The 'right' equipment

[limr]

I think in order to really answer this the "RIGHT" way will depend on ones believes which makes it all relative.

My outlook is that if you are doing this as a profession you owe it to your clients to use top quality equipment, whether its an older camera and lens or newer camera and lens, the BEST one for the job! It could be an older lens on a newer body that gets the job done, it could be a newer lens on an older body that gets the job done and anything in-between and once again it depends whether you are doing it for fun or a business.

IF the case was that entry level equipment could get the job done like pro quality equipment why on earth do we spend so much more on the pro quality equipment?

"Your gear is also the face of your company and business" Quoted from NASM MANSUROV.

Because people will pay.

Who is Nasm Mansurov? Is he supposed to be some kind of authority on this?

 

[vipgraphx]

Who is Nasm Mansurov? Is he supposed to be some kind of authority on this?

I don't think so but it makes sense to me and because I read it on one of his postings I did not want to steal his words and quoted him instead.

 

[limr]

Who is Nasm Mansurov? Is he supposed to be some kind of authority on this?

I don't think so but it makes sense to me and because I read it on one of his postings I did not want to steal his words and quoted him instead.

Ah, okay. But hey, kudos for citing your source! I wish all my writing students would be so diligent. Maybe I should show them your post so they can see "even on the Internet, people know how to do this, so you should too!"

 

[Steve5D]

But since many of us here are experienced, with 5,10,15,20,25,30, or even 40 or more years behind the eyepiece, where does that leave us, the experienced shooters? Should we shoot everything with $109 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zooms?

I don't know that anyone's even remotely suggested anything like that, nor can I imagine why anyone would.

Just because a "pro" can do something doesn't mean he should. Pro gear in the hands of a professional is the best possible combination. Just because I can take excellent photos with, as you call it, pedestrian equipment doesn't mean I should do that...

I think the idea that today's consumer gear is "better" than professional lenses of a decade ago is utter crap. That's not the case, at all. I have a 10 year-old Nikkor 300/2.8 AF-S II that's a spectacular lens, whether it's on a 6MP D70, or a brand new top-shelf Nikon body, and the optics and focus speed are still superb. Most older primes are as good as, or better than today's $1799-$2499 high-end zooms. I have a 180mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor from 1986--it's a better lens than most new consumer zooms. GREAT lenses have been made as far back as the 1960's.

What about the camera bodies? You address only optics, but not the bodies. Personally, I would rather have a Canon 20D than a Canon 1D, despite the fact that it's the 1D which was considered to be the "professional" body...

 

[robbins.photo]

But since many of us here are experienced, with 5,10,15,20,25,30, or even 40 or more years behind the eyepiece, where does that leave us, the experienced shooters? Should we shoot everything with $109 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zooms?

Yes!!! I'm totally on board with this idea. Fantastic. Knocked it right out of the park here Derrel. Level the playing field and all that happy horse manure. BTW I'll send you an address later that you can ship all those pro grade Nikkor lenses to since you won't be needing them anymore.. lol

 

[The_Traveler]

To start, my point was that the viewer shouldn't care about the equipment only the final product.
The willingness on the part of photographers to judge other photographers by his/her equipment is silly and misplaced.

If anyone wants to buy to buy better equipment for his/her own satisfaction, go for out but that surely does not guarantee better pictures.

For all of you who have great pro grade glass, do you post equivalently great images just because the glass is so good?

If you have, tell me where you post them.

 

[Steve5D]

I think in order to really answer this the "RIGHT" way will depend on ones believes which makes it all relative.

My outlook is that if you are doing this as a profession you owe it to your clients to use top quality equipment, whether its an older camera and lens or newer camera and lens, the BEST one for the job! It could be an older lens on a newer body that gets the job done, it could be a newer lens on an older body that gets the job done and anything in-between and once again it depends whether you are doing it for fun or a business.

What I "owe" to my clients is images they're happy with. If I choose to do this with a 1DS MKIV, great. If I can do it with a 30D, though, that's fine, too...

IF the case was that entry level equipment could get the job done like pro quality equipment why on earth do we spend so much more on the pro quality equipment?

You're clearly on the side of "the gear matters more than the photographer".

A pro may well get professional results from a consumer camera. But he may get ridiculously stellar results with high-end gear. It's up to the photographer, and only the photographer, to decide which route he wants to take. I often tell the story of a guy who shoots the Rolex 24 every year. He uses a Digital Rebel; a 6.3MP crop sensor that can be bought now for less than a hundred bucks, and the guy's selling prints like they're going out of style. Guys who shoot full-on pro rigs do the same, and they certainly hold no animosity or disdain for the guy shooting with the Rebel...

"Your gear is also the face of your company and business" Quoted from NASM MANSUROV.

I don't care if Jesus Christ said it. It's not true.

My customers don't hire my camera, they hire me. In all of the years I've been doing this, with the thousands of clients I've had, I could lose three fingers in a farming accident and still count the number of clients who wanted to know what gear I used before they hired me...

 

[Steve5D]

To start, my point was that the viewer shouldn't care about the equipment only the final product.

You and I have disagreed on much. The statement above will not be one of those things...

The willingness on the part of photographers to judge other photographers by his/her equipment is silly and misplaced.

That one, too...

If anyone wants to buy to buy better equipment for his/her own satisfaction, go for out but that surely does not guarantee better pictures.

Okay, and that, as well...

For all of you who have great pro grade glass, do you post equivalently great images just because the glass is so good?

Years ago, on another forum, there was one guy whose position was simple: If you're not buying the latest and greatest every time the latest and greatest is introduced, you suck as a photographer and have no business charging people for your photography. He would slam people who used gear that, frankly, was pretty high-end, simply because it wasn't the latest high-end gear.

This guy knew I had some nice glass, and he was always very complimentary of the 70-200mm f/2.8L. So, I posted a photo that I'd taken of two dogs in Balboa Park in San Diego. They were standing nose-to-nose' a standoff! The shot had great depth of field, and it was razor sharp. He praised the photo: "THAT'S what a photo should look like!"

I wish I could've seen the look on his face when I posted that I'd used a $130.00 Quantaray 70-300mm...

 

[Derrel]

Let's all dig out our Kodak Instamatic 126 cameras and shoot the heck out of things! We know all that matters is our "eye" and our "talent".



non-copyrighted image under GNU Free Documentation license, from Wikipedia

 

[Steve5D]

Who is Nasm Mansurov? Is he supposed to be some kind of authority on this?

I don't think so but it makes sense to me and because I read it on one of his postings I did not want to steal his words and quoted him instead.

He's an authority on it because he posted it on the internet?

Did I seriously just read that?

LOLOL!!

 

[Solarflare]

So ... this is the thread in which everyone agrees that the skill of the photographer is more important than the camera ?

I havent read everything here, but every posting I read, everyone seems to agree.

I wouldnt even know how to start an argument against it even if I wanted to.

Certainly a photographer needs a camera in the first place, and certainly a photographer is ultimately limited in what he can do by the camera, but how consistently technically good the pictures will be and how far the camera can be pushed depends upon the technical skill of the photographer, and how original and valueable as an artpiece the images will be depends upon the creativity of the photographer.

That said, a good camera certainly is more fun to use than a bad one, and a small camera is more likely to be with you at all times than a large one.

 

[robbins.photo]

"Your gear is also the face of your company and business" Quoted from NASM MANSUROV.

I don't care if Jesus Christ said it. It's not true.

My customers don't hire my camera, they hire me. In all of the years I've been doing this, with the thousands of clients I've had, I could lose three fingers in a farming accident and still count the number of clients who wanted to know what gear I used before they hired me...

I think if Christ had said this it probably would have gone more like this:

"Knowest thou then that thine gear is a reflection of thine worth. So who so ever shall use thine D3100 shall not then therefore getteth paid."

Say, on that note, did we ever find out what the H stands for?

 

[Steve5D]

Say, on that note, did we ever find out what the H stands for?

Hector.

I mean, c'mon, the guy's name is Jesus...

 

[Derrel]

Say, on that note, did we ever find out what the H stands for?

Jesus H. Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

The Straight Dope: Why do folks say "Jesus H. Christ"?

(Both of the above internet articles were written on medium-grade Windows PC's, using average keyboards.)

 

[Steve5D]

Let's all dig out our Kodak Instamatic 126 cameras and shoot the heck out of things! We know all that matters is our "eye" and our "talent".

View attachment 65420

non-copyrighted image under GNU Free Documentation license, from Wikipedia

If you took a photo with that, and my 6 year old nephew took a photo with your DSLR, you should end up with the better result. If you don't, you shouldn't be a photographer.

On a side note, though, I have a small camera collection, and I'm always looking to add to it. I was in Boone, North Carolina last week and found this in an antique shop:

I'm not sure what goes in the space in the upper right. That notwithstanding, I like to buy stuff like this when it has the box, manual, etc. I need to clean it up, and then find a place to put it:

Maybe more shelves...