|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
You must have a really great camera?
I shot the Oakland Raiders for a magazine on a Canon D60 and a 75-300/4.5-5.6 lens and they were more than satisfied with the images. Would attach some but still have to learn how to attach images here. Mar 14 13 02:46 am Link I would say that using an appropriate tool for a task simplifies the work with even a better consistency over time in terms of repeatability, especially in difficult conditions. Examples: - a good AF give you more probabilities, in less time, to obtain certain results - a good high iso give you the possibility to obtain decent shoot even during don't good light condition (1) (1) With camera don't good with bad light, the only trick that remain is to reduce greatly the initial image - to try to minimize the problems - and the appropriate postwork for the noise (which can take some time, since the automatisms tend to flatten the result). Mar 14 13 03:53 am Link Nico Simon Princely wrote: I suspose you go just crazy over Hemingway's typewriter.. Good for you!!! Mar 14 13 04:06 am Link True that. I'm a canon 5D Mk III shooter and have been amazed at the quality of photos coming out of the camera. Quality lenses also improve quality. Never hurst to have a few primes in the camera bag also. Just got my second one, a 85mm. Getting much more reluctant to do TFP because of the investment I've made in my equipment and the skill set I'm bringing to the table. Hey, I'm heading to Las Vegas in early April. Any suggestions on places I should shoot? Mar 14 13 11:17 am Link I'm using a 300D, and I've been using the same camera for a little while, I just wanted to learn as much about the camera as possible, so I could get the most out of it, I must say, I have learned more and more over a short period of time, and I figure all beginners should start this way, there's absolutely no point buying a £2000 pound camera if they don't know the basic, ISO, WB, Shutter, Aperture, Depth of field, compensation, etc. It's a terrible misconception for (amateurs), to believe the value of the camera will bring them unbelievable talent, as soon as they take the lens cap off, and switch it on, and for any so called pro's who think that (it's already to late). Beginners need to learn what the basic features are, what they do/meant for, and generally get a rough idea of how settings work, in conjunction with other settings, (the effects or in effect). Then there's paramount things that the camera you have no matter how expensive or cheap has no baring on e.g: composition idea's/concepts Which are the most important things along with (how to light) outside or inside. If for whatever reason you don't form a style or you can't formulate ideas, you have absolutely no creative flair, you can't interact with people and create mood/feeling/emotion with them to even capture it, how will you're work not be boring, if your not creative, the images you made on that £2000 camera mean nothing and the money you spent means less that nothing. 1. learn how to use the camera you have (at least the basics) 2 learn about light, no studio?, go outside and look at the light, where the shadows and highlights are, what the light does with textures. (people downplay how important light outside is, where is the light, it's outside) 3. learn how to be creative, then learn how to improve you're creativity. No camera can teach those 3 things, only you can! Mar 14 13 12:47 pm Link Darryl Henick wrote: How to embed jpeg images already in your portfolio: Mar 14 13 01:28 pm Link CastModels wrote: You are not a good chef unless you use Alclad or heavy copper. Mar 14 13 01:33 pm Link Nico Simon Princely wrote: +1 Good equipment makes a much bigger difference than some people like to believe. Some images wouldn't even be possible on lesser equipment. Mar 14 13 02:09 pm Link thanx Camerosity  Mar 16 13 01:55 pm Link End of the Road Studio wrote: You had me at 12x20 Mar 16 13 03:56 pm Link Darryl Henick wrote: The Oakland Raiders drafted Jamarcus Russell. 'Nuff said. Mar 16 13 04:03 pm Link ImageX wrote: I outgrew my 30D and bought a 5d mkII. The difference in quality was more than noticeable with the same lenses. Sure you can take good pictures with a low end camera. A better camera allows you more options and quality for the most part. Mar 16 13 04:06 pm Link CastModels wrote: The tools won't make someone a great chef. But put those high-end tools (Viking range, Henkel knives, All-Clad Cookware, etc.) in the hands of a great chef and they soar. Mar 16 13 04:09 pm Link "Check out this 19 year old who shoots better than 95% of the photographers on MM:" https://www.modelmayhem.com/1850535 Hard to quantify and is a subjective call. Work seems trendy. Mar 16 13 05:44 pm Link The problem is when you have a great camera, like a Pentax 67 or a Nikon F3, and people don't take you serious when you say you have a grate camera because they are just old film cameras. Mar 16 13 08:45 pm Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: I absolutely agree with you. In my opinion, anyone who differs their opinion with this is usually someone who simply cannot afford good gear. Mar 16 13 09:01 pm Link I'd love to hear an MUA perspective on this regarding brush and makeup quality. Department store vs. drug store. Mar 16 13 09:02 pm Link my camera is way more professional than i am  Mar 16 13 09:11 pm Link Danielle Hieronimi wrote: Perhaps one began a thread to this effect in the Makeup Forum. Take a look there, then let us know how ya made out Mar 16 13 10:31 pm Link I photographed a girl recently who looked at one of the shots on my 5D Mark III and said, wait for it... "Oh, I love this! Is yours one of those cameras that has photoshop??" It was her first-ever shoot, so I told her at the end that I didn't want to throw her in the deep end, to which she responded "Oh, did you want to shoot in a pool?" Priceless. But yeah I have a great camera. Mar 17 13 12:26 am Link heard that three times tonight, but it was you must have a really great lens. Was shoot a high end celebrity event, and they couldn't get over the images i was producing. I was like, no this is a horrible lens from tamron with the rubber coming off. But I am shooting with from a fun angle about where a Hassy would rest if i were shooting medium fomat. Mar 17 13 12:31 am Link Harold Rose wrote: No but there is a reason most writers use computers now if they can afford them. The word process or makes it much easier and faster to write. Just like a good camera enables you to do things that you can't with a crappy one. Mar 17 13 01:18 am Link Yeah, my D100 is 10 times better than my D800. Said no one ever! Mar 17 13 02:32 am Link CastModels wrote: And hungry people. Never forget hungry people. Mar 17 13 05:17 am Link Late to the party but I think what needs to be defined here is picture quality vs image quality. To be there is a difference. Picture quality is the picture itself, subject matter,lighting,style,interest,composition etc etc Image quality is the pixel density, clarity, etc etc. Better cameras give you better image quality, better photographers give you better pictures regardless of the camera used. Mar 30 13 03:01 am Link Images by MR wrote: True to some degree but it was more so the case before the dSLR came along. The 'sensor' and firmware plays a larger role nowadays that the bodies are almost level in terms on investment 'bang for buck' priority. Good glass though will always be a no brainer in terms of investment for the photographer looking to upgrade. Mar 30 13 03:53 am Link Michael Pandolfo wrote: Yes! Mar 30 13 04:33 am Link CastModels wrote: You must be joking! I have seen great chefs cook on a camp ground set up, a steel plate over an open flame and turn out 5 star quality work. Mar 30 13 06:12 am Link RA - Images wrote: Well said. Mar 30 13 06:34 am Link stevie oetjengerdes wrote: It's not nice to argue with people in forum threads... so I'm just gonna have to agree... Mar 30 13 07:44 am Link Mar 31 13 03:02 am Link Gary Melton wrote: I remember when David Bailey was using an Olympus Trip... Mar 31 13 04:21 am Link Fuji X-100  Fuji XPro1  Nikon D800  It does make some difference, but not whether a photo is better or not, especially for the web (I bought the Nikon only because I want to print life-size). The look may be a little different, that's all, but lighting makes a bigger difference to the look, than the camera. Mar 31 13 09:02 am Link Jorge Kreimer wrote: Cool shot... Mar 31 13 10:23 am Link Hero Foto wrote: WOW... that's alittle Apr 01 13 10:02 am Link Hero Foto wrote: Select Models wrote: What is? I guess I'm not sure what anyone would be surprised by? It was once the norm to spend about $20k after school to produce your portfolio that you would shop around for commercial work (just as a budding filmmaker would spend easily that much producing a short film as a calling card). Apr 01 13 11:06 am Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: Nah... save all that money and let somebody else supply the makeup, model, location and kit too... Apr 01 13 11:14 am Link What do you think Ansel Adams work would look like if he had used a Nikon D600, or D800 ?? Or even a new Canon for that matter. As has already been stated, top end gear helps with the finished product, but it's only a tool used by qualified, or UN-qualified workers ~ m' Apr 01 13 11:26 am Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: $20K - When was that? Apr 01 13 11:28 am Link I just found this thread and laughed my butt off. Go tell Ansel Adams he needed to use more than a box camera when he shot some of the best images ever captured by man! The photographer and his skill matters! Any old camera will work well. JMHO. Apr 01 13 11:34 am Link |
This is the Photography Forum, where we discuss.....ermmm.......uhhhhmmmmmm...........hold on hold on, gimme a minute & I'll remember....... 
... 
