# The 'right' equipment



## The_Traveler (Jan 26, 2014)

There was an extended discussion, now closed, about the 'right' equipment for a specific situation.

My belief and experience is that, once the equipment is above a certain threshold of capability, that the photographer is much, much, much more important than any lens or body. (every time I read this sentence I felt constrained to add another 'much') 

Yes, you can always find situations where extreme capability makes better images but that's not the point. 
A photographer works with what he/she has in hand. 
The better the mind that drives the finger that presses the button, the better the result.

There is a photographer who posts here who purposefully works with simple equipment and matches his shots to the capabilities of his equipment *( http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-gallery/350562-tarp-pile.html )
*
Here is *another example*. taken with a P&S, hand-held, f3.5, 1/20 inside the Opera House in Paris.  
A photographer uses what he/she has.


----------



## wyogirl (Jan 26, 2014)

Thanks Lew.  I didn't participate in the other thread, and I was starting to get a complex about my equipment.  This reminded me that when I had a point and shoot, I took a great shot of a flower and had it enlarged to 16x20 to hang on my wall.  I had so many people wanting to know where I bought that picture because they had no idea that I had taken it.  And it was taken with a (nice) point and shoot camera.

I still want to upgrade my equipment, but not because someone might think its cheap.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 26, 2014)

Well said Lew, This idea goes back to the masters before multipoint focus, built in exposure meters and even roll film. 
The equipment doesn't make a photographer. It's the vision and skill of the person looking through the viewfinder or ground glass.


----------



## limr (Jan 26, 2014)

I didn't participate in that other thread either because I wouldn't even know the difference between one Nikon or Canon DSLR vs another. Really, if my life depended on it, I'd be six feet under. I also couldn't find a way to describe how so very little I care. Why would or should I? The pictures are probably going to be processed to hell anyway, so isn't the software editing program just as important as the gear or skills with that gear?

And no, I'm not really arguing that it is, but it certainly points to the fact that there are many factors that go into a good picture other than the gear, so who the hell cares what other people are using?


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 26, 2014)

I've seen some amazing images that have been taken with equipment which would never be confused as being "professional".

The most important factor will be, and always has been, the photographer. Period. You can put a 1D Mk-Whatever into the hands of someone who knows nothing of light and composition, and you're probably going to get a bad photograph (I'm allowing for chance). Put a Digital Rebel into the hands of an experienced professional, and you're going to get professional results...


----------



## Overread (Jan 26, 2014)

The attempt to separate photographer, art, equipment, situation, subject, lighting into some kind of order or priority list is nearly always flawed. There will always be examples where one of those factors overruled the other and similar examples where a similar result was possible through a different combination of factors. 

You'll never get an end to the argument. 


Personally half the time this comes up I get the feeling that its partly fuelled by a desire to ensure that the person remains important next to the march of technology and is often argued most strongly by those who are most afraid and least experienced in more advanced cameras.


In the end get the best you can afford - use it with the best knowledge you can gather together and off you go.


----------



## limr (Jan 26, 2014)

Overread said:


> *You'll never get an end to the argument. *
> 
> *In the end get the best you can afford - use it with the best knowledge you can gather together and off you go.*



Amen!


----------



## bribrius (Jan 26, 2014)

limr said:


> I didn't participate in that other thread either because I wouldn't even know the difference between one Nikon or Canon DSLR vs another. Really, if my life depended on it, I'd be six feet under. I also couldn't find a way to describe how so very little I care. Why would or should I? The pictures are probably going to be processed to hell anyway, so isn't the software editing program just as important as the gear or skills with that gear?
> 
> And no, I'm not really arguing that it is, but it certainly points to the fact that there are many factors that go into a good picture other than the gear, so who the hell cares what other people are using?


That is up to the person taking the photograph. you can avoid processing, which is a huge crutch as you know when you hit the shutter you are allowed a lower bar because you can process it. you can avoid, taking mulitiple photgraphs, guessing at settings, because it is digital and doesn't cost anything to take a lot of photos. And you can avoid the auto or scene modes, and make yourself use the manual.
i use auto and scene, then switch to manual. And test myself to see if i can make a far better photo than the auto setting. i am kind of getting stuck with post processing to some extent though. As i keep hitting the limits of what i can expect from the camera i normally use. It is hard to tell, if someone knows what they are really doing from looking at a picture they took. It is hard to tell how much of it they did, and how much of it was technology.
Me personally, i want to be good enough to walk outside, look at the light, look at what im wanting to take a picture of. Manually adjust my camera and almost hit it dead on the first try. im not their yet. so im taking some pretty crappy photos sometimes. But i am really stuck on HOW i take a photo not so much what it comes out like...


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 26, 2014)

Overread said:


> In the end get the best you can afford - use it with the best knowledge you can gather together and off you go.



The lens is the one piece of equipment that can never be argued when it comes to equipment. You can have $3,000.00 camera and years of experience, but if you strap a 3rd rate lens on it, none of that matters.


----------



## BobSaget (Jan 26, 2014)

Good post.  I think a lot of high end equipment and the way it is used is overkill.  In terms of image quaility, an old body with a 6mp sensor with a kit lens is more than enough for web publishing and 8x10 prints.  
Some of us, fall prey to marketing that makes us feel that what we have is inadequate and we move up to pro equipment.  a "beginner's" DSLR is kind of an oxymoron. Sure they are good for a novice, but that doesn't mean that if you are "Advanced" you have no use for it. Also,  why does my "Semi-Pro" body have a green mode on it?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> That is up to the person taking the photograph. you can avoid processing, which is a huge crutch as you know when you hit the shutter you are allowed a lower bar because you can process it. you can avoid, taking mulitiple photgraphs, guessing at settings, because it is digital and doesn't cost anything to take a lot of photos. And you can avoid the auto or scene modes, and make yourself use the manual.
> i use auto and scene, then switch to manual. And test myself to see if i can make a far better photo than the auto setting. i am kind of getting stuck with post processing to some extent though. As i keep hitting the limits of what i can expect from the camera i normally use. It is hard to tell, if someone knows what they are really doing from looking at a picture they took. It is hard to tell how much of it they did, and how much of it was technology.
> Me personally, i want to be good enough to walk outside, look at the light, look at what im wanting to take a picture of. Manually adjust my camera and almost hit it dead on the first try. im not their yet. so im taking some pretty crappy photos sometimes. But i am really stuck on HOW i take a photo not so much what it comes out like...



I don't care if something is a 'crutch'; hurrah for auto-focus, hurrah for auto-exposure settings, hurrah for zoom lenses, hurrah for post-processing.
Doing something without these or other helping hands to prove my macho-ness means absolutely nothing to me.

I use whatever I have to get the results I want. 
If the lighting was perfect for the results, great.
If not, I'll do whatever I have to do that I couldn't do with the camera.

The only thing that counts for me is the final picture, the only thing.


----------



## limr (Jan 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't participate in that other thread either because I wouldn't even know the difference between one Nikon or Canon DSLR vs another. Really, if my life depended on it, I'd be six feet under. I also couldn't find a way to describe how so very little I care. Why would or should I? The pictures are probably going to be processed to hell anyway, so isn't the software editing program just as important as the gear or skills with that gear?
> ...


I agree, the auto settings on the camera do certainly muddy the waters and make it difficult to know how where the credit/blame goes: camera, human, software. This is why it's something of an exercise in futility to separate the factors and try to put them into a hierarchy of importance.



bribrius said:


> Me personally, i want to be good enough to walk outside, look at the light, look at what im wanting to take a picture of. Manually adjust my camera and almost hit it dead on the first try. im not their yet. so im taking some pretty crappy photos sometimes. But i am really stuck on HOW i take a photo not so much what it comes out like...



Preaching to the choir here. I shoot film almost exclusively so I don't really have the luxury to shoot ten, twenty, thirty frames of the same thing until I get it right. Well, if I had an unlimited budget to buy film, then I could... But I always try to get it as right as I can in the camera, not only because that's what I like to do, but I also know that I'm limited in what kind of post-processing I can do. Plus, I'm just very very stubborn and don't like to rely on technology to get my shot.  Sure, I'll use a light meter when the light is tricky, and I'm starting to experiment with aperture-priority shooting (with the one camera I have that allows that), but I want to know that if my light meter or battery sh*ts the bed, that I can still get a good shot.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 26, 2014)

Take a day's worth of photos using an 18-55 f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom on a crop-frame consumer body.

Take a day's worth of photos using high-end Canon or Nikon glass on a full-frame body.

It becomes clear just by looking at the images which were shot with run-of-the mill, pedestrian, or "normal" equipment, and which photos were made with high-end or exotic lenses.

A really simple comparison: use a crop-frame, consumer-level camera with a slow kit zoom that tops out at f/5.6 at 135mm, and then shoot the same picture set using the Canon 135mm f/2-L prime lens on a 5D Mark III. I can guarantee you that even a moderately-talented hack can set the 135 f/2 L to f/2.8 an make photo after photo after photo that simply can.not.be. made with the kit zoom.

Your idea is good, insofar as it goes, but it skips over the idea of "professional photos" which *look*, and which *appear*, immediately, to be of the highest quality, and clearly visually-differentiated from the photos that "regular people" can make with the kind of equipment they own.

Compare soccer or football photos made with a 55-200mm f/4.5~5.6 consumer lens with those made with a 300mm or 400mm f/2.8 lens. Visually, there is a clear, obvious, and substantial difference between the "amateur-level" optics and the "exotic" high-speed long tele images.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 26, 2014)

limr said:


> but I want to know that if my light meter or battery sh*ts the bed, that I can still get a good shot.



I understood everything up to this point.

Could you, would you explain why you would want a picture of a bed in that condition?


----------



## bribrius (Jan 26, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > That is up to the person taking the photograph. you can avoid processing, which is a huge crutch as you know when you hit the shutter you are allowed a lower bar because you can process it. you can avoid, taking mulitiple photgraphs, guessing at settings, because it is digital and doesn't cost anything to take a lot of photos. And you can avoid the auto or scene modes, and make yourself use the manual.
> ...


we all have different ways of thinking. And do this for different reasons. No one way is right. if the final picture was all that was important to me, i wouldn't even bother with a camera i could just go buy a photo somewhere. If i really had to SELL photos, as a business, i couldn't afford the luxury perhaps to think this way. But i don't need the money, so don't really have to make money doing this. A luxury for me.  But part of the reason, i even do this, is to see if I can do it. Its a challenge and learning a little never hurt anybody. It is a personal thing for me. I mean, if it was just about the photo, i would just go buy a photo. It is more about personal enjoyment. A little bit of peace.
kind of like, buying light room or a better program for post processing, which i still haven't done even though it has been recommended numerous times on here. why? Because i really don't care if people like my photos or not i guess. im not out to process or impress anybody. so maybe ill get a new program, in due time. The OPPOSITE of machoness. More of, nothing to prove and not concerned.... :thumbup:
im going to take a few photos, hang a few on my walls (kind of like it did when started painting) even if they kind of suck. Give some away, take some of others to help them out if they want. Might even sell some. who knows. im not really that worried about it...


----------



## bribrius (Jan 26, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Take a day's worth of photos using an 18-55 f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom on a crop-frame consumer body.
> 
> Take a day's worth of photos using high-end Canon or Nikon glass on a full-frame body.
> 
> ...



i have to agree with this too. There is only so far consumer gear will get you. And it doesn't matter how good you are the photo you are trying to do is going to suck.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 26, 2014)

Overread said:


> The attempt to separate photographer, art, equipment, situation, subject, lighting into some kind of order or priority list is nearly always flawed. There will always be examples where one of those factors overruled the other and similar examples where a similar result was possible through a different combination of factors.
> 
> You'll never get an end to the argument.
> 
> ...


person is only important far as work they do for themselves. The photographer, is going to become extinct. A unnecessary addition to the process. They can find a robot or a monkey that can hit a button. i actually, have thought this for a while, but i didn't want to upset anyone. But photography is on its way out. Photographers, becoming unnecessary. What is now, is image processors, and finding a robot to push the button as a monkey might run off with the processing box.
so when you go out and hit your auto button, then run it through auto quick adjust or whatever. you are basically filling in for that robot until they get him up and functioning..
photos and pictures are a dime a dozen too.... The easier photography became, the more people took them, the more photos spread around, the less value a photograph has. Because everyone is doing it, because anyone can push a button.
How many cameras are in the world? Maybe a billion?


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> And it doesn't matter how good you are the photo you are trying to do is going to suck.



This statement essentially tells everyone here that, regardless of their talent or skill, anything taken with consumer level gear is going to suck.
I thinks that's a bit silly and disregards two things, talent and the fact that even the basic gear we use now is better than anything that was available 10 years ago.

These pictures were taken with a Nikon D70 and an 18-70 lens in 2005, certainly consumer gear.  My first dSLR gear and I basically didn't know anything.
They may not be terrific Prix de France material but they surely don't suck because the gear was horrible.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 26, 2014)

True. And you could take those with a cellphone now.. But they aren't night, low light action or distance shots.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> True. And you could take those with a cellphone now.. But they aren't night, low light action or distance shots.



Most photos aren't...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> True. And you could take those with a cellphone now.. But they aren't night, low light action or distance shots.



Of course, but if I wasn't going into those far reaches and was just, for the sake of argument, taking pictures of a high school soccer team standing in a pose on the bleachers at 4 pm and the pictures were mostly going to be printed at 4 x 6 with the very occasional 8x10, then it would be crazy to buy a D3 or D800 and use that.

It's the photographer that counts.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 26, 2014)

Put the world's best photographer with a Nikon D3000 and an 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom on a beach shooting surfers 40 to 50 yards offshore. Most of the photos will look like crap. There will be no "action shots", only distant, overall, faraway looks at a big scene, with little specs that are surfers, if you look really closely.

Give the same guy the SAME camera body and the Nikkor 600mm f/4 AF-S and a gimbal head and tripod and he'll rack up hundreds of good action shots in a day.

There actually **is** such a thing as "the right equipment".

Mavericks surf contest photos - Google Search


----------



## bribrius (Jan 26, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > True. And you could take those with a cellphone now.. But they aren't night, low light action or distance shots.
> ...


seems like most of mine are though....



The_Traveler said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > True. And you could take those with a cellphone now.. But they aren't night, low light action or distance shots.
> ...


i cant argue with this. i wouldn't buy a d3 for JUST soccer pictures either.



Derrel said:


> Put the world's best photographer with a Nikon D3000 and an 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom on a beach shooting surfers 40 to 50 yards offshore. Most of the photos will look like crap. There will be no "action shots", only distant, overall, faraway looks at a big scene, with little specs that are surfers, if you look really closely.
> 
> Give the same guy the SAME camera body and the Nikkor 600mm f/4 AF-S and a gimbal head and tripod and he'll rack up hundreds of good action shots in a day.
> 
> ...


exactly.......


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 26, 2014)

That's an extreme example and doesn't prove anything, except for those examples.
One gets the equipment for the work being done and being a great camera/lens combination doesn't mean crap except for the situations that need it.
It wouldn't work for macros, real estate or street photography or many other niches.

This is a silly thread and I'm sorry I started it.
People who are essentially pixel peepers will get all wet over having the best equipment.
People who are insecure about their abilities will use the equipment to boost themselves.

Who gives a crap about equipment except if it doesn't do what you want it to?
It's ancillary to the important process which is making great photographs.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 26, 2014)

Now, the youth soccer team photos in daylight using electronic flash....okay...that's one situation. I remember a situation years ago, watching one of my ex-wife's cousins get married at a Seattle-area hotel. It was a beautiful, sunny summer's day. The hired photographer had a Pentax 6x7 120 rollfilm SLR, which is a camera that, with its normal in-body focal plane shutter has a top X-synch speed of 1/30 second. I KNEW, as I watched him shoot, that the photos would look like crap. And you know what? ALL of the outdoor flash stuff looked like utter crap because the camera was UNABLE to shoot anything except f/16 at 1/30 second with ISO 160 VPS film in the camera, and all the backgrounds on the formals were like 3 to 4 stops over-exposed. Even on wide DR color neg film like VPS, the outdoor formals looked VERY shoddy. My wife's cousin and his bride were extremely disappointed in the pictures they payed for.

Fast forward maybe five years, to Sabrina and Bill's wedding at the Governor Hotel Ballroom in downtown Portland,Oregon. The hired pro was using a Mamiya RB 67. I watched as he SAT THERE, on the sidelines, during the reception and dancing, too tired and too downtrodden to lug that massive, awkward camera around to capture basically "any" candids in the dimly-lighted ballroom.Governor Hotel ballroom + Portland,OR - Google Search

These were examples of two important occasions where I could literally SEE that the "professional" photographers were BADLY equipped for the work they were doing. In the first case, of the guy with the Pentax 67, that was in the early 1990's, and the "pro" appeared young and inexperienced to me. In the Governor Hotel wedding, the guy was in his early 50's I would say, and had an assistant, but he appeared VERY tired, and defeated, just SITTING there in a chair on the sidelines, RESTING, while his assistant held the massive RB and flash bracket + potato masher flash. He just simply had an AWFUL camera for hand-held wedding work.

Anyway...just two examples. The last time I saw a "real professional" at work and got to see the pics was at my local Safeway, which had a multi-million dollar total renovation and "yuppification" done on it. They hired some professional guy who had a Nikon 35mm camera and a TOTALLY thrashed-looking, old *metal-era Gitzo 'pod* that had maybe half the finish worn off. I watched him work for about 10 minutes in the store, and then a few weeks later, they sent out advertising brochures of the new renovation work, and OMG...the pictures were ASTOUNDINGLY good. Just...amazingly inviting architectural shots, really first-rate work.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 26, 2014)

Plain, real-world examples, in a living room, sitting on a couch, drinking keg beer...Canon EOS 5D...



Canon 135mm f/2 L, wide open,indoors at night



Same lens, stopped down to f/5



Same 135mm f/2 lens shot wide-open. These are basically un-edited SOOC shots. The "look" of this not-that-exotic 135mm prime lens is VERY distinctive.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 26, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> This is a silly thread



Now those are the most profound words in this whole thread.


----------



## bc_steve (Jan 26, 2014)

well clearly it is a bit of column A and a bit of column B.  If you are a crap photographer and shoot boring things in bad light it doesn't matter how much you spend on your gear.  Definitely it would be better to have a good eye for composition and light and shooting with an entry level DSLR and kit lens.  But if you've got talent for photography, why wouldn't you want to give yourself the oppourtunity to shoot with a thin DoF to shoot at night when you want to avoid a long exposure, to shoot wildlife without risking your life, etc.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Take a day's worth of photos using an 18-55 f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom on a crop-frame consumer body.
> ...




The consumer gear these days is better than the best pro digital gear of 15-10 years ago. Does that mean that the photos taken by the greatest masters of that digital era "suck"?  In 15 years time the consumer gear will be miles ahead of today's high end gear. Does that mean the photos of today's  best pros 'suck' ? And I do not even mention the Greats of the past, like HCB. Looks like all their   pictures suck, because their ancient cameras could only get them so far.. You can of course introduce a concept of a 'relative suck' but I will not buy it. For many reasons, not all of them relate to photography. It is either "suck" or "no suck" to me, my friend... If you know what  I mean. 

 Just wanted to say that photography as art transcends the technical issues. One does not need a cutting edge gear to express his/her creativeness. 

I totally understand what Derrel is talking about though, but it is only a part of the picture (not intended). A great picture taken with the top gear differs from a great picture taken with a pedestrian consumer onE in the same way a beautiful woman with a classy makeup differs from a beautiful woman not wearing one. But the high end gear is a tricky thing - it can help you take a stunning image and equally it can expose your ineptitude as a photographer. Some people think they can hide behind a classy gear, in reality it is the opposite. To use the same analogy, they show you the dead body of an ugly ***** and say - look, the make up is top class. 

I personally agree with Lew's idea of a gear capability threshold. It is, in my view, different for different people, but once the gear meets your basic requirements, your own vision, your ability to understand and express yourself and your skill become much (yes, much much ) more important. That is if we are talking about a creative photography. If you are a pro shooting seniors or wedding then probably some other factors come into play. 

And I also agree that only one thing really matters in photography and that is the final image. What was it taken with, did you travel the world to get it or did you shoot it in your own backyard, was it a complex setting of just a lucky mindless snapshot - it does not matter at all. All that matters is the picture you are looking at. (One disclaimer though. We all understand that when you are travelling the world and capable of a complex setting, you will probably take more good pictures compared to the guy sitting in his backyard mindlessly pulling the trigger. But it still does not matter when we talk about one, single picture).


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 26, 2014)

This whole thing is funny...


----------



## sashbar (Jan 26, 2014)

BTW I looked at Pascal Riben  exif and realised he took most of his pictures with a modest D40. Needless to say (like him or not) vast majority of us will never come close to his level regardless of our gear.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 26, 2014)

sashbar said:


> BTW I looked at Pascal Riben exif and realised he took most of his pictures with a modest D40. Needless to say (like him or not) vast majority of us will never come close to his level regardless of our gear.



you know what is really scary? i just had to do a search for pascal riben and i wasn't that impressed with his photos. The search brought up mostly people pictures, which appeared more like candids not requiring a entire lot of thought. Maybe i missed something and got the wrong guy?


----------



## sashbar (Jan 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > BTW I looked at Pascal Riben exif and realised he took most of his pictures with a modest D40. Needless to say (like him or not) vast majority of us will never come close to his level regardless of our gear.
> ...



) I think it is him. Just google his name, he has his personal site. Believe me, he puts a lot of thought in his work, and he is very good. Not really popular here due to his confrontational character, but very very good, one can not take it away from him.


----------



## pgriz (Jan 26, 2014)

What I get out of this thread, is that a good photographer with good equipment will outshine a bad photographer with mediocre equipment any day (and especially night).  Doesn't seem too bizarre.  How about a good photographer with bad equipment may not get the shot that a bad photographer with excellent equipment can get.  Um, also seem logical.  But then, some bad equipment now, is probably at least equal to great equipment 10-15 years ago.  What I do know is that my photography now is much better than 15 years ago, and that's because I've learned about flash photography, modifiers, how to read and use the histogram, and I now have (through the internet) links to thousands of beautiful and inspiring images from around the world, every single day.  20 years ago I was essentially a self-taught photo snapper, with enough understanding of the photographic process that I could shoot several rolls of slide film with only a few being unusably over- or under-exposed (and usually, because I got lazy).  The tools I have now, even with rather basic entry-level gear, is much superior to what I used to use, and probably even more important, the knowledge I now have of photography (again thanks to my photo club and the internet and sites like this one) is even further advanced.

But beyond the technical, is the person's ability to "see" an image and capture it in a way that opens OUR eyes.  That still is a talent that few of us possess in large quantities (we all have at least a little of it), and it is THAT ability that makes the images interesting to me.  My own personal hill is to be able to capture or evoke emotion using the context contained within an image - still very hit and miss (mostly miss).  I don't think that better gear would somehow magically allow me to achieve this goal more easily.  It remains a process of learning to observe, to wait for the right moment, to be at the right place.  But then, that's me.  Your set of needs and goals will probably be quite different, and what you need/expect from your equipment will be different as well.


----------



## bratkinson (Jan 26, 2014)

Perhaps the most important &#8220;right equipment&#8221; is the &#8220;minds&#8217; eye&#8221; of the photographer. Countless people can aim a camera or cell phone and press the button. Anyone can snap a picture of their children playing, for example. But to capture &#8216;the moment&#8217;, with a desired DOF, colors, facial expression, is limited to &#8216;luck of the draw&#8217; for the seemingly mindless button-pushers. The difference between &#8220;point and shoot&#8221; or &#8221;aim and hope for the best&#8221; photography and making a &#8220;real&#8221; photograph that tells a story, conveys a feeling or mood, or captures &#8220;the moment&#8221; is like the difference between $1.00/gallon wine and Chateau Lafite Lateur 1952 (I&#8217;m no wine drinker). 

There have been countless threads, and even videos on this forum extolling &#8220;it&#8217;s not the equipment, it&#8217;s the photographer&#8221;. And that&#8217;s all so clear. Even with point and shoot cameras, some surprising results can be had in the hands of the right photographer. The skilled photographer knows what he wants to capture, and given the capabilities as well as the limitations of what he has available, takes a good photograph. But, that same photographer would also know that attempting to take a picture of a soaring eagle with a starter DSLR and 18-55 lens is a complete waste of time unless the eagle is closer than 100 feet or so. Even those with a &#8216;super cellphone camera&#8217; that can zoom further is wasting their time as well.

But&#8230;sometimes it IS the equipment. Trying to get a high quality panning shot of a racer at speed without a swivel-head tripod is a no-win situation, but it still could be done, 1 out of perhaps 200 shots. Taking pictures of people/moving subjects under low light situations with f5.6 as the widest zoomed-out aperture is also a loser. Having an f1.8 lens and a high ISO capable camera IS the right equipment for those shots. 

Perhaps the really right equipment is having the knowledge, skills, and experience to know what can and can&#8217;t be accomplished with the equipment at hand.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 26, 2014)

pgriz said:


> What I get out of this thread, is that a good photographer with good equipment will outshine a bad photographer with mediocre equipment any day (and especially night).  Doesn't seem too bizarre.



Hmm.. I dunno.. I think we could use a chart.  Derrel!  Lol..



> How about a good photographer with bad equipment may not get the shot that a bad photographer with excellent equipment can get.  Um, also seem logical.  But then, some bad equipment now, is probably at least equal to great equipment 10-15 years ago.  What I do know is that my photography now is much better than 15 years ago, and that's because I've learned about flash photography, modifiers, how to read and use the histogram, and I now have (through the internet) links to thousands of beautiful and inspiring images from around the world, every single day.  20 years ago I was essentially a self-taught photo snapper, with enough understanding of the photographic process that I could shoot several rolls of slide film with only a few being unusably over- or under-exposed (and usually, because I got lazy).  The tools I have now, even with rather basic entry-level gear, is much superior to what I used to use, and probably even more important, the knowledge I now have of photography (again thanks to my photo club and the internet and sites like this one) is even further advanced.
> 
> But beyond the technical, is the person's ability to "see" an image and capture it in a way that opens OUR eyes.  That still is a talent that few of us possess in large quantities (we all have at least a little of it), and it is THAT ability that makes the images interesting to me.  My own personal hill is to be able to capture or evoke emotion using the context contained within an image - still very hit and miss (mostly miss).  I don't think that better gear would somehow magically allow me to achieve this goal more easily.  It remains a process of learning to observe, to wait for the right moment, to be at the right place.  But then, that's me.  Your set of needs and goals will probably be quite different, and what you need/expect from your equipment will be different as well.



Ok, so if you suck you'll suck even with the best equipment.  If your great you'll be great even with crappy equipment, but you'd be greater with great equipment assuming that the great equipment would do something for you in the situation your in that the crappy equipment wouldn't.  But if you suck you just suck.

Ok.. yup, think we got that all cleared up.  Who's up for smores?


----------



## Luke345678 (Jan 26, 2014)

The best camera is the one you have with you.
-Chase Jarvis


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 26, 2014)

Luke345678 said:


> The best camera is the one you have with you.
> -Chase Jarvis



*He says as he slings his Phase One over his shoulder.*


----------



## rexbobcat (Jan 26, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Take a day's worth of photos using an 18-55 f/3.5~5.6 kit zoom on a crop-frame consumer body.
> 
> Take a day's worth of photos using high-end Canon or Nikon glass on a full-frame body.
> 
> ...



But compare a photo shot with strobes in studio with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 to one shot with a 50mm f/1.2 at f/8 and I'm fairly sure most people couldn't tell the difference. We could make cases all day about when gear matters and when it doesn't, but I think throwing an umbrella over it from either perspective isn't right. 

The thing about the last thread is that the situation didn't really seem like it required any exotic equipment. From the description given, it was a pretty generic group shoot with adequate equipment. Whether the photos were good based on the photographer's skill is another matter.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 26, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Whether the photos were good based on the photographer's skill is another matter.



And, ultimately, is something which we simply don't know.

An experienced photographer will produce a good image with consumer-grade gear far more often than a beginner will using professional gear...


----------



## minicoop1985 (Jan 26, 2014)

I like this thread. There's a lot of great points here that help in my search for new equipment.

I'm sure a pro could get pro images from my E-450, but given my frustrations with it, it's time to move on. Remove the excuses, force myself to work on things.

As for through the live view, viewfinder, or ground glass, I'll take ground glass every day.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 26, 2014)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> An experienced photographer will produce a good image with consumer-grade gear far more often than a beginner will using professional gear...



I would agree that an experienced photographer can produce good images using consumer-grade gear. And a good photographer will typically out-produce a beginner who has professional equipment, but who lacks the skill to utilize it. So far, so good.

But since many of us here are experienced, with 5,10,15,20,25,30, or even 40 or more years behind the eyepiece, where does that leave us, the experienced shooters? Should we shoot everything with $109 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zooms?

I think the idea that today's consumer gear is "better" than professional lenses of a decade ago is utter crap. That's not the case, at all. I have a 10 year-old Nikkor 300/2.8 AF-S II that's a spectacular lens, whether it's on a 6MP D70, or a brand new top-shelf Nikon body, and the optics and focus speed are still superb. Most older primes are as good as, or better than today's $1799-$2499 high-end zooms. I have a 180mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor from 1986--it's a better lens than most new consumer zooms. GREAT lenses have been made as far back as the 1960's.

If you want to shoot deep depth of field "street" or "genre" or "good light landscape" stuff at f/8 on a small sensor, like APS-C or micro 4/3, or even compact digicam like the new Sony with the 24-200mm f/2.8 equivalent zoom, then all the 16 megapixel smaller sensor cameras are the same. If that's the kind of shooting you're doing, any lens will work. But if you need a fast lens, or a long lens, or a realllllly good lens, don;t kid yourself--these $109 to $250 lenses do not cut the mustard.

If you want to shoot 24- or 36-Megapixel, on either APS-C or FF digital, then the MAJORITY of consumer zoom lenses are NO LONGER adequate anywhere but in the center of the frame. Nikon's new 18-140mm VR lens for example...utterly "consumer" on the new 24-MP APS-C Nikon bodies according to Thom Hogan's review.

Some people have missed it, because they're shooting lower-MP cameras, or like The_Traveler, are shooting the BEST m4/3 lenses (Olympus or Fuji), but there are PLENTY of consumer lenses these days that have crappy, unsharp, smeary corners and loads of distortion and vignetting.


----------



## limr (Jan 27, 2014)

bratkinson said:


> Perhaps the really right equipment is having the knowledge, skills, and experience to know what can and can&#8217;t be accomplished with the equipment at hand.



I think this ^^^ is really what it boils down to.

An inexperienced photographer won't know how to push gear to its limit or what it's best suited for. An experienced photographer can take even a crappy camera and get good images from it because he or she knows the limitations of the gear and works within those limitations.

The only digital camera I have is a point and shoot. It's a Canon PowerShot SX130 IS. It can produce some pretty decent stuff, but it's crap at low light shooting. Still, I managed to get this picture from it a few months ago:




Day 291 - Fountain by limrodrigues, on Flickr

It was just an experiment and I'm not saying it's a masterpiece. The composition could be better, those weeds on the right are in the way, the flood lights on the tree is distracting from the water feature in the pond. I would have tried some more but it started raining, it was the end of a long day and I was tired, and then within the week, the school turned off the fountains for the winter so I won't get to try again until spring. But the point is, I know how to push the camera's limits. In terms of image quality, it's the best low light shot I've gotten out of this camera and I wouldn't have been able to do it if I didn't know a trick or two about photography. 

So yes, the photographer definitely has a lot to do with it.

But of course, give me a better tool for the job I want to do, and I can do a better job. The equipment is not negligible. The trick is that I have to _know _that it's a better tool and how to work with it. I also have to know enough about the requirements of the job to know that the tool in my hand is or isn't adequate for the job.

Getting away from digital for the moment, all this oddly enough reminds me of lomography. It's almost the same thing in reverse: the crappier the camera, the cooler my pictures will be! I just got a Holga for Christmas. It's a remarkably cheap, plastic, flimsy, and low-tech toy. And yet I've seen some fantastic images that were taken with Holgas. People see these pictures and think that they can get the same kinds of images if they just get a crappy enough toy, so they buy it, throw any old roll of film into it, and shoot away. Then they wonder why their shots are always blurry, over or underexposed, and just...boring. They ignore the limitations and think the low-tech nature of the camera will just automatically produce the effects they want. But those who understand the camera and understand more about photography know the conditions in which the Holga will perform at its best, and that's when they might grab that particular tool.


----------



## mmaria (Jan 27, 2014)

I wish I could participate in this thread but I'm not eloquent enough to enter the battle...

Just to say that I'm with Lew, Leonore, bratkinson and sashbar.... They can explain better then I can


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 27, 2014)

I think in order to really answer this the "RIGHT" way will depend on ones believes which makes it all relative.

My outlook is that if you are doing this as a profession you owe it to your clients to use top quality equipment, whether its an older camera and lens or newer camera and lens, the BEST one for the job! It could be an older lens on a newer body that gets the job done, it could be a newer lens on an older body that gets the job done and anything in-between and once again it depends whether you are doing it for fun or a business. 

IF the case was that entry level equipment could get the job done like pro quality equipment why on earth do we spend so much more on the pro quality equipment?

"Your gear is also the face of your company and business" Quoted from NASM MANSUROV.


----------



## limr (Jan 27, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> I think in order to really answer this the "RIGHT" way will depend on ones believes which makes it all relative.
> 
> My outlook is that if you are doing this as a profession you owe it to your clients to use top quality equipment, whether its an older camera and lens or newer camera and lens, the BEST one for the job! It could be an older lens on a newer body that gets the job done, it could be a newer lens on an older body that gets the job done and anything in-between and once again it depends whether you are doing it for fun or a business.
> 
> ...



Because people will pay.

Who is Nasm Mansurov? Is he supposed to be some kind of authority on this?


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 27, 2014)

limr said:


> Who is Nasm Mansurov? Is he supposed to be some kind of authority on this?




I don't think so but it makes sense to me and because I read it on one of his postings I did not want to steal his words and quoted him instead.


----------



## limr (Jan 27, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Who is Nasm Mansurov? Is he supposed to be some kind of authority on this?
> ...



Ah, okay. But hey, kudos for citing your source! I wish all my writing students would be so diligent. Maybe I should show them your post so they can see "even on the Internet, people know how to do this, so you should too!"


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> But since many of us here are experienced, with 5,10,15,20,25,30, or even 40 or more years behind the eyepiece, where does that leave us, the experienced shooters? Should we shoot everything with $109 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zooms?



I don't know that anyone's even remotely suggested anything like that, nor can I imagine why anyone would.

Just because a "pro" can do something doesn't mean he should. Pro gear in the hands of a professional is the best possible combination. Just because I can take excellent photos with, as you call it, pedestrian equipment doesn't mean I _should _do that...



> I think the idea that today's consumer gear is "better" than professional lenses of a decade ago is utter crap. That's not the case, at all. I have a 10 year-old Nikkor 300/2.8 AF-S II that's a spectacular lens, whether it's on a 6MP D70, or a brand new top-shelf Nikon body, and the optics and focus speed are still superb. Most older primes are as good as, or better than today's $1799-$2499 high-end zooms. I have a 180mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor from 1986--it's a better lens than most new consumer zooms. GREAT lenses have been made as far back as the 1960's.



What about the camera bodies? You address only optics, but not the bodies. Personally, I would rather have a Canon 20D than a Canon 1D, despite the fact that it's the 1D which was considered to be the "professional" body...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> But since many of us here are experienced, with 5,10,15,20,25,30, or even 40 or more years behind the eyepiece, where does that leave us, the experienced shooters? Should we shoot everything with $109 18-55mm f/3.5~5.6 kit zooms?



Yes!!!  I'm totally on board with this idea.  Fantastic.  Knocked it right out of the park here Derrel.  Level the playing field and all that happy horse manure.  BTW I'll send you an address later that you can ship all those pro grade Nikkor lenses to since you won't be needing them anymore.. lol


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 27, 2014)

To start, my point was that the viewer shouldn't care about the equipment only the final product.
The willingness on the part of photographers to judge other photographers by his/her equipment is silly and misplaced.

If anyone wants to buy to buy better equipment for his/her own satisfaction, go for out but that surely does not guarantee better pictures.

For all of you who have great pro grade glass, do you post equivalently great images just because the glass is so good?

If you have, tell me where you post them.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> I think in order to really answer this the "RIGHT" way will depend on ones believes which makes it all relative.
> 
> My outlook is that if you are doing this as a profession you owe it to your clients to use top quality equipment, whether its an older camera and lens or newer camera and lens, the BEST one for the job! It could be an older lens on a newer body that gets the job done, it could be a newer lens on an older body that gets the job done and anything in-between and once again it depends whether you are doing it for fun or a business.



What I "owe" to my clients is images they're happy with. If I choose to do this with a 1DS MKIV, great. If I can do it with a 30D, though, that's fine, too...



> IF the case was that entry level equipment could get the job done like pro quality equipment why on earth do we spend so much more on the pro quality equipment?



You're clearly on the side of "the gear matters more than the photographer".

A pro may well get professional results from a consumer camera. But he may get ridiculously stellar results with high-end gear. It's up to the photographer, and only the photographer, to decide which route he wants to take. I often tell the story of a guy who shoots the Rolex 24 every year. He uses a Digital Rebel; a 6.3MP crop sensor that can be bought now for less than a hundred bucks, and the guy's selling prints like they're going out of style. Guys who shoot full-on pro rigs do the same, and they certainly hold no animosity or disdain for the guy shooting with the Rebel...



> "Your gear is also the face of your company and business" Quoted from NASM MANSUROV.



I don't care if Jesus Christ said it. It's not true. 

My customers don't hire my camera, they hire _me_. In all of the years I've been doing this, with the thousands of clients I've had, I could lose three fingers in a farming accident and still count the number of clients who wanted to know what gear I used before they hired me...


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> To start, my point was that the viewer shouldn't care about the equipment only the final product.



You and I have disagreed on much. The statement above will not be one of those things...



> The willingness on the part of photographers to judge other photographers by his/her equipment is silly and misplaced.



That one, too...


> If anyone wants to buy to buy better equipment for his/her own satisfaction, go for out but that surely does not guarantee better pictures.



Okay, and that, as well...



> For all of you who have great pro grade glass, do you post equivalently great images just because the glass is so good?



Years ago, on another forum, there was one guy whose position was simple: If you're not buying the latest and greatest every time the latest and greatest is introduced, you suck as a photographer and have no business charging people for your photography. He would slam people who used gear that, frankly, was pretty high-end, simply because it wasn't the _latest _high-end gear.

This guy knew I had some nice glass, and he was always very complimentary of the 70-200mm f/2.8L. So, I posted a photo that I'd taken of two dogs in Balboa Park in San Diego. They were standing nose-to-nose' a standoff! The shot had great depth of field, and it was razor sharp. He praised the photo: "THAT'S what a photo should look like!"

I wish I could've seen the look on his face when I posted that I'd used a $130.00 Quantaray 70-300mm...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2014)

Let's all dig out our Kodak Instamatic 126 cameras and shoot the heck out of things! We know all that matters is our "eye" and our "talent".




*non-copyrighted* image under GNU Free Documentation license, from Wikipedia


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

vipgraphx said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Who is Nasm Mansurov? Is he supposed to be some kind of authority on this?
> ...



He's an authority on it because he posted it on the internet?

Did I _seriously _just read that?

LOLOL!!


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 27, 2014)

So ... this is the thread in which everyone agrees that the skill of the photographer is more important than the camera ?

I havent read everything here, but every posting I read, everyone seems to agree.

I wouldnt even know how to start an argument against it even if I wanted to.

Certainly a photographer needs a camera in the first place, and certainly a photographer is ultimately limited in what he can do by the camera, but how consistently technically good the pictures will be and how far the camera can be pushed depends upon the technical skill of the photographer, and how original and valueable as an artpiece the images will be depends upon the creativity of the photographer.

That said, a good camera certainly is more fun to use than a bad one, and a small camera is more likely to be with you at all times than a large one.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 27, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> vipgraphx said:
> 
> 
> > "Your gear is also the face of your company and business" Quoted from NASM MANSUROV.
> ...



I think if Christ had said this it probably would have gone more like this:

"Knowest thou then that thine gear is a reflection of thine worth.  So who so ever shall use thine D3100 shall not then therefore getteth paid."

Say, on that note, did we ever find out what the H stands for?


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Say, on that note, did we ever find out what the H stands for?



Hector.

I mean, c'mon, the guy's name is Jesus...


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2014)

robbins.photo said:
			
		

> Say, on that note, did we ever find out what the H stands for?



Jesus H. Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

The Straight Dope: Why do folks say "Jesus H. Christ"?

(Both of the above internet articles were written on medium-grade Windows PC's, using average keyboards.)


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Let's all dig out our Kodak Instamatic 126 cameras and shoot the heck out of things! We know all that matters is our "eye" and our "talent".
> 
> View attachment 65420
> 
> *non-copyrighted* image under GNU Free Documentation license, from Wikipedia



If you took a photo with that, and my 6 year old nephew took a photo with your DSLR, you should end up with the better result. If you don't, you shouldn't be a photographer.

On a side note, though, I have a small camera collection, and I'm always looking to add to it. I was in Boone, North Carolina last week and found this in an antique shop:







I'm not sure what goes in the space in the upper right. That notwithstanding, I like to buy stuff like this when it has the box, manual, etc. I need to clean it up, and then find a place to put it:







Maybe more shelves...


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No... it's Hector...


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 27, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Ok, so we've established a couple of things here. First apparently there is a wikipedia entry on pretty much everything, no matter how ridiculous or obscure. Good to know.. lol.

Second, That the H might stand for Hector. Though I'm not as certain about this one, I just have a hard time believing that when Jesus would get in trouble as a kid you'd here his mom yelling, "Jesus Hector Christ you get your fanny back in this house right now!"

Posted with the usual caveat of course that this could just be me.. lol


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2014)

Steve5D said:
			
		

>



Who remembers the Kodak Instamatic 110 models with the all-glass, multi-element f/2.8 lenses and the scale focusing system??? At one time, Kodak had some Instamatic 110 models that were retail prices around a half of a month's rent, in the mid-1970's. The time period when they had Michael Landon advertising for them in their TV commercials.The Kodak Camera List - KODAK Pocket INSTAMATIC 60 Camera


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Who remembers the Kodak Instamatic 110 models with the all-glass, multi-element f/2.8 lenses and the scale focusing system??? At one time, Kodak had some Instamatic 110 models that were retail prices around a half of a month's rent, in the mid-1970's. The time period when they had Michael Landon advertising for them in their TV commercials.The Kodak Camera List - KODAK Pocket INSTAMATIC 60 Camera



I remember those advertisements.

When I was 14, I bought a 110 Instamatic before a Boy Scout camping trip to New Mexico. I took my first "keeper" with that camera; a sunset shot over a mountain ridge. I had it made into a 5x7", and it sat on my bedroom shelf for years. I've no idea what happened to that picture, but I wish I still had it...


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 27, 2014)

A group of tourists were on a tour of the Sistine Chapel and the guide told them that it took Michelangelo almost four years to paint the 5000 square feet of murals on the ceiling and that it had been restored twice before.  One tourist, obviously an avid photographer by the size of the camera body, lens and backpack, turned to his buddy who was equally outfitted. 
"Crap", he said, "I could do that 5000 feet in a week with an elevator truck and a spray gun , two coats of a good acrylic and it would never need washing. Four years, what a d!ckhead amateur."


----------



## gsgary (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My 300mmF2.8L is from 1995 and i would put it up against and lens on here


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 27, 2014)

gsgary said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Steve5D said:
> ...



It is soooooo comforting to argue about equipment because there are numbers and facts and the person with the best numbers and facts and memory and history of experiences with numbers and facts will win.

Why not, instead, discuss why 95% of all the pictures taken and shown here, irrespective of lens quality, are boring, repetitive crap?

And you can't blame that on people being new because children with P&Ss produce fresh interesting stuff.
So are we shepherding newbies into being skilled craftsmen, able to make the equivalent of tight dovetail joints?


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2014)

Most of what we call "*life*" is boring repetitive crap. *Same chit, different day*. You were a military dentist. Surely you dealt with the same,repetitive crap day after day.

If you want to start a thread, and people disagree with you, feel free to try and dig yourself out of a hole by shoveling B.S. analogies all day long. Knock yourself out. 

Orrrr, maybe, here's a thought: put your money where your MOUTH is, and ditch that expensive Olympus camera and those top-shelf lenses you own, and start shooting an Instamtic 126. You know, and walk the talk you spew...


----------



## limr (Jan 27, 2014)

Well, I shoot with a wooden box with a tiny hole in it, so I guess whatever little money I have is where my mouth is. No wonder I have such a dirty mouth


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2014)

One thing I have noticed over the past 30 years; it is almost ALWAYS people who own plenty of really good equipment that tell beginners and (anybody who will listen,actually) that, "Equipment doesn't matter." Its an epidemic, seen all over the 'net, but this do-as-I-say-and-not-as-I-do phenomenon used to be in the print magazines...old, established professionals with TONS of equipment, telling newbs, "All you need is ONE light." Or ,"All you need is one body and a lens." But of course, they themselves had access to the best of anything and everything for their work.

I see that the more things change, the more they stay the same....


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



I think the problem you run into here is who decides what is interesting?  Things that I find interesting may not be of interest to others and of course vice versa.

Just as a quick example take a look at some of the macro photos of insects that get posted.  Some of it is really well done but my first reaction is still to look around for a rolled up newspaper.  I'm just not a big fan of bugs - but hey some folks love them.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 27, 2014)

limr said:


> Well, I shoot with a wooden box with a tiny hole in it, so I guess whatever little money I have is where my mouth is. No wonder I have such a dirty mouth



No worries. As soon as Derrel sends me his gear I can sell off some of mine and buy you a pack of Orbitz 

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Jan 27, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Just as a quick example take a look at some of the macro photos of insects that get posted.  Some of it is really well done but my first reaction is still to look around for a rolled up newspaper.  I'm just not a big fan of bugs - but hey some folks love them.
> 
> Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk



Insects _do_ seem to be the subject of a lot of macro shots. Too bad. I like looking at a lot of macro photography but the bug thing means I bypass a whole lot of threads here.


----------



## kathyt (Jan 27, 2014)

I have not read any of the responses, but if I had my Canon Rebel back at this point in my photography career, I could shoot a  wedding right now with no problems. I would not like it, but I could manage.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel, you've got that backwards.
I don't think that people must use low level gear.
I think that people shouldn't be judged by the gear they use.


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I shoot with a wooden box with a tiny hole in it, so I guess whatever little money I have is where my mouth is. No wonder I have such a dirty mouth
> ...



But Derrel won't do that, because he's of the belief that what makes a good picture is the gear, not the photographer...


----------



## Steve5D (Jan 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I think that people shouldn't be judged by the gear they use.



And any intelligent, reasonable person would agree with you...


----------



## Designer (Jan 27, 2014)

The_Traveler said:


> I think that people shouldn't be judged by the gear they use.



Like it or not, people "judge" other people all the time, and photography gear is just one of the things by which people are judged.  Car, job, clothing, habits, how they speak, how they act, who they hang with, etc.


----------



## limr (Jan 27, 2014)

Designer said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > I think that people shouldn't be judged by the gear they use.
> ...



Let's not forget grammar!  (Yours is fine!) I get paid to judge that.


----------



## runnah (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Sorry, *Steve5D*, I think *a guy whose on-line "handle" is based on the name of his favorite camera* has no place to talk smack....









*mic drop*


----------



## Derrel (Jan 27, 2014)

Yes, my avatar is an inside joke...what we call a photo gag!!!! Right around 30 years ago, I had a fine arts photo instructor at university who always suggested we should do a "gag profile shot" of ourselves with a camera held up to our eye...kind of a send-up...but then, you probably wouldn't know much about fine art photography or intellectual humor...I mean, being from Maine and all! ;-)

You know what the funniest part of it was??? The prof's name was James T. Kirk. For real!!! He had a sign on his door that said, "Two rolls a day." He was pretty influential on me in terms of studying fine art, photography as fine art, art history, and drawing.


----------



## vipgraphx (Jan 27, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




+2,3 and 4...:smileys:


----------



## Overread (Jan 27, 2014)

And that's the end I think.

All participants now have one week to write a 1500 word essay on the concept of "The wrong equipment" in preparation for the beginning of the month test next week.


----------

