login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > How well does old/crappy/cheap gear stack up? Search   Reply
12last
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


First off let me start with this: I am not saying anything bad about new top of the line gear. It's great, but not the topic of this post. I just wanted to have a fun weekend, and see what I could get with the cheapest, oldest, crappiest stuff I could find. Also, this will be quite lengthy.

    Why would I do this? How often do we see threads started by models, makeup artists, hairstylists, retouchers, etc asking "I want to get started in photography, but have little budget" we ask a few questions, and it turns out the budget is $300, and they want a camera, good lens, and some lights so that they can really get into things. Everyone laughs, and tells them to save up, and maybe someday they can buy a decent rebel body and kit lens. LOL, newbies, am I right? /rollseyes.

    The truth is that there are many viable options to help someone get started for budgets even that small. The kit I used for this weekend isn't much different than that budget. I have always thought that getting started with whatever you can get is preferable to not doing anything at all until you can afford something better. 

    Getting started now means they can start learning now, and use what they've got to grow. They can contiune saving, and in a few months, they will be in a much better position to understand what it is they actually need. Camera sucks at high ISO, and you shoot a lot in the dark, prioritize that. You like shallow dof, but your lens won't allow? invest there first. Tackling what it is you need is better than going out and buying what others think you need, ya?

    So this challenge was sent to me on my blog (got about a dozen requests for it in the past couple months)  - "Can you really get anything worhtwhile, like a full kit, for $300-$400?" and at the same time, I have seen many comments around the interwebs that "older gear is crap, they simply cannot stack up to modern, expensive gear in any situation

    Any situation, you say? Challenge Accepted! Sure this kit might not be ideal for low light, and plenty of other situations... but there are plenty of situations where a kit like this (or a slightly different, but also budget kit) is a fantastic option.

So the kit I decided to use:
Sony a100
DT 50mm 1.8 SAM
(3) Neewer C-180 strobes
RF603 radio triggers with sony adapter
Cowboy Studios stands
(2) 40" umbrella boxes
24x36 westcott apollo clone
foamcore boards

Grand total:  $392 - enough left over in my $400 budget for a six pack, awesome!

    The Sony and lens I consider $150. I paid $180 for the pair with a 75-300, I rounded down for the body and one lens. Similar cameras are similarly priced. I recently bought a Canon XTi for $95 on ebay, and a 50mm 1.8 for $60, so the $150 pricepoint isn't unheard of.

    At $33.29 apiece, ($50 now in June 2014) these Neewer C-180 Strobes aren't half bad. Putting out a stop more light than canon/nikon flagship flashes, at this cheap (three for $100 --$150 now--) I didn't expect much, but happily surprised. Solid little flashes, consistent (in power, if not color, haven't tested that, but chances are they're shifty) 600 shots over a full day without issue.

    Triggered using YongNuos RF-603 triggers ($33 for the set) with a $4 sony hotshoe adapter.
http://www.jayleavitt.com/links/kit.jpg

    Cheap stands, Cheap umbrella softboxes.
http://www.jayleavitt.com/links/umbrellabox.jpg

Set up in a simple configuration:
http://jayleavitt.com/links/beauty_mock-up.jpg

    All in all, what one would expect as a basic "full kit" a lot can be done with this kind of three light configuration, and a lot of growth can be had if it's used correctly.

    My next step was to see what kind of results I could get with this kit. I had been contacted previously by a makeup artist to do some beauty stuff. This is perfect. With models spending an hour or more in makeup and hair, I'll have plenty of time to experiment with the model who just finished. They got the images they expected from the kit I was using, and I got the images I wanted from the crappy kit.

    The kit performed as I expected. The cheap as hell lights surprised me. More than enough power for what I wanted to do (close to minimum power the whole time, with them this close) and decent all-around lights for indoor use. Umbrella based modifiers (like generic Westcott Apollos) can be had cheaply, and their "universal mount" has plenty of options for modifiers on ebay.

    Placed side-by-side with their "good kit" counterparts, you can see a difference, but that's not the challenge on hand. Viewed on their own, I think (and I'm not a fantastic beauty photographer, or especially retoucher. i suck tongue) that the results are quite nice. And an indication that under the right circumstances, a cheap kit like this would be an excellent option for someone starting out.

So let's have a look at what we got:
http://www.jayleavitt.com/links/kylie_beauty_1.jpg

http://www.jayleavitt.com/links/kitty_beauty_1.jpg

http://www.jayleavitt.com/links/kylie_beauty_3.jpg

http://www.jayleavitt.com/links/sha_beauty_sony_1.jpg

And 100% crop from the first one. Acceptable sharpness, fewer MP only leaves so much, but acceptable)

http://www.jayleavitt.com/links/kylie_crop.jpg

    I like them. The models like them. They stylists like them. All in all, had I been a newbie, and could only afford this kit, I would count it a good shoot. Plus I had a blast shooting it, and that's important too. I have printed them at 11x17, and they look good. 10mp gets me acceptable 20x30 at normal viewing distance, so there's a bit of wiggle room for printing.

    I would feel 100% confident taking this kit into a lot of situations. With these lights, I'd likely be shooting at ISO100, (400 max) - f/2.8 - 8.0 .... and at those levels, there's not much that newer, better, more expensive kits offer that this cannot at least somewhat hold its own against.

    The thing I want to stress is that it is possible to get started, and with a solidly useful kit, with a budget like this. Consider that the next time a model comes into our forums asking for advice. Older gear, cheaper gear, does not necessarily make it BAD gear... The newer technology, the pricier equipment is fantastic... but just because they're the best doesn't make the bottom of the barrel not an acceptable alternative for many people.

Happy Shooting.

Oct 14 12 02:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 12,202
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Very true.  Too often people think old gear = junk.  I still have some speedtron gear, it worked fine for decades and just because it's older now does not mean its suddenly bad.  I have actually read people tell new photographers if they want to do commercial work they should get a D800 over a D600, as if the world changed last month.  WTF it's not like a magazine cover shot years ago with a 6MP camera suddenly and magically got reshot with a D800.
Oct 14 12 02:25 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Love the Arts
Posts: 710
Chicago, Illinois, US


-JAY- wrote:
First off let me start with this: I am not saying anything bad about new top of the line gear. It's great, but not the topic of this post. I just wanted to have a fun weekend, and see what I could get with the cheapest, oldest, crappiest stuff I could find. Also, this will be quite lengthy.

    Why would I do this? How often do we see threads started by models, makeup artists, hairstylists, retouchers, etc asking "I want to get started in photography, but have little budget" we ask a few questions, and it turns out the budget is $300, and they want a camera, good lens, and some lights so that they can really get into things. Everyone laughs, and tells them to save up, and maybe someday they can buy a decent rebel body and kit lens. LOL, newbies, am I right? /rollseyes.


    The thing I want to stress is that it is possible to get started, and with a solidly useful kit, with a budget like this. Consider that the next time a model comes into our forums asking for advice. Older gear, cheaper gear, does not necessarily make it BAD gear... The newer technology, the pricier equipment is fantastic... but just because they're the best doesn't make the bottom of the barrel not an acceptable alternative for many people.

Happy Shooting.

This is cool Jay.

I think that it's great to have affordable options available for people who want to create but have a limited budget or simply do not want to spend a lot on gear!

Oct 14 12 02:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mayfield Photography
Posts: 1
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Very true. Great post. Images shot for covers and commercial work back 7 or 8 years ago looked amazing on gear that is laughable by today's standards. Just goes to show it has very little to do with the camera and more to do with quality of light, composition, creativity, etc. I always laugh when people get pissed because they had to wait a couple months for their new d4 or mkIII as if they can longer shoot anymore and then when they get it you cant tell a damn bit of difference in their pictures. Once again thanks for debunking the whole gear myth for people that think its all in the camera.
Oct 14 12 02:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Karl JW Johnston
Posts: 9,313
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Should be stickied.
Oct 14 12 02:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Right Poes
Posts: 835
Colorado Springs, Colorado, US


I think it is cool as all get out that you put this together. I hope you get your moneys worth out of it on other projects. Perhaps the lights themselves if they can be used as hair lights or some extra use on a better set where more is more might not be all bad to have on hand. Did the triggers give you any flack? mine are no problem unless garbage trucks are in the hood, then they go off like crazy, but sheesh for the price they have been great.

btw, Nice work.
Oct 14 12 02:37 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Right Poes Photography wrote:
I think it is cool as all get out that you put this together. I hope you get your moneys worth out of it on other projects. Perhaps the lights themselves if they can be used as hair lights or some extra use on a better set where more is more might not be all bad to have on hand. Did the triggers give you any flack? mine are no problem unless garbage trucks are in the hood, then they go off like crazy, but sheesh for the price they have been great.

btw, Nice work.

Thanks.

In regards to getting my money's worth. All the gear I test goes back to the community. I shop around for great deals, and then pass it off to newbies at cost (...usually, I sometimes try and make a buck, but hey.) And I usually end up being their go-to guy for questions. I'll likely use the flashes a bit, but I use speedlites more often than not (and I have plenty - they'll likely get sold on CL - stand, flash, umbrella as a kit. Or get donated to my sister, who's just getting started.

I've been using the RF-603 for a couple years now. Zero problems over tens of thousands of fires.

Oct 14 12 02:42 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Mayfield Photography wrote:
Once again thanks for debunking the whole gear myth for people that think its all in the camera.

There is a lot to the camera though. For example, with the better camera, I got a bit more detail in the bun in Kylie's hair, since the better camera had better DR, handled shadows better, etc. Also more MP = sharper details, better color rendition... you get my point.

However, side by side, you can tell the difference, but you can also see how similar they are in certain controlled situations.

http://jayleavitt.com/links/cheapvspro.jpg

Which one is which?

Oct 14 12 02:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
kane
Posts: 1,536
Biarritz, Aquitaine, France


Very cool.  Thanks mate.
Oct 14 12 02:57 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Angela Perez
Posts: 340
Orlando, Florida, US


Can I have you shop for me. smile
Oct 14 12 03:06 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Angela Perez wrote:
Can I have you shop for me. smile

LOL. I have a list of items that friends sent me. "If you can find X for me at or below $300, buy it ofr me tongue"

Oct 14 12 03:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pacman829
Posts: 288
Boston, Massachusetts, US


I think we can all agree that this has been a successful test,

and even saying that would be an understatement.

If more of us would take the time to invest in these types of tutorials/examples... then there were be far fewer confused photogs out there talking out of their a**es about things that dont always make a difference.

I mean... obviously the a100 wouldnt be a great cam for something like an event photog or even a photojournalist in some respects....

but the part that most people are interested in, and also have the most trouble with, when getting started, are the studio scenarios and lighting..

I think this thread provides a good example as to the "learn what you can with what you have" mentality. Which is what everyone should follow in some sense.
Oct 14 12 03:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pacman829
Posts: 288
Boston, Massachusetts, US


5D on the right?
Oct 14 12 03:21 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Darkness Overcomes Me
Posts: 1,077
Washington, District of Columbia, US


-JAY- wrote:
http://jayleavitt.com/links/cheapvspro.jpg

Which one is which?

The one on the left is a MUCH BETTER shot, but I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with the gear you used...

Oct 14 12 03:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SPierce Photography
Posts: 19,566
Amherst, Massachusetts, US


Well said borat Though I am shooting with a D800, I know for a fact that (aside from my small annoyances) my D80 worked just fine- and still can produce quality images. It's good to see the variety of stuffs ;D
Oct 14 12 03:25 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Darkness Overcomes Me wrote:

The one on the left is a MUCH BETTER shot, but I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with the gear you used...

Got a look we liked and tried to replicate it after switching lights and such.

Oct 14 12 03:27 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


pacman829 wrote:
5D on the right?

You sure?

Oct 14 12 03:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Charger Photography
Posts: 1,701
San Antonio, Texas, US


My whole port has been shot with a Nikon D40X, kit lens, Vivitar 285h , cactus trigers and shoot tru umbrella.... ready to buy me a d90 or if can get some extra cash a d700
Oct 14 12 03:29 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Charger Photography wrote:
My whole port has been shot with a Nikon D40X, kit lens, Vivitar 285h , cactus trigers and shoot tru umbrella.... ready to buy me a d90 or if can get some extra cash a d700

Similar to what I used to start. Canon XTi / 2 vivitar 285s - moved to several different "upgrades" (40d, xsi, t2i) and settled in with the 5D... which is older than most of those tongue

Oct 14 12 03:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,361
Seattle, Washington, US


pacman829 wrote:
I think we can all agree that this has been a successful test,

and even saying that would be an understatement.

If more of us would take the time to invest in these types of tutorials/examples... then there were be far fewer confused photogs out there talking out of their a**es about things that dont always make a difference.

I mean... obviously the a100 wouldnt be a great cam for something like an event photog or even a photojournalist in some respects....

but the part that most people are interested in, and also have the most trouble with, when getting started, are the studio scenarios and lighting..

I think this thread provides a good example as to the "learn what you can with what you have" mentality. Which is what everyone should follow in some sense.

agreed.  most often it comes down to practice, and lots of it. there is no sidestepping practice.

Oct 14 12 03:36 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Mark Laubenheimer wrote:

agreed.  most often it comes down to practice, and lots of it. there is no sidestepping practice.

Absolutely.

On an unrelated note. I thought of you while doing this shoot. I got a new ND filter (ND32) so I could shoot at f/2 in this kind of situation. Thought you might like it:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121013/22/507a4ed8ceb89_m.jpg

Oct 14 12 03:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Charger Photography
Posts: 1,701
San Antonio, Texas, US


-JAY- wrote:

Similar to what I used to start. Canon XTi / 2 vivitar 285s - moved to several different "upgrades" (40d, xsi, t2i) and settled in with the 5D... which is older than most of those tongue

Cool !!!!! smile

Oct 14 12 03:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 18,967
Chicago, Illinois, US


-JAY- wrote:

Absolutely.

On an unrelated note. I thought of you while doing this shoot. I got a new ND filter (ND32) so I could shoot at f/2 in this kind of situation. Thought you might like it:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121013/22/507a4ed8ceb89_m.jpg

Thanks, Jay.  Solid shots by the way.   If you ever speak to Rodger Talley say hello for me.   Your price point was a tad low when including stands, umbrellas, etc.   However I agree with you and older Speedotron packs and cameras can be bargains.   My most popular image was with a D70 and 35-70 $40.00 lens.   I currently use two Olympus cameras which cost me under $200.00 each.   Not to compare my work to most of the stellar stuff on MM though.   I have several friends who own that really nice Cannon Mark 3  Think its named.   I asked one friend if he ever made prints and he said, no.   Seems like some serious overkill to post on MM and Facebook.

Mark said it best, practice.   Quick question about your Sony.   Does it accept older Minolta AF lens?

Oct 14 12 03:56 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Tony Lawrence wrote:

Thanks, Jay.  Solid shots by the way.   If you ever speak to Rodger Talley say hello for me.   Your price point was a tad low when including stands, umbrellas, etc.   However I agree with you and older Speedotron packs and cameras can be bargains.   My most popular image was with a D70 and 35-70 $40.00 lens.   I currently use two Olympus cameras which cost me under $200.00 each.   Not to compare my work to most of the stellar stuff on MM though.   I have several friends who own that really nice Cannon Mark 3  Think its named.   I asked one friend if he ever made prints and he said, no.   Seems like some serious overkill to post on MM and Facebook.

Mark said it best, practice.   Quick question about your Sony.   Does it accept older Minolta AF lens?

Maxxum lenses, yeah. Picked up a Maxxum 50 1.7 a while back for $5. Sold it, though tongue

Oct 14 12 04:01 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Tony Lawrence wrote:
Your price point was a tad low when including stands, umbrellas, etc.

Stands were factored into the price. Cowboy studios, $23 for two, $16.50 for the third. Umbrellas the same ($32 for the two octagonal umbrellaboxes, $32 for the rectangle.)


Camera/Lens - $150
Strobes - $100
RF-603 - $29
hotshoe adapter - $4
stands - $40
umbrellas - $32
softbox - $32
foamcore - $5
      -       (6 pack of Guinness - $8)
$392        ($400)

Oct 14 12 04:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
bgcfoto
Posts: 5,442
Largo, Florida, US


AJScalzitti wrote:
Very true.  Too often people think old gear = junk.  I still have some speedtron gear, it worked fine for decades and just because it's older now does not mean its suddenly bad.  I have actually read people tell new photographers if they want to do commercial work they should get a D800 over a D600, as if the world changed last month.  WTF it's not like a magazine cover shot years ago with a 6MP camera suddenly and magically got reshot with a D800.

Amen!

Oct 14 12 04:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 18,967
Chicago, Illinois, US


-JAY- wrote:

Stands were factored into the price. Cowboy studios, $23 for two, $16.50 for the third. Umbrellas the same ($32 for the two octagonal umbrellaboxes, $32 for the rectangle.)


Camera/Lens - $150
Strobes - $100
RF-603 - $29
hotshoe adapter - $4
stands - $40
umbrellas - $32
softbox - $32
foamcore - $5
      -       (6 pack of Guinness - $8)
$392        ($400)

You are a sharp shopper.   I couldn't find that camera and lens on Ebay for that price.   Are you hitting pawn shops?   Vegas has a ton so there are better deals there.    I've seen that Sony for $300.00 or more easy.   Again great work and thread.   Enjoy your Guinness.

Oct 14 12 04:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AJScalzitti
Posts: 12,202
Atlanta, Georgia, US


Tony Lawrence wrote:

Thanks, Jay.  Solid shots by the way.   If you ever speak to Rodger Talley say hello for me.   Your price point was a tad low when including stands, umbrellas, etc.   However I agree with you and older Speedotron packs and cameras can be bargains.   My most popular image was with a D70 and 35-70 $40.00 lens.   I currently use two Olympus cameras which cost me under $200.00 each.   Not to compare my work to most of the stellar stuff on MM though.   I have several friends who own that really nice Cannon Mark 3  Think its named.   I asked one friend if he ever made prints and he said, no.   Seems like some serious overkill to post on MM and Facebook.

Mark said it best, practice.   Quick question about your Sony.   Does it accept older Minolta AF lens?

Sad but true, I think they are a hell of a lot of MkIII and D800 buyers who had to have these amazing new cameras so they could post 800-1000 pixel 72/dpi images.

Oct 14 12 04:12 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


Tony Lawrence wrote:

You are a sharp shopper.   I couldn't find that camera and lens on Ebay for that price.   Are you hitting pawn shops?   Vegas has a ton so there are better deals there.    I've seen that Sony for $300.00 or more easy.   Again great work and thread.   Enjoy your Guinness.

Pawn shop. Though I see bodies sold for sub $100, and 50 1.8/1.7 for $50 (and other period cameras, XS, XTi, D40X, etc with their own 50mm) at about the same.

Oct 14 12 04:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
L A U B E N H E I M E R
Posts: 8,361
Seattle, Washington, US


-JAY- wrote:

Absolutely.

On an unrelated note. I thought of you while doing this shoot. I got a new ND filter (ND32) so I could shoot at f/2 in this kind of situation. Thought you might like it:
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121013/22/507a4ed8ceb89_m.jpg

very nice big_smile

Oct 14 12 04:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Retoucher
Angela Perez
Posts: 340
Orlando, Florida, US


-JAY- wrote:
Pawn shop. Though I see bodies sold for sub $100, and 50 1.8/1.7 for $50 (and other period cameras, XS, XTi, D40X, etc with their own 50mm) at about the same.

I'm definetely sending you to shop for me don't get those deals around here lol pawn shops here think they are selling new.

Oct 14 12 04:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
nwprophoto
Posts: 13,903
Kalibo, Western Visayas, Philippines


-JAY- wrote:
Pawn shop.

The pawn shops around here sell used stuff for the same price as new.
They get really insulted when point this out and try and bargain them down.

Oct 14 12 04:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Napier Photographie
Posts: 86
Dallas, Texas, US


Brilliantly done! 

I love new toys as much as the next person but I just finished shooting a job in South Africa with my dinosaur of a D2x and as usual it served me perfectly.  I also didn't mind getting to play with a D800 and 5D Mark III while I was there but I'm quite certain that my old tank can stand up to the new stuff in many, though not all, situations.

http://tinyurl.com/8v5dslb
Oct 14 12 04:36 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


nwprophoto wrote:

The pawn shops around here sell used stuff for the same price as new.
They get really insulted when point this out and try and bargain them down.

It happens here too.

There's a place with a 20D asking $1,299 - T1 for $499 (t3 new is that) lol.

but there's the occasional catch. Once sold a 28-135 for $250, walked across the parking lot, bought a new one for $85. Sold that one for another $250 tongue Bought an Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed AS for $400, 24-70L for $450ish, it happens occasionally.

Oct 14 12 04:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pacman829
Posts: 288
Boston, Massachusetts, US


-JAY- wrote:

You sure?

yea

Oct 14 12 05:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Tony Lawrence
Posts: 18,967
Chicago, Illinois, US


AJScalzitti wrote:

Sad but true, I think they are a hell of a lot of MkIII and D800 buyers who had to have these amazing new cameras so they could post 800-1000 pixel 72/dpi images.

Its the lens more then those bodies but I get it and if I had the dough might do the same.   Many times the improvements are so small its hard to see the difference.   Full frame beats crop sensors but again for hobby shooters like me make no real difference.   I also don't do the kind of high level retouch some do.   One of my friends makes fun of me.   He buys the best.   He has that really nice Macbook Pro.   I have a 13' Macbook.   I have some older laptops with the T42 and T60 I bought used and a ASUS and two more Ebay specials.   My resources are limited.   The key is his work though.   Its okay.   I asked if I could borrow his camera once and he remarked my work wouldn't be better because of it.

That crack aside he was right.   New photographers would do well buying older equipment and work up.   Rather then being overwhelmed by the pro level stuff that has features and a price tag to match.   Gotta say though.   I do wish I had the new Macbook Pro or a full frame DLSR.

Oct 14 12 05:10 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


pacman829 wrote:
yea

Challenge success. right is cheap gear.


And I think this cements the kind of thing I am trying to say.

pro with pro gear or cheap gear - in similar controlled environments, near similar results.

Me, somewhat experienced hobbyist - similar image quality from gear miles apart.

Newbie - will produce similar quality images regardless of gear choices


Everything of course within reason. Pro shooters won't get similar shots at a wedding with a rebel with 35-80. Certain pro gear will produce nicer images in some situations for the newbies... but the premise is the same.


Long live shitty gear! Use it. Love it. Once you hit a limit... then move on.

Oct 14 12 05:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
pacman829
Posts: 288
Boston, Massachusetts, US


lol
Oct 14 12 05:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Gaar
Posts: 843
Burton, Texas, US


Nice excercise and execution.   This thread would be well served to be given a permanent place in the EDU section.    Well done.
Oct 15 12 08:07 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
-JAY-
Posts: 6,192
Las Vegas, Nevada, US


David Gaar wrote:
Nice excercise and execution.   This thread would be well served to given a permanent place in the EDU section.    Well done.

Thanks smile

though if there were any kind of permanence, I'd send them out to a retoucher who knows how to retouch beauty tongue That doesnt fit in the budget though.

Oct 15 12 08:21 am  Link  Quote 
12last   Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers