fuss, guys. I think many of you who have been around a while know I will play Devil's Advocate when allowed to. This debate just happens to be one of my favorites.

When I was starting out, I read every book I could find and every forum post I could find to try to get better. I understood the concepts. The problem was that I was limited by my equipment. Perhaps that is why I take this stance now.

Yes, maybe that is not the typical route people take, but having 3 flashes, a prime, and a bottle of Tequila would have greatly reduced my learning curve.

I will reiterate...

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

 

[Kerbouchard]

Sorry about all the fuss, guys. I think many of you who have been around a while know I will play Devil's Advocate when allowed to. This debate just happens to be one of my favorites.

When I was starting out, I read every book I could find and every forum post I could find to try to get better. I understood the concepts. The problem was that I was limited by my equipment. Perhaps that is why I take this stance now.

Yes, maybe that is not the typical route people take, but having 3 flashes, a prime, and a bottle of Tequila would have greatly reduced my learning curve.

I will reiterate...

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

My reading comprehension is fine. The OP just made an absurd claim.

#9 Ferrari&#8217;s are great cars; you just don&#8217;t see to many farmers hauling hay in them.
Everything has a designed purpose. Your DSLR camera and Kit lens, are CAPABLE of taking great photographs; if they weren&#8217;t, they wouldn&#8217;t be selling them. Really. Don&#8217;t begin your career by believing that you are already limited and need better equipment. Until you begin taking specialized types of photos, your equipment is probably going to do just fine (once YOU learn how to use it to the best of its abilities).

Every photographer needs a flash...period. Without one, a photographer is limited and it has nothing to do with specialized types of photos, whatever that means. And saying a kit lens is sufficient is borderline moronic.

A kit lens is not sufficient, and not having a flash will limit any new photographer. Honestly, if you can't understand that, I don't think we can have an intelligent conversation.

 

[amolitor]

Yup, still deliberately deciding to talk about different things while pretending to be talking about the same things, purely in order to keep the yelling going.

Hurrah for the internet.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Yup, still deliberately deciding to talk about different things while pretending to be talking about the same things, purely in order to keep the yelling going.

Hurrah for the internet.

How so? Do you think a kit lens is sufficient or that a photographer does not need a flash? Because that is what the OP says. And that is the part that I disagree with.

 

[amolitor]

The OP says you can make fine images with the kit lens and no flash. He's right. Nowhere does he say that every single image, and every single style of photography can be executed with the kit lens, that would be absurd. He says only that fine work can be done.

For example, let us say that I do pictorialist style landscapes. I don't need a flash. In fact, what on earth would I use a flash FOR? I actually have to soften the kit lens for the work, it's not too lousy, it's too sharp. I can do excellent work with the kit lens and no flash whatsoever.

You apparently think that every photographer needs a flash, which is such an absurd remark that I cannot imagine you think it's true. You are clearly just pretending to think this ridiculous thing because you love fighting.

Fine, fight away. You and all the people you're fighting with deserve one another.

 

[Kerbouchard]

The OP says you can make fine images with the kit lens and no flash. He's right. Nowhere does he say that every single image, and every single style of photography can be executed with the kit lens, that would be absurd. He says only that fine work can be done.

For example, let us say that I do pictorialist style landscapes. I don't need a flash. In fact, what on earth would I use a flash FOR? I actually have to soften the kit lens for the work, it's not too lousy, it's too sharp. I can do excellent work with the kit lens and no flash whatsoever.

You apparently think that every photographer needs a flash, which is such an absurd remark that I cannot imagine you think it's true. You are clearly just pretending to think this ridiculous thing because you love fighting.

Fine, fight away. You and all the people you're fighting with deserve one another.

Actually, I do love fighting. But then again, I agree with everything you said so it makes it a difficult fight. I'll give it a shot anyway. ;-)

Point #9 didn't say that great shots can be made with a DSLR and a kit lens. If it did, I would not argue. I firmly believe great shots can indeed be made with a base DSLR and a kit lens. The problem is he went out of his way to say that a photographer would not be limited by a base DSLR and a kit lens. In that, he is wrong.

Again, here is the quote.

#9 Ferrari&#8217;s are great cars; you just don&#8217;t see to many farmers hauling hay in them.
Everything has a designed purpose. Your DSLR camera and Kit lens, are CAPABLE of taking great photographs; if they weren&#8217;t, they wouldn&#8217;t be selling them. Really. Don&#8217;t begin your career by believing that you are already limited and need better equipment. Until you begin taking specialized types of photos, your equipment is probably going to do just fine (once YOU learn how to use it to the best of its abilities).

This is silly. With a base DSLR and a kit lens of course you are limited. Can you make great shots with those...sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't limited.