I just have to mention the secret that Ken Marcus told me around 1982 as to how he achieved that great look in the 'Playboy' images, using a used black nylon stocking over the lens. Hmm, wonder if he used a high end stocking? I'm not sure that the lens behind that stocking was all that critical.
He also used 'Polaroids' for his test shots. 8x11" Polaroids, though.
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 have done this. Exact same light setup, exact same lens, same expsoure. D700 vs D800. The increase in dynamic range is absolutely visible, and I found myself having to do far more work to remove more of the background hallway in those white doorway shots I do with the D800. The D700 just didn't pick it up.
I am also consistently blown away when doing a beauty shot and I'm zoomed in to see the flecks in the iris and pores in the skin..... and then realize I'm still only at 50% zoom.
So while I did notice a definite quality difference when going from a D700 to the D800, I can't say that people SHOULD do that for only that reason. I did it for the video also.
DAN CRUIKSHANK
Posts: 1,646
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
R Michael Walker wrote:
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.
Last week I took my 20D to Chicago Art institute , only lens the 50mm 1.4 despite been 4 years in the camera bug the results was very impressive. Kind off thrilled getting back with.
A high MP camera like the 800e is meant for big prints, that's why I got it.
A lower end camera will not produce the detail and size I look for.
If I was only shooting portfolio and magazine type stuff I could have stuck with my 300s... but I want a 12 foot print hanging on my wall.
Dan Brady
Posts: 557
Perth, Western Australia, Australia
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.
oh yea I agree. I went from d300 to d800. it made a huge difference to my out of camera images, not to mention how much more I could get out of editing them.
But I can still take some really awful pics with the d800 if I try hard enough
not sure about you guys but a 19 year old girl that flaunts the fact she has an old body, lens that won't AF, and works for so many outfits just screams of trolling. either that or she sells herself so hard nobody cares what she shoots with.
YZF Jeff wrote: not sure about you guys but a 19 year old girl that flaunts the fact she has an old body, lens that won't AF, and works for so many outfits just screams of trolling. either that or she sells herself so hard nobody cares what she shoots with.
Nah, I'm sure it's because she's gotten plenty of grief from nay-sayers for being 19, a girl, and for using crappy gear.
It's truly not the about the equipment ... it's about familiarity and knowing how to get the most out of it.
Case in point ... I was in Cali the 1st of the month and got to shoot with Keira. I had been dying to shoot the Canon 5D Mark III. So I left my 60D at home and rented the big boy and used my fav prime lens 85mm f1.8 and 35mm f1.4L.
Long story short it was a frustrating experience at times to say the least. The 5D was heavy ... esp with the 35L on it and complicated. We got some nice images (took a couple thousand) but I spent way to much time learning the camera ... things that the 60D did so simply were complicated on the 5D M3 I was glad I was shooting Keira (she is such a sweetheart and great collaborator), and not a TF model. Side note shooting pro models really helps when you are trying out new equipment ... a amateur would have started bugging and stressed me out and the whole shoot would have been a bust
Will I shoot with it again? Yes, but I am not ready to drop $3000+ on one any time soon either ... I'll rent it and learn. I still may not upgrade because there are things you can with the 60D that you can't do with the 5D M3 ... for real e.g., that hated pop up flash was sorely missed in low light situations (for fill light and focusing help) the high ISO bah bah didn't allow me to do some things I easily do with the 60D. The 5D requires acquiring new skills and additional equipment i.e. a good dedicated flash for one You will def have to up your game ... high school vs the NBA
Here is the results:
5d M3 /35mm f1.4L (probably not the best one I took with it but the one I posted so far)
Nah, I'm sure it's because she's gotten plenty of grief from nay-sayers for being 19, a girl, and for using crappy gear.
Her work kicks ass. Hard.
those pics could have been taken with any gear from ten years ago or even older. i'm not buying into the gimmick, sorry. if a guy in BFE with a 1Dx took those same photos i wouldn't give him any extra credit. are they good? yes. still not buying the gimmick about lame gear.
A body and a lens are tools. Having a tool doesn't make you adept in the use of it, but an artist with better tools/brushes/chisels/camera gear can better realize the artistic vision they are trying to create.
I'm not going to offer critique on another photographer's work, but she does seem to see light, which is something most photographers can't do. If she had better gear, the dynamic range of her shots would be better.
I still wouldn't say 95% of photographers on here are worse, though I don't peruse crappy ports... And if she were working for those organizations as a photographer, she'd be gifted with better gear, at least during those shoots.
Lone Pine Photography wrote: I still wouldn't say 95% of photographers on here are worse, though I don't peruse crappy ports... And if she were working for those organizations as a photographer, she'd be gifted with better gear, at least during those shoots.
Mmm, no, I would disagree. Her work is easily better than 95% of the stuff I see on this site.
You also clearly have no idea how agency work goes. I do paid tests with a point and shoot. They don't give a damn what you use.
Geez...this is one of THE lamest arguments that constantly pops up on MM!
YES - talent/ability is more important than gear, however: the simple truth is that if you take 10 photographers all at different levels of expertise/experience, give them each a D50 and a D800 and a week or 2 to familliarize themselves with each camera - they will ALL be able to take better photos with the D800 than with the D50.
Better gear DOES make a difference, but neither the OP nor anyone else here is saying that gear can TAKE THE PLACE OF ABILITY - he (and most everyone else) is just saying that better gear HELPS...not saying that it's NECESSARY nor is anyone saying that equipment TRUMPS ability!
There are some arguments here that I just get tired of hearing - escorts, paying models, hand bras/angel wings, etc...but some arguments - like this one - simply have no reason to ever take up webpage space on MM.
A decent shot that I'm fond of, and have a 20x24 hanging in the studio of it. What was this shot with? No fair peeking at any EXIF data if it's there..
Having a team and agency or agency standard models makes a big difference!
That 19 year old has access to fantastic models, and MUAs, designers and the whole shabam.
her ideas and visions or the collaborative teams ideas is what makes the images great, clearly not her equipment!
Hero Foto wrote: I call BULLSHIT on the claims she's using a battered-down Nikon D40 with a lens that doesnt focus.. a disposable camera, and my cell phone.:
first image from her site:
Canon EOS 7D
and a dozen more on her site randomly chosen from different sections:
Hero Foto wrote: I call BULLSHIT on the claims she's using a battered-down Nikon D40 with a lens that doesnt focus.. a disposable camera, and my cell phone.:
first image from her site:
Canon EOS 7D
The 7D is a child's toy - a poxy APS-C sensor, only 18mp...
Anybody who uses one and calls themselves a serious photographer should be ashamed!
SKITA Studios
Posts: 1,321
Boston, Massachusetts, US
Good Egg Productions wrote: I am also consistently blown away when doing a beauty shot and I'm zoomed in to see the flecks in the iris and pores in the skin..... and then realize I'm still only at 50% zoom.
And then you realize you have to fix all the extra imperfections you see because it's beauty shot :-P
Even at 14MP, I sometimes regret zooming in so close, but that's what beauty shots are...
p.s., sharp japanese knives make better chefs...until you cut off part of a finger and bleed everywhere :-)
but I spent way to much time learning the camera ... things that the 60D did so simply were complicated on the 5D M3 
I was glad I was shooting Keira (she is such a sweetheart and great collaborator), and not a TF model. Side note shooting pro models really helps when you are trying out new equipment ... a amateur would have started bugging and stressed me out and the whole shoot would have been a bust 
| 
| 
| edu