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.
The Bottom line is equipment will not make the image but good equipment can make you better if you are already good.
Dan K Photography wrote: what would be interesting is if next time you shoot with your old set up as well and we can see what the same shot with both setups would look like.
I should have done that. I had my D7000 there with me as a back up. But I was pressed for time with a MUA and Hair Styist on the clock and running behind.
There's no doubt that gear matters. I have a D7000 and when I rent a pro lens like the 24-70 or 70-200 it's a world of difference.
The images are literally night and day. Oh I should mention that I normally shoot with the kit 18-70, a 50mm 1.8 which everyone knows is amazing and I have an 18-200 which is decent as well.
CastModels wrote: great chefs are only where they are today because of a quality stove
But in their work they're typically using high-end equipment/tools to perform their craft. They're not using $5.00 grocery store pans, just so they can tout how "It's not the tool it's the chef". They respect what top of the line tools have to offer in the process of delivering the best they are capable of.
Images by MR
Posts: 6,126
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Aaron Lewis Photography wrote: There's no doubt that gear matters. I have a D7000 and when I rent a pro lens like the 24-70 or 70-200 it's a world of difference.
The images are literally night and day. Oh I should mention that I normally shoot with the kit 18-70, a 50mm 1.8 which everyone knows is amazing and I have an 18-200 which is decent as well.
It's because of the lens... that's why investing in good glass is better then updating your body
CastModels wrote: great chefs are only where they are today because of a quality stove
Have you ever cooked with cheap pots and pans and then cooked with high end pots and pans? It really does make a difference for those who know how to cook. Just like golf and photography.
If you give a golfer who sucks with cheap clubs, he'll still suck with expensive ones. If you give a great photographer a cheap camera, they'll still be great photographer. With a great camera, however, they'll be even better. By the way, really good pots and pans cook food more evenly and maintains a constant temperature throughout its surface. It's a wold of difference than cooking with cheap pots and pans. :-)
Aaron Lewis Photography wrote: Exactly, that was my point. I know the thread is more about the camera but my point was high end gear in general makes a huge difference.
That was my point also... It had $2K lens on it. One of the Nikon Holy Trinity.
All I know is I'm hooked I want this exact setup permanently!
As far as the Chefs and cooking... Have you ever watched TOP Chef and see how much changing equipment throws most Chefs game off?
i dont you will ever realize the advantage of a 36mp sensor and ed glass on a computer screen...you would only see that benefit in a fairly large print.
S W I N S K E Y wrote: i dont you will ever realize the advantage of a 36mp sensor and ed glass on a computer screen...you would only see that benefit in a fairly large print.
That's exactly what I want it for large prints but yes I did see the difference on the screen looking at the full sized 36mp also in the images straight from the camera and into light room.
MiGel wrote: Boy, this image sucks!
It was shot with a crappy EOS 40D and a shitty Sigma 10-20!
Thank god it's the light, models, perspective, theme, pov, clothes, location and make up that barely save it from being put in the bin immediately!
No one is saying that you can't make great images with low end equipment. My most commented and some of my best images were shot on a D70 with a kit lens. But to be fair you left out of your list the post work in photoshop which is what really makes that image you are showing.
You have a great camera. Yes good gear helps. However, most people wouldn't know what to do with good gear and would be better off using a point and shoot.
The chef comment still stands.
I prefer the retort:
"Your favorite author (fill in the blank) must have a great typewriter/work processor."
HHPhoto wrote: You have a great camera. Yes good gear helps. However, most people wouldn't know what to do with good gear and would be better off using a point and shoot.
The chef comment still stands.
I prefer the retort:
"Your favorite author (fill in the blank) must have a great typewriter/work processor."
I agree. Learn to push the limits of your gear and then upgrade as needed.
Nico Simon Princely wrote: No one is saying that you can't make great images with low end equipment. My most commented and some of my best images were shot on a D70 with a kit lens. But to be fair you left out of your list the post work in photoshop which is what really makes that image you are showing.
You think so? I don't. It's the things I mentioned.
Here is the image right out of the raw converter (+watermarks):
My point is: If the image is striking, nobody really cares what equipment you used.
Does good equipment help? Yes. Does it need to be "the best"? No. Do 36 MP make the image? No. Not at all.
P.S.: I have a fairly large print of this image here on my wall. Looking totally fine.
Made the test, let a photographer guess which of my images came out of which camera (some are from a 1Ds III). He couldn't find out.
Back in my photojournalism days I was talking to a colleague when an amateur photographer walked up, pointed at my friends top of the line camera, and said something about how he must be able to take awesome photos with that camera.
My friend looked at the amateurs entry level camera, and said "I'll trade you for 30 minutes and I'll bet I can take good photos with that one too."
The amateur declined to take the bet.
Side note: At least as photojournalists, we used top of the line cameras mostly because of durability under 6-day a week abuse. I ran tens of thousands of frames through my old Nikon FTn and it still worked even when most of the finish was worn to brass and it had been dropped twice. They were tools, and they had to perform. Good lenses helped too, but we would have found a way to get the shot even if forced to use something of lesser quality and cost.
It's just another tool in the tool box. I love my D800 however there are times I reach for the D700 or even the D300 since they would do the job better.
Nico Simon Princely wrote: 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.
You've just contradicted yourself.
You start out thanking what kind of camera equipment you used but then you allude to it being straight out of the camera. So what your saying its not your camera equipment you should be thanking but your knowledge of the lighting & how you executed it.
HHPhoto wrote: You have a great camera. Yes good gear helps. However, most people wouldn't know what to do with good gear and would be better off using a point and shoot.
The chef comment still stands.
I prefer the retort:
"Your favorite author (fill in the blank) must have a great typewriter/work processor."
I prefer the old school thought "Nice pen, bet you write good stories with it."
It was also really nice having 36mp to work with I can see all kinds of great cropping coming from the images I shot.
--snip
Great equipment does give you additional options that the lesser stuff cannot. The OP can make several different croppings of the same image to give different looks. At 36mp, his original image could be cropped to a great headshot or a full figure.
It is the reason we all keep buying new camera bodies. If it were not partly equipment (and knowing how to use them), we'd be buying 5-10 year old DSLRs off Craigslist for a fraction of the cost.
Im certain that those locally sourced ingredients and seafood had absolutely nothing to do with that fabulous meal ... it was all that equipment ... no way that meal could have been prepared with some leaves on some coals in a fire right on the beach ... with a pocket knife and possibly some hot rocks w/ sea salt made right there on the beach from boiled off sea water ...
As a personal challenge, I bought a point and shoot, small sensor Fuji X10 last year and committed to constraining myself and shooting my personal work with it (I otherwise shoot with a D800 and D3 for work). I'm at the point now where I will frequently use it for paid work, as long as creative goals and output requirements aren't compromised by it's inherent limitations.
What I've learned with my little experiment is that a lot of photographers (including myself) are seriously over-equipped for what they shoot. It's kinda halted my gear acquisition syndrome. I still love my D800 and primes of course... but carrying only an X10 in your pocket on the subway on your way to a shoot instead of a roller full of glass and camera is just so damn cool. It's given me an even greater sense of confidence in my creative flexibility.
Gear is awesome, but 9 times out of 10, it's the person behind it who's the bottleneck in creating better images.
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.
The Bottom line is equipment will not make the image but good equipment can make you better if you are already good.
Yea, I'd love to see the comparison of this same photo taken on a disposable 35mm rite aid camera...
Jon Macapodi wrote: As a personal challenge, I bought a point and shoot, small sensor Fuji X10 last year and committed to constraining myself and shooting my personal work with it (I otherwise shoot with a D800 and D3 for work). I'm at the point now where I will frequently use it for paid work, as long as creative goals and output requirements aren't compromised by it's inherent limitations.
What I've learned with my little experiment is that a lot of photographers (including myself) are seriously over-equipped for what they shoot. It's kinda halted my gear acquisition syndrome. I still love my D800 and primes of course... but carrying only an X10 in your pocket on the subway on your way to a shoot instead of a roller full of glass and camera is just so damn cool. It's given me an even greater sense of confidence in my creative flexibility.
Gear is awesome, but 9 times out of 10, it's the person behind it who's the bottleneck in creating better images.
It's because of the lens... that's why investing in good glass is better then updating your body
NOPE..you need both in the digital world. I MIGHT say the lens is most important (Aside from the Nikon D800) but a crappy body with a great lens is going to hold you back. Not that a crappy lens on a great body is a good scenario either. You need both. And then some talent to use the great gear to your advantage.
the more you expect from your body and lens the more you have to pay for the results.
if you take shots that require less from the body and lens, you can get great results for less money.
if you take shots that require 1/1000 at f/1.4 at ISO 12800, you just might have to spend more money to get that shot, or you are simply limited to a lesser quality shot.
back in reality, sharp primes and even good zooms can be had at reasonable prices, bodies have been 'good enough' for some time now, and you can always add light with flash to keep your ISO down. or just shoot in more light than sunset.
from my perspective the only reason to pay more is for the ability to shoot lower noise low light photos, and even then everything is a compromise. If you shoot f/1.4 your depth of field is shallow, if you shoot ISO 51200 you lose dynamic range and add noise, and if you shoot too slow a shutter speed you add motion blur. not to mention AF performance in negative EV situations and lens/AF combo's that hunt for focus.
so yeah in reality there's hardly an excuse not to get good results with relatively inexpensive gear in ideal situations. that's where the guy behind the camera becomes the ONLY variable.
| 
| 
| edu