|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
How well does old/crappy/cheap gear stack up?
wow! i still use me Metz 402 and 401 flashes!! and they were bought used 25 years ago!!! Oct 16 12 06:37 am Link . . . everything I use is junk, old, crap, outdated, etc. etc. etc. Oct 16 12 06:49 am Link Just my $.02 worth: I've been shooting pro since 1971, the days of the cavemen for sure. I still use a lot of my old gear, Speedotron Brown and Black Line for lighting, Luna-Pro meters, Gossen Mark II Flash meters, etc. and get excellent results. My cameras are digital now, but what served me so well for film just didn't roll over and die when I transitioned to digital. I agree with so many of the statements in this thread: it is the photographer, not so much the gear, that determines how a picture comes out. Sure, monolights, Sekonic L series meters, etc. would make my life easier; but would they make my shots better? By using all my old gear in conjunction with my experience, I seem to be getting along o.k. Oct 16 12 07:18 am Link my favorite camera right now is 50 years old...i paid $15 for it..  Oct 16 12 07:21 am Link I applaud this demonstration, well done! -JAY- wrote: Ah, but will s/he? The scientist in me demands more data! -JAY- wrote: I say test this hypothesis. Many (including me) would agree with you that the photographer, not the gear, is the most important element in most scenarios. Inherent in that assumption might be the belief that experience is part of what makes the photographer, and that a master can create wonder with a cereal box and paper negatives due, in part, to that experience. Oct 16 12 07:57 am Link Martin Boulianne wrote: Sunpak 622 Supers are my go-to outdoor flashes when I need power and have to pack light. Oct 16 12 10:37 am Link AgX wrote: Don't think that's needed, how many times do you see "ZOMG I upgraded from a d40x / 20D / etc to a D600 / D800 / 1DX / 5DIII!!!! So much better!!!" and yet the images they post are no different than what they were doing previously? Oct 16 12 11:19 am Link +1 Oct 16 12 11:25 am Link -JAY- wrote: The one on the right is smoother and not as harsh. The tone/ white balance is different as well. Oct 16 12 11:33 am Link I have an old Nikon S 35mm rangerfinder. It's older than I am. It's completely manual -- no auto focus, no auto exposure, nothing like that. But it's rock solid, and it has incredibly sharp glass (sharp even at f/1.4). I wouldn't trade it for any camera (except maybe those 20x24 Polaroid view cameras). That being said, I think that a good photograph is a blend of good technical qualities with good aesthetic qualities. Overall, I'd rather look at a photo with good aesthetic qualities than a photograph with good technical qualities. For example, one of my favorite photographers, Diane Arbus, produced images that were of only moderate technical qualities, but it was her aesthetics that made her photographs memorable. So, my recommendation to people getting started is to focus more on the aesthetics and use equipment capable of delivering the technical quality that is at the same level as the aesthetic. A serious photographer would continue to push the envelopes of both his aesthetic & his technical skills. Finally, I would like to point out that many photos lose a lot of their technical excellence when the images are scanned and/or resized for web posting. I'm remembering my college days, back in the early 1970s: So, for those photographers who like to talk & talk about their equipment, chances are that I'm quietly shaking my head. Oct 16 12 11:38 am Link S W I N S K E Y wrote: And what camera is that? Oct 16 12 11:47 am Link A good demo. The time when new gear usually wins is at the boundaries, where you want something printed large, or push shadows, or low light or something. Certainly I think I could produce pretty any of my work on here could have been produced with my Canon 10d and shown on this site and look identical in web resolution. Once you get past "large screen size" the differences might start to show up though. Oct 16 12 11:53 am Link AgX wrote: -JAY- wrote: You're just trying to keep all your Guinness to yourself. I see what you're doing. Oct 16 12 11:54 am Link Anyone have a comparison on the cowboy studio NPT-04-4 triggers vs the Yongnuo RF-603 triggers for use with the Yongnuo YN-560 II Speedlight Flash? Both are close in price but the cowboy set gives you an extra receiver. Oct 24 12 04:56 am Link Good gear is good gear regardless of when it was paid for. Sure we all want the new and shiny, but if it still clicks or fires, it's all good to me. Oct 24 12 05:13 am Link Cheese us.. for $400 you can get a really nice RB67 or a Bronica ETRSi and shoot your ass off with what was once the top of the line $4000 setups people made a living with. I have a lens I bought new in 1971 that cost me $1500, selling used today for $200 adn still works as good as it did in 1971. So does expensive equipment make a difference?.. NO. Maybe today an expensive digital camera n equipmet makes more of a difference because of the new technology, but once upon a time it was all up to the person behind the lens, a few hot lights on a seamless i sall you needed. So use your talents, and be creative on a budget. . Oct 24 12 05:22 am Link -JAY- wrote: Funy I just rebuilt my Sunpak 611 battery pack this week with NiMh as well as a DIY external battery for longer shoots. Pack a punch?... sun in a potato masher is the only way to fly. Oct 24 12 05:28 am Link -JAY- wrote: Absolutely great thread. As someone pointed out your OP should be stickied! If someone starts with this and begins to develop their skills they can go the DIY route for many of the extra items they might want to use; beauty dish, flash diffusor, snoot, strip lights, grids, PVC backdrop stand, etc. Once they are ready, they'll know exactly what they may want to spend more money on. Oct 24 12 05:38 am Link I'm still shooting with a 1D Mark ii, and now have moved into Medium and Large Format Film. Not sure about how crappy the gear is, but it's what I use. I'm not shooting High Fashion either...  RB67  D60 w/1 AB800 light  Oct 24 12 05:41 am Link Thunder Mountain Photo wrote: I only know about the Cowboy trigger and they have been extremely reliable. It was the two receivers that interested me and the reviews were pretty decent. The only negative I've had so far is the screw down mechanism. After a number of uses they tend to to lose the ability to be tightened securely and if you are using a ball head to tilt your light, the chance of the flash falling is high. It just happened to me about a week ago. My 580 went to the floor. It still works and I managed to catch it when it went down a second time. Time for Gaffer's Tape. Oct 24 12 05:45 am Link AJScalzitti wrote:
Oct 24 12 05:54 am Link Thanks for the info, from what I've read the Yungnuo triggers don't even have a lock and are prone to slide off too. Oct 24 12 05:56 am Link Thunder Mountain Photo wrote: Correct. though the umbrella brackets I use have a locking hotshoe, so it evens out. Oct 24 12 07:32 am Link Being someone that works at a repair store and has handled virtually every Nikon and Canon digital camera imaginible I think it's more about what you can do with the camera, not how old it is. The funny thing about how much quicker digital cameras age versus the older manual cameras is that today your camera is great, 2 years from now it might be obsolete, 4 years from now people turn heads wondering why you're still shooting on it. Heck I've seen people that still shoot on a Nikon D100, Nikon D40 or a Canon Digital Rebel (the original one), Canon 10D, 20D, 30D, etc. Even people that use L-Series lenses on their Canon Digital Rebel XT. If you're someone that shoots on older digital cameras they should perform just as well as they did when you purchased them, but if the shutter dies it's time to get a new one.... Oct 24 12 07:58 am Link I creeped the exif on one of the most impressive photographers (IMO) on MM, who I admire because I think his work ranks among the best of the best. He shoots with a Nikon D40. Oct 24 12 09:11 am Link -JAY- wrote: Word. Oct 24 12 09:18 am Link Great test!!!! A lot of people get so caught up on gear and spend a boat load of cash on crap they don't need. If you're just a hobbyist, even with the occasional paid shoot, you don't need much gear and you definitely don't need any pro gear. No one needs a 1D and a bag full of L-glass to take pics of their kids, dog, vacation or even the weekend model shoot. Oct 24 12 03:55 pm Link I currently use a Nikon 70-210 F4 as my main "long" lens, and it is as old as I am(maybe a little older actually). I picked it up at the local camera shop for $200, its just as sharp as my 35 1.8G and 50 1.8G (neither are top quality, but both are brand new and very sharp), sure the auto focus has issues now and then - but that is to be expected from a 24 year old lens. I use it for everything from Portraits to Sports - though it can barely handle football under lights at night - but that is due to the F4, and not how old the lens is. Just thought I would share since this, I think, is exactly what you are talking about. Old Gear produces great results, just may not have all the bells and whistles that the new stuff has(VR, Nano Coating, Updated AF, Etc) Oct 24 12 04:04 pm Link o k u t a k e wrote: agreed. And one thing I love about all the new tech is that it makes it that much easier to afford. Oct 24 12 04:05 pm Link o k u t a k e wrote: Nice test Jay! As far as the "kids, dog, vacation... I think the 1dx and L glass would be far better used for those sorts of things as opposed to model shoots where you're working with lights. You might want to shoot your dog mid-flight, your kid with that ultra-creamy 85 1.2 bokeh, Paris at night with a the 50 1.2 at ISO 32,000 or whatever... I know I do. Gonna go do the dog thing now. Oct 24 12 04:29 pm Link Hi Jay, I wrote in reply to another post, that was dissimilar to this, it was comparing camera's Canon and Nikon, My point was, I'm no professional, photography is not my career? it's my hobby. I have more money now then when I first started taking pictures with my Canon 300D, but I love my camera, I have brought a new lens, and I like it. But I wouldn't go spending copious amounts of money on technology if I was a pro, I would by what I needed to get the image I wanted, but I think using what you have, learning about, making it a second skin, will lead to images that you can be proud of also, I completely sold on that notion. My images have improved over the past year, just from practicing/ reading a bit, and yes experimentation. Thank you very much for you're insight, I love what you've given to people like me, and also people that discount, the outdated equipment like it's nothing just because, the newer better equipments is considered the sole necessity, makes the older equipments a right off. Different strokes for different folks though.  Nov 01 12 07:20 am Link S W I N S K E Y wrote: I have a 40 year old Nikon F2 that I no longer use. Nov 01 12 07:22 am Link I feel like a REAL photographer when I bang with the old 2.25.  WAAAAY different than shooting digital! I LOVE the color and saturation of good old 2.25 slides!  Nov 01 12 08:46 am Link ArtisticGlamour wrote: A Rolleiflex would be better! Nov 01 12 08:59 am Link Jerry Nemeth wrote: I hear ya, but not for ME! Nov 01 12 09:05 am Link AJScalzitti wrote: Word up... AND... if you or any of your friends think their Speedotron gear is outdated and wanna sell it... PLEASE have them contact me. Currently using 5 of their power supplies with 11 strobeheads... stuff is like battle tank equipment that doesn't die... Nov 01 12 09:08 am Link Tell me something new... My gear heva always being old seccond hand cheap but not crap. The only camera I ever bought new is a D90 nikon and I almost dont use it. When a llama ask if my gear is professional a tell that my gear is like here. They will be professional when they do professional work. Nov 01 12 12:57 pm Link |
