login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > You must have a really great camera? Search   Reply
first123456last
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24,315
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US


uncle...

http://i.imgur.com/m8TQi.png
Feb 13 13 10:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Gary Melton
Posts: 6,394
Dallas, Texas, US


Equipment really does make a difference!

This pic was taken with a Fuji point and shoot:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8374/8471680564_b00b845a8a.jpg

The exact same shot taken with a Nikon D7000:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8232/8471679050_64e4350df1.jpg

...so there you have the documented proof!  smile

(Notice how much more detail there is in the mustache with the Nikon shot!)
Feb 13 13 10:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
K E E L I N G
Posts: 39,806
Peoria, Illinois, US


S W I N S K E Y wrote:
Anyway, you seem to fixated on the thought, that in order to grow, you need new better equipment..to expand your horizons...and that is, quite frankly bullshit...its an excuse not to grow.."i don"t have new equipment so i cant get any better"

At no point have I said anything even remotely resembling that.  I've simply said that better equipment allows you to do more under certain circumstances and that is another opportunity for growth.

Everything I know I learned with one of the old silver bodied original digital rebel's and a kit lens.  I still only have a 7d, so to say I don't think one can grow without good equipment is ludicrous and a misrepresentation of what I'm saying.  But I also think that growth is even more possible with the better opportunities that better equipment presents.

And I agree... uncle... I've got no desire to fall back into this trap of argueing with you over stupid shit like you've tried to do with me the last 5 years.

Feb 13 13 10:38 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
K E E L I N G
Posts: 39,806
Peoria, Illinois, US


Gary Melton wrote:
Equipment really does make a difference!

This pic was taken with a Fuji point and shoot:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8374/8471680564_b00b845a8a.jpg

The exact same shot taken with a Nikon D7000:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8232/8471679050_64e4350df1.jpg

...so there you have the documented proof!  smile

lol

Feb 13 13 10:39 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
Tampa, Florida, US


The only piece of equipment that has ever truly aided in my growth has been the revolutionary Pos-T-Vac.
Feb 13 13 10:49 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,145
Buena Park, California, US


Unless you're going to let me borrow your camera, no one likes a braggart.

big_smile
Feb 13 13 11:07 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Dave McDermott
Posts: 437
Coill Dubh, Kildare, Ireland


R Bruce Duncan wrote:
Check out this 19 year old who shoots better than 95% of the photographers on MM:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/1850535

Says who? That's a bit like saying Al Pacino is better that 95% of the actors out there. It's a matter of personal opinion.

Feb 13 13 01:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman van Gestel
Posts: 2,149
Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands


*sigh*

shot with a 40 year old camera with only manual buttons, with 45 year old technology ...

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/090111/05/4969f02de3a70.jpg


...and like that you can find samples of 100 year old camera's even wink

But what would be the best response to such a comment:

"Yeah I hate all those buttons, that's why i ask the shop keeper to put it all on manual"

"Yeah, I read the manual extremely well"

"Sure, but it comes without crank-wheel"

Herman
Feb 13 13 01:59 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5,310
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


Lens Criminal wrote:
Back in the early days of Boxing there were strobes placed above the ring in the lights. That's why there are so many awesome classic boxing images.
Without the strobes this would be a much different image...

Jon Macapodi wrote:
Were these triggered with steam powered Pocketwizards? wink

The early days of boxing must have been in the 1950’s. I believe Graflex invented the slave trigger. Their first couple of models were for flash bulbs. Their first one for strobes was about the size of a cigarette (a little shorter and larger in diameter) with a household plug (well, two prongs) sticking out of it. Ca. late 1950’s, I think.

Of course they were optical triggers - so the first guy to hit the shutter button got all the light.

I’m not sure what the mustachioed guys with slicked-down hair, black shorts, black “undershirts” and fists raised were doing in those earlier photos though.

Feb 13 13 02:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5,310
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:
The only piece of equipment that has ever truly aided in my growth has been the revolutionary Pos-T-Vac.

Instant telephoto lens?

Feb 13 13 02:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mcary
Posts: 1,803
Fredericksburg, Virginia, US


Camerosity wrote:
Of course they were optical triggers - so the first guy to hit the shutter button got all the light.

http://www.marcospaunero.com/blog/imagenes_blog/fotobuenaali.jpg

Seeing this version of the shot make me wonder if the strobes were hardwired and sync cords provided to a limited number of photographers like Liefer, that were covering the fight for major publications like SI.
Looks like cables/wire on the post on the right side of the scene.

Feb 13 13 03:08 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Mark Salo wrote:

I wish that I COULD update my body!

+ everything

Feb 13 13 03:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Jon Winkleman Photo
Posts: 100
New York, New York, US


You need a body that performs reliably for what you are shooting.
I would argue that great glass goes much further to creating a great image than a great body.

FYI the art directors at National Geographic and Italian Vanity Fair are quite happy with some of their staff photographers who have dropped their expensive Nikon/Canon DSLRs and are shooting with a smaller and cheaper but high quality micro four thirds kit.

I can show you some crappy photos made by rich hobbyists with a $7K Leica body and an $11K Leica Noctilux lens.

Skill and talent trumps gear.
Feb 13 13 03:30 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


MiGel wrote:
Boy, this image sucks!
It was shot with a crappy EOS 40D and a shitty Sigma 10-20!

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/090126/09/497deed82af62_m.jpg

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!

And just imagine how much better it would be if shot with a Mrk III and an L lens.

Sarcasm alert.

Feb 13 13 03:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


photo212grapher wrote:

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.

And many people should be buying off Craiglist.

And yes under certain conditions 36mp would make my life easier.
And under others I would prefer an 8x10 Deardorff.

Feb 13 13 03:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Hero Foto wrote:
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 ...

amateurs ...

Now I am hungry.

Damn you!

Feb 13 13 03:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Charger Photography
Posts: 1,720
San Antonio, Texas, US


taken with a D40X and kit lens 18-55 with a Vivitar 285H and ebay cactus trigger ..

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120804/16/501dadb8bd421.jpg
Feb 13 13 03:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Chuckarelei wrote:

Cheap slut is no match for high priced whore?

And he waits and waits. And then he cracks you up.

Feb 13 13 03:46 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, 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.

A great lens on a crappy body will almost always out perform, a crappy lens on a great body.

Feb 13 13 03:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Good Egg Productions wrote:

great.  Now I feel like quitting.  thanks.

Same here.

Feb 13 13 03:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Lone Pine Photography wrote:
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.

This is where the thread should have ended.

The rest is just having fun.

Feb 13 13 04:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Michael Clancey wrote:
Is there any cheese being served with all this wine? smile

Fix your spell check. You mean

Whine.

Feb 13 13 04:02 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


PhillipM wrote:
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..

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/060427/15/44512e98e1e66.jpg

Check my thread on Google search. This is one of the shots that appears under 'my images'.

Feb 13 13 04:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


RachelReilly wrote:
Stefano is on a troll roll today! wink

You noticed.

Not troll, I do not think.

Tired of seeing crap, and being very sarcastic.

Must be something going on over there, since he is the second Brit doing that.

This thread should have stopped about page 2. Now it is just having fun and wasting time.

Feb 13 13 04:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


SKITA Studios wrote:

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 :-)

Nope.

Ask any chef, it is the dull knives that are the most dangerous. Sharp knives require less force and are more controllable. Except a slip with a butter knife compared to a sharp knife.

Feb 13 13 04:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


PhillipM wrote:
Of course, one can only be a pro if they use ProFoto Lighting as well.

[snicker]

Finally the truth.

Feb 13 13 04:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 8,792
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada


Looknsee Photography wrote:
I appreciate two aspect of an image's quality:  the technical and the aesthetic.

Yes, you need a great camera to achieve top technical quality.

But I gotta tell ya:  I would vastly prefer to look at an aesthetically interesting image with modest technical quality than I would want to look at a technically superior but boring image from the best camera in the world.

Your technical skills & equipment need only be good enough to carry your aesthetic vision.

Long live cell phone images!!!

You have been hanging at Dewitt Jones site again?

Feb 13 13 04:22 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Eric Lefebvre
Posts: 508
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


HAd this happen to me at a wedding ... guy was shooting with a Rebel T1i and juit lens, swapped him his T1i for my 5DMkII, slapped my backup flash on there, switched it off full auto and shot a couple of shots.

The guy couldn't believe his camera could capture such good images ... then I corrected him again "It's not the camera, it's the guy using it.".

Handed the camera back and explained a few of the basics (was just people dancing and at the end of the night, all the important shots were done and was about to pack up for the night, so nothing pressing and I was keeping an eye on things).
Feb 13 13 05:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ChanStudio
Posts: 9,180
Alpharetta, Georgia, US


Everything being equal:  Photographer, lights, models, same settings etc.  Better camera (or film/digital sensor) do capture the image better.

Example:

  If two identical cameras using 6x7 film and one use cheap brand of film while the other camera use Fuji or Kodak Professional film at ISO 100.  The camera that has professional film in it do capture better result (cleaner, clearer, better tone etc).


  Same with Digital Camera.  Camera  (using same lens) with better technology (sensor) would capture better results.

  I prefer to use my D800 over my 5DII because of higher DR and better details.  If I need more details, I would go with MF that has 50MP+.

  However.. The person behind the camera play a major role in capturing the image.  A great photographer can capture great image from any camera but he/she would capture better result with better camera/equipment.
Feb 13 13 05:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Big A-Larger Than Life
Posts: 33,411
The Woodlands, Texas, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
when people are impressed by my kids I always answer that I have a really good penis smile

LMFAO!!!!!!!

Feb 13 13 05:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mcary
Posts: 1,803
Fredericksburg, Virginia, US


Charger Photography wrote:
taken with a D40X and kit lens 18-55 with a Vivitar 285H and ebay cactus trigger ..

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120804/16/501dadb8bd421.jpg

Very nice image!
But really all it shows is that in a control shooting situation using flash low ISO and a small aperture that its possible to get a good quality image with just about any camera out there.   

Fuji X100 P&S nice fairly even natural light, again not what one would consider a gear challenging shooting situation.
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/121118/09/50a920badc35a.jpg

My point being that while in a lot of situations the capabilities of the gear being used doesn't have much of an impact on the photographers ability to get the shot in some situations its most certainly does.
Again great shot!

Feb 13 13 07:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5,310
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


Camerosity wrote:
Of course they were optical triggers - so the first guy to hit the shutter button got all the light.

http://www.marcospaunero.com/blog/imagenes_blog/fotobuenaali.jpg

Mcary wrote:
Seeing this version of the shot make me wonder if the strobes were hardwired and sync cords provided to a limited number of photographers like Liefer, that were covering the fight for major publications like SI.
Looks like cables/wire on the post on the right side of the scene.

That’s very possible. By the time Cassius Clay (as he was known at the time) was in his prime, wireless triggers were fairly common – but I’m not at all sure that radio or infrared slaves were available by the time of this fight.

I used to have Liefer’s book, but I loaned it to someone years ago and never got it back. I don’t recall whether he covered things like arena lighting in it or not.

I believe Wein products (Wein was the first part of the owner/inventor’s last name – Harold Weinberg, I think) invented the first non-optical slave, which was infrared. He was also the inventor of Acufine, which allowed you to rate ASA/ISO 400 Tri-X film at 1200.

Sports venues would allow select photographers or their organizations (under the supervision of the stadium’s electrician) to place their own strobes. That’s still common practice.

Ralph Morse of LIFE magazine was the pioneer in lighting sports venues for photography. He (or electricians employed by the magazine) would light an area of the field with several dozen flash bulbs – the big ones with the screw-in, light bulb-style bases – for night football games.

Of course the flash bulbs were all hard-wired together and to the camera’s shutter. After each shot assistants would scurry around the stadium and replace the bulbs for the next shot.

Although almost all LIFE photographers were shooting 35mm by then, Morse’s weapon of choice was still the 4x5 Graphic.

When I was in high school in the 1960’s. I did most of the high sports photography for the Tulsa Tribune (which went the way of all afternoon newspapers years ago). At first I was shooting football with a 4x5 Graphic with a 6x9 rollfilm back and No. 5 flashbulbs. We’d prefocus on the hash marks – because there wasn’t enough light to shoot beyond them.

The guys at the morning paper had just gotten Mamiyaflexes and Stroboflash IV’s – the ones with the huge battery packs with two Eveready No. 489 batteries – 225 volts each. (I’ve still got one of the batteries sitting on top of a bookcase.) During a game one rainy night, the photographer for the World got the shock of his life, and it lasted 3-4 seconds. It was sight to behold.

Years later, when Woody was teaching college photography, when I ran into him I’d say “Dance!” He’d break out laughing.

Later that year I upgraded to a Rolleiflex 2.8C and a Honeywell 65C for basketball, wrestling, swimming, etc. – and added a Stroboflash IV for outdoor sports at night.

This is the stadium that six of Tulsa's eight high schools called home back then. (Two schools had their own fields.)

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/3899/skelly.jpg

Pretty damn nice for a high school field, if you ask me.

At least it provided a nice home field advantage when out-of-town teams came to play. The south end of the stadium (to the left) hadn't been enclosed back then.

High school games were played on Thursday and Friday nights. The University of Tulsa also used that field for home games. It's at the south end of the TU campus. After Friday games, the TU groundskeepers would swarm onto the field and get it in shape overnight for TU's Saturday games.

Bill Skelly of Skelly Oil (now part of Getty Petroleum) donated the stadium to the Tulsa Public Schools. After I left Tulsa, TU bought the stadium. Part of the purchase price was a new football field for each of the (by then) nine high schools in Tulsa.

Around the time I graduated from high school the Milwaukee Journal became the first metro daily newspaper to go to 35mm exclusively.

Shooting day football at the University of Oklahoma with a Nikon F and a 135mm lens was much easier. I bought a 400mm lens before a game with Notre Dame. Lenses didn’t have Internal Focusing back then – and there was no way to focus the 400mm fast enough to keep up with the play. So about ten minutes into the game I switched back to the 135mm.

Feb 13 13 10:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MKPhoto
Posts: 5,665
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Here is a guy who shoots with a D200 and 24-70 and claims no reason to upgrade the body:

http://www.absolutearts.com/cgi-bin/por … 40355t.jpg  34x22

http://pixels2point1.files.wordpress.co … ective.jpg 24x36
Feb 14 13 09:26 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DBIphotography Toronto
Posts: 3,224
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


I've got a D3 & a D700, but I occasionally last year would dust-off my old D90 and conduct a test-shoot with it as well as compare current-shots to my old D90-shots just to see if I was as good as my cameras, or the cameras as good as I am.

D3:

http://www.dbiphotography.com/img/s4/v63/p1150299012-3.jpg

D700:

http://www.dbiphotography.com/img/s8/v78/p1401092420-3.jpg

D90:

http://www.dbiphotography.com/img/s11/v29/p1179934078-3.jpg

EDIT: I just changed my avatar to an old D90-shot from 2011 as well wink
Feb 14 13 07:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Randy Henderson Images
Posts: 781
Springfield, Missouri, US


https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11092143/Ad7.jpg

Nikon D7000 and Sigma 10-20.  I shoot about 10 houses a week with this setup

I keep threatening to upgrade - full frame or expensive lens.  Then I think, "Why?"
Feb 16 13 10:43 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Andrew Somers
Posts: 1,032
Los Angeles, California, US


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.

Amazing?  the 50mm 1.8 is crap. It's sharp, but the bokeh is terrible. It's no where near "amazing. The 18-200 is similarly crippled. Bad bokeh.

The 18-70 though isn't too bad.

Feb 16 13 05:12 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,941
Richmond, Indiana, US


Images by MR wrote:

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

Keep in mind that updating the lens isn't always as important as updating the body.  Shooting an outdoor event with a Nikon D100 and  300 f/2.8 lens is a disadvantage compared to a 5D2 and 300 f/4 lens.

Shooting an indoor event with a D300 and 24-70 f/2.8 won't give you as much latitude compared to using a D4 and older 28-70 f/2.8.

Shooting portraits, glamour, fashion in a confined space (bathrooms, laundry rooms, etc.)  Do you choose the digital rebel with 17mm t/s or 1Dx mated to a 16-35?

Furthermore lenses aren't forever by any scope of the imagination, however a premium lens generally has considerable longevity over a (digital) camera body.

Which is more important (camera body or lens) is totally dependent on the photographer's mission, work, or aspirations.  wink

Best in photography to everyne

Feb 18 13 04:27 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Teila K Day Photography
Posts: 1,941
Richmond, Indiana, US


Randy Henderson Images wrote:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11092143/Ad7.jpg

Nikon D7000 and Sigma 10-20.  I shoot about 10 houses a week with this setup

I keep threatening to upgrade - full frame or expensive lens.  Then I think, "Why?"

... It's refreshing to see a home interior where the furniture and fixers aren't "glowing" with unrealistic fruity colours that do not collectively exist in nature.  I wish brokers would ban cartoon-looking-HDR from professional real estate.

Feb 18 13 04:48 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DBIphotography Toronto
Posts: 3,224
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Andrew Somers wrote:
Amazing?  the 50mm 1.8 is crap. It's sharp, but the bokeh is terrible. It's no where near "amazing. The 18-200 is similarly crippled. Bad bokeh

+1

It was the first lens I bought after I bought my 2nd body (D90) and wanted more than a kit-lens. It was great - then - because it was so much sharper and faster than my POS kit-lens! Til I started buying *real lenses, and never used it anymore. So, I sold it shortly thereafter. I came across a used 50 1.4 D for under $300, so bought it for shits & giggles. For the sole reason being to see if it could revive my D90 into occasional use. Then, I got a smoking deal on a used D700 w/grip & extra battery, so it became my new backup to my D3. The 50mm is SO junk on a FF body for most things, one of those things being model/people-photography! You can *really see the shittiness on a FF body compared to a better lens - like one of my f/2.8 lenses with 9 blades and longer focal lengths! Gahhhh...........

Feb 18 13 09:31 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
tunretni
Posts: 22
Denver, Colorado, US


" that's why investing in good glass is better than updating your body"

Investing in good lights can be more important than investing in good glass.

(I'm not saying glass isn't important)
Feb 19 13 03:03 pm  Link  Quote 
first123456last   Search   Reply