Forums > Photography Talk > You must have a really great camera?

Photographer

Darryl Henick

Posts: 31

Davis, California, US

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

Photographer

alessandro2009

Posts: 7798

Florence, Toscana, Italy

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

Photographer

Harold Rose

Posts: 2925

Calhoun, Georgia, US

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
Ok we have all heard this and there have been rants on here before about it... I must say that however after shooting with a D800 with a highend Nikon Lens. I can visually see how much better the images are vs. a lower end setup.

So while a good camera alone will not make a great picture it sure does help!

I shot this over the weekend on a D800. Yes it is retouched to reflect my style, but right out of  the camera with only some exposure correction it looked really good.

It was also really nice having 36mp to work with I can see all kinds of great cropping coming from the images I shot.

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130212/02/511a1dba626a3_m.jpg

The Bottom line is equipment will not make the image but good equipment can make you better if you are already good.

I suspose you go just crazy over Hemingway's typewriter..  Good for you!!!

Mar 14 13 04:06 am Link

Photographer

Lafont Photography

Posts: 1

Woodbridge, Virginia, US

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

Photographer

Amul La La

Posts: 875

Saint Austell, England, United Kingdom

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

Photographer

Camerosity

Posts: 5366

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

Darryl Henick wrote:
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.

How to embed jpeg images already in your portfolio:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … ost8657248

How to embed images not in your profile but on your hard drive:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … ost8657252

Mar 14 13 01:28 pm Link

Photographer

Herman Surkis

Posts: 9475

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

CastModels wrote:
great chefs are only where they are today because of a quality stove

You are not a good chef unless you use Alclad or heavy copper.
Everybody else is just a dinner fry cook.

Mar 14 13 01:33 pm Link

Photographer

ImageX

Posts: 998

Saint Louis, Missouri, US

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
So while a good camera alone will not make a great picture it sure does help!

+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

Photographer

Darryl Henick

Posts: 31

Davis, California, US

thanx Camerosity smile

Mar 16 13 01:55 pm Link

Photographer

PhillipM

Posts: 6822

Martin, Tennessee, US

End of the Road Studio wrote:
I don't have a great camera but I have a big one. A 12x20 inch film camera!

You had me at 12x20

Mar 16 13 03:56 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

Darryl Henick wrote:
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.

The Oakland Raiders drafted Jamarcus Russell. 'Nuff said.

I kid. I kid.

Mar 16 13 04:03 pm Link

Photographer

GCobb Photography

Posts: 15898

Southaven, Mississippi, US

ImageX 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.

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

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

CastModels wrote:
great chefs are only where they are today because of a quality stove

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.

The thing is, a great chef can truly appreciate the difference high-end tools make.

It's the same for photography. The tools won't make you a good photographer. But good photographers can appreciate the differences a quality tool can make.

Mar 16 13 04:09 pm Link

Photographer

Its Visual

Posts: 129

Cincinnati, Ohio, US

"Check out this 19 year old who shoots better than 95% of the photographers on MM:"

http://www.modelmayhem.com/1850535

Hard to quantify and is a subjective call.  Work seems trendy.

Mar 16 13 05:44 pm Link

Photographer

Marcio Faustino

Posts: 2184

Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

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

Photographer

Shot By Adam

Posts: 6660

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Michael Pandolfo 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.

The thing is, a great chef can truly appreciate the difference high-end tools make.

It's the same for photography. The tools won't make you a good photographer. But good photographers can appreciate the differences a quality tool can make.

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

Model

Danielle Hieronimi

Posts: 238

Chicago, Illinois, US

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

Photographer

stevie oetjengerdes

Posts: 606

Boston, Massachusetts, US

my camera is way more professional than i am tongue

Mar 16 13 09:11 pm Link

Photographer

DBImagery Toronto

Posts: 335

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Danielle Hieronimi wrote:
I'd love to hear an MUA perspective on this regarding brush and makeup quality. Department store vs. drug store.

Perhaps one began a thread to this effect in the Makeup Forum. Take a look there, then let us know how ya made out wink  This is the Photography Forum, where we discuss.....ermmm.......uhhhhmmmmmm...........hold on hold on, gimme a minute & I'll remember.......

Ðanny
http://dbi.carbonmade.com
http://www.dbiphotography.com
Posted by DBIphotography via his CrackBerry®

"Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes."
~Oscar Wilde

Mar 16 13 10:31 pm Link

Photographer

Art Provocative

Posts: 226

Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

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

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17966

Los Angeles, California, US

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

Photographer

Nico Simon Princely

Posts: 1942

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Harold Rose wrote:
I suspose you go just crazy over Hemingway's typewriter..  Good for you!!!

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.

But the talent has to be there first.

Mar 17 13 01:18 am Link

Photographer

-The Dave-

Posts: 8700

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Yeah, my D100 is 10 times better than my D800.

Said no one ever!

Mar 17 13 02:32 am Link

Photographer

ADB-Fotografie

Posts: 303

Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands

CastModels wrote:
great chefs are only where they are today because of a quality stove

And hungry people. Never forget hungry people.

Mar 17 13 05:17 am Link

Photographer

RA - Images

Posts: 108

Burlington, Ontario, Canada

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

Photographer

Hikari Tech Photography

Posts: 791

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Images by MR wrote:

It's because of the lens...  that's why investing in good glass is better then updating your body

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

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 29035

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Michael Pandolfo 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.

The thing is, a great chef can truly appreciate the difference high-end tools make.

It's the same for photography. The tools won't make you a good photographer. But good photographers can appreciate the differences a quality tool can make.

Yes!

Mar 30 13 04:33 am Link

Photographer

Risen Phoenix Photo

Posts: 1643

Minneapolis, Minnesota, US

CastModels wrote:
great chefs are only where they are today because of a quality stove

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.

As a coach to nationally competing culinary teams with gold and silver medals, it is always the knowledge of the chef and his technical skills .... And than that certain something that makes him or her truly great.

I think the same thing holds true for camera equipment . I have seen amazingly talented photographers kick ass on a pin hole camera.

Mar 30 13 06:12 am Link

Photographer

4point0

Posts: 687

Los Angeles, California, US

RA - Images wrote:
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.

Well said.

Mar 30 13 06:34 am Link

Photographer

Select Models

Posts: 36284

Rancho Cucamonga, California, US

stevie oetjengerdes wrote:
my camera is way more professional than i am tongue

It's not nice to argue with people in forum threads... so I'm just gonna have to agree... wink

Mar 30 13 07:44 am Link

Photographer

kitty_empire

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Mar 31 13 03:02 am Link

Photographer

Kent Art Photography

Posts: 3100

Ashford, England, United Kingdom

Gary Melton wrote:
What?  We've gone nearly a whole page and I haven't seen anyone invoke "pin-hole camera" or "Andy Warhol" yet?

Gimmeafriggin' break people...equipment DOES make a difference!

I remember when David Bailey was using an Olympus Trip...

Give a bad photographer good equipment and it won't make him a good photographer.  Give a good photographer bad equipment and he'll still be a good photographer.

Mar 31 13 04:21 am Link

Photographer

Jorge Kreimer

Posts: 2512

Los Angeles, California, US

Fuji X-100
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120505/22/4fa60af832051.jpg

Fuji XPro1
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120713/22/5001036b4d901.jpg

Nikon D800
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130322/06/514c5de377d3f.jpg

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

Photographer

Select Models

Posts: 36284

Rancho Cucamonga, California, US

Jorge Kreimer wrote:
Nikon D800
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/130322/06/514c5de377d3f.jpg

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.

Cool shot... borat

Mar 31 13 10:23 am Link

Photographer

Select Models

Posts: 36284

Rancho Cucamonga, California, US

Hero Foto wrote:
she's already using proper equipment ... her profile statements are LIES ... check the exif data on her site ... misdirection, smoke and mirrors B.S.

she has an entire team creating these images ... including AGENCY talent ... MONEY ... she BOUGHT her way into the industry ...

never ever believe elitist B.S.

WOW... that's alittle http://assets.modelmayhem.com/images/smilies/scary.png... yikes

Apr 01 13 10:02 am Link

guide forum

Photographer

Giacomo Cirrincioni

Posts: 21581

New York, New York, US

Hero Foto wrote:
she's already using proper equipment ... her profile statements are LIES ... check the exif data on her site ... misdirection, smoke and mirrors B.S.

she has an entire team creating these images ... including AGENCY talent ... MONEY ... she BOUGHT her way into the industry ...

never ever believe elitist B.S.

Select Models wrote:
WOW... that's alittle scary... yikes

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). 

Having said that, we don't know if she's "bought" her way into anything.  If the agencies like her work and are able to use it to promote their girls, they'll give her their new girls to shoot for free.  Makeup artists, hair stylists and wardrobe may also be working trade with her, or for cheap - especially if she brings them in on some commercial assignments.

So what is http://assets.modelmayhem.com/images/smilies/scary.pngabout what she is doing?

For the record, most here would be far better off spending their discretionary income on production value items for photoshoots (makeup, hair, location, model, retouching) than on new kit.

Apr 01 13 11:06 am Link

Photographer

Select Models

Posts: 36284

Rancho Cucamonga, California, US

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
For the record, most here would be far better off spending their discretionary income on production value items for photoshoots (makeup, hair, location, model, retouching) than on new kit.

Nah... save all that money and let somebody else supply the makeup, model, location and kit too... borat

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120722/00/500badfb8972a.jpg

Apr 01 13 11:14 am Link

Photographer

Backstreet Photography

Posts: 138

Salem, Oregon, US

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

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 11127

San Pedro, California, US

Giacomo Cirrincioni 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). 

Having said that, we don't know if she's "bought" her way into anything.  If the agencies like her work and are able to use it to promote their girls, they'll give her their new girls to shoot for free.  Makeup artists, hair stylists and wardrobe may also be working trade with her, or for cheap - especially if she brings them in on some commercial assignments.

So what is scary about what she is doing?

For the record, most here would be far better off spending their discretionary income on production value items for photoshoots (makeup, hair, location, llama, retouching) than on new kit.

$20K - When was that?

Back in the early-mid 90s it would cost about the following to produce a portfolio for a photographer.
And this is assuming one portfolio image per shoot - which is probably unrealistically conservative.

Per image:

$120 film and processing for 6 rolls
$35 - Interneg
$50 - Custom print 11x14
====
$205

Take this times 20 and you get:

$4,100 for portfolio images

Ok, let's say you're the llama or makeup artist

$35 - Interneg
$50 - Custom print
$500 - Photographer paid test
====
$585

Take this times 20 images and you get (again conservatively assuming 1 image per shoot:

$11,700


Still a far cry from $20K

Apr 01 13 11:28 am Link

Photographer

jackhall99

Posts: 1

La Grange, Illinois, US

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! smile

The photographer and his skill matters! Any old camera will work well. JMHO.

Apr 01 13 11:34 am Link