# Does Gear Really Matter? 30 Mind-Blowing Images Taken With Entry-Level Gear



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

Granted there is lots going on here with lighting, the skill of the photographer and having models, but the point is solid.

Does Gear Really Matter? 30 Mind-Blowing Images Taken With Entry-Level Gear


----------



## Braineack (Jun 13, 2014)

Tri Joko needs to work on his PS skills...


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 13, 2014)

You have the iPhone awards too
2014 iPhone Photography Award Winners Prove That Amazing Photos Can Be Taken Without An Expensive Camera | Bored Panda


----------



## limr (Jun 13, 2014)

Apparently gear isn't important, but processing an image within an inch of its life is still required.


----------



## coffeefilter (Jun 13, 2014)

It matters to an extent. I mean, you're not going to freeze a hummingbird's wings with an iphone, or be able to freeze action in indoor, fluorescent lighting situations with no flash and low ISO ability and a small maximum aperture (a problem I ran into). 

That said, a creative eye is a creative eye, no matter the lens, and if the equipment is capable in the lighting situation you have, good images can definitely be produced.


----------



## TWright33 (Jun 13, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Tri Joko needs to work on his PS skills...




He's not the only one out of that group


----------



## ORourkeK (Jun 13, 2014)

I think that post is more about how well someone can PS. Some looked nice and natural, but most looked like composite images. I would have enjoyed the post more had it been mostly natural pictures.


----------



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

limr said:


> Apparently gear isn't important, but processing an image within an inch of its life is still required.



Oh you...


----------



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> I think that post is more about how well someone can PS. Some looked nice and natural, but most looked like composite images. I would have enjoyed the post more had it been mostly natural pictures.




You guys are missing the point.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 13, 2014)

more like ignoring it


----------



## KmH (Jun 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> You guys are missing the point.


We didn't, but the writer of the article did.

30 good images made with entry-level that weren't then majorly edited would have had more of an impact.

The photos he made with the borrowed T4i sufficed to make his point:



> While shooting, I found that using lower-end gear can prove to be difficult to work with. Mainly, I had a hard time with the fact that I was using an 18-55 lens and the lowest F-stop was a 5.6 at 55mm. Additionally, there weren&#8217;t enough focus points for me to use. That being said, it did not stop me from using everything else I&#8217;ve learned outside of the gear department. After the shoot, I realized that skill is a crucial part of photography. I incorporated everything I knew about expressions, posing, composition and even post-processing to produce quality images.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> ORourkeK said:
> 
> 
> > I think that post is more about how well someone can PS. Some looked nice and natural, but most looked like composite images. I would have enjoyed the post more had it been mostly natural pictures.
> ...



That we can make well with a used d40 and kit lens
and $6,000 worth of lighting equipment
and the latest Photoshop version and $6,000 worth of training in photoshop ?
:mrgreen:


----------



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

KmH said:


> 30 good images made with entry-level that weren't then majorly edited would have had more of an impact.



To me the point here is that rather than sitting around obsessing about gear you don't have, use the gear you do have to go out and shoot with. Sure editing makes things look good but people edit just as much with a top of the line camera.


----------



## ORourkeK (Jun 13, 2014)

I understand the point. You can create awesome images with entry level equipment, and I agree. I was just stating that I would love to see an article like this without all of the PS work. For example, if most were like the writers images that were taken of the girl while he was on vacation, I would have enjoyed the article much more.


----------



## ShaneF (Jun 13, 2014)

I think it matters, if i was fighting for my life i would rather hit someone in the head with a 70-200 2.8mkII IS then an 55-250 F4.   just sayn...


----------



## MSnowy (Jun 13, 2014)

Great subject matter goes along way in making great pictures, no matter what gear your using.


----------



## IzzieK (Jun 13, 2014)

I was looking at my accessories yesterday and wanting to buy this and that and that while researching what will be good to have as a basic lens from what I already have. But I still do not know what I want to photograph really to give myself a title of "expert in..." so I am holding off for a while. Will I ever know? I really want to be a general not a corporal...looked at my gears again and thought of Kris and his birdies, AstroNikon, Danny...do I really want to be like them when I grow up? Or take macro shots? How many times do I go to the forest to look for birds to photograph? or Florida? Am I really interested in bugs and insects? Do I really need another credit card transaction or two I have to pay off? hmmmmmmm.......I am not Snerd.........

Questions...questions....now this posts. It is a message from heaven! I do not need to be like CoastalCon...we already have one of those here...or Todd Robbins (there can only be one like him...), AstroNikon, Danny -- they are great guys too...and Snerd, a very unique fella with a great sense of humour to throw in too....

Now if I can only work on my other photos I will be OK for now...


----------



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> I understand the point. You can create awesome images with entry level equipment, and I agree. I was just stating that I would love to see an article like this without all of the PS work. For example, if most were like the writers images that were taken of the girl while he was on vacation, I would have enjoyed the article much more.



Photoshop is a level playing field. I can edit a image from a $3000 camera and one from a $300 camera. 

How many straight out of camera shots do you see from any level camera?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 13, 2014)

limr said:


> Apparently gear isn't important, but processing an image within an inch of its life is still required.



Hey, come on now.  Mindblowing.. overcooked.. whats the difference?

Lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > 30 good images made with entry-level that weren't then majorly edited would have had more of an impact.
> ...



Wait.. so your saying.. take pictures instead of sitting around talking about taking pictures?

Nahh.  Seriously Runnah sometimes I really wonder where you get some of these crazy ideas from.

Lol


----------



## molested_cow (Jun 13, 2014)

None of these are mind blowing. If these photos were action shots taken under difficult lighting, yet showing adequate details, I'd consider it mind blowing. Most of these photos were taken under decent lighting or situation where you can use a tripod, which many did. It's not difficult. You can "increase" the dynamic range of an entry level camera's sensor by taking multiple exposures of the same shot and compose them in post processing. Most of these aren't even really good photos. The lens used simply can't provide the level of DOF control offered by ones with larger max aperture (except of course F1.8 50mm). Also, I personally won't consider a D90+70-300mm combo entry level.

Honestly, when I read "entry level", I was thinking point and shoots. I don't think any DSLR/SLR can be considered entry level in terms of photo gears in general.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 13, 2014)

I think the article is poorly done because it makes the unintentional implication that, sure, you can take good photos with entry-level gear _if_ you run it through the Photoshop gauntlet.

The article would have been more successful if the author included more variety in the images imho.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 13, 2014)

IzzieK said:


> I was looking at my accessories yesterday and wanting to buy this and that and that while researching what will be good to have as a basic lens from what I already have. But I still do not know what I want to photograph really to give myself a title of "expert in..." so I am holding off for a while. Will I ever know? I really want to be a general not a corporal...looked at my gears again and thought of Kris and his birdies, AstroNikon, Danny...do I really want to be like them when I grow up? Or take macro shots? How many times do I go to the forest to look for birds to photograph? or Florida? Am I really interested in bugs and insects?
> 
> Questions...questions....now this posts. It is a message from heaven! I do not need to be like CoastalCon...we already have one of those here...or Todd Robbins (there can only be one like him...), AstroNikon, Danny -- they are great guys too...and Snerd, a very unique fella with a great sense of humour to throw in too....
> 
> Now if I can only work on my other photos I will be OK for now...



Snerd has a sense of humor?  Huh.  Are you sure about that?  He just always seems so darn.. stoic really.  

I can't speak for anyone else but my own gear selections have always been based on a specific need.  I've always look at what need the gear I had really wasn't meeting, and then that need was balanced against how much money I'd have to spend to upgrade to the point to fill it.

Sure, I'd love to have one of those 120-300 mm F/2.8 lenses.  But I'm just not at the point where I could justify spending $3500 on a single lens.  So I make do with a much less expensive 70-200 mm and add in a TC as needed.  Sure, I'd love to have a D7100 - it has some really great features, but really the D5200 I have is meeting my needs fine at the moment and it's hard to justify spending that much extra for the features that the 7100 provides, at least for what I use the camera for, so for now at least I'll stick with my D5200's.  

For lenses I have 3 - a 70-200 mm F/2.8, a 50 mm 1.8 and an 85 mm 1.8, and between these three I haven't found much that I can't shoot effectively.  If I did more landscapes or shots where I needed a wider angle a lot, well then maybe getting something wider than the 50 would be in order, and while it is something I plan on at some point right now having the 50 as my widest lens really isn't terribly limiting for me.  

But my equipment choices certainly wouldn't be right for everyone else.


----------



## ORourkeK (Jun 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> Photoshop is a level playing field. I can edit a image from a $3000 camera and one from a $300 camera.
> 
> How many straight out of camera shots do you see from any level camera?



I think you are missing what I'm saying. Most of the pictures look  fantastic. Are they completely altered from their original image? Yes.  Does that mean I am missing the point? No. The idea is that you can end  up with great images with entry level gear, and that is a true  statement. I feel as though the idea could have been better presented  with photos that were more natural to their original image.


----------



## Braineack (Jun 13, 2014)

one of my favorite pictures was taken on my D3100... using my pro 85mm.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 13, 2014)

limr said:


> Apparently gear isn't important, but processing an image within an inch of its life is still required.



Oddly, that was my thought as well, but I am a bit less-refined than limr, and though to myself, "Yeah, *they Photoshopped the chit out of this one*...and this one...and this one...and this one...and this one too." Most of those really are not photographs as much as they are digital illustrations. Not to mention the ones that rely heavily, as in say 90% on SUBJECT matter rather than skill and technique. SUbstitute an elderly, wrinkled woman for the young, beautiful, shopped-to-perfection 20-something women...would those pictures be considered good?

I thought the author's point was good, his intentions perhaps honest, but since when did the Sigma 10-20mm ultra-wide zoom and the Canon 85mm f/1.8 EF lenses become "entry-level" gear? A 10 to 20mm wide-angle lens is at the very cutting edge of ultra-wide angle, and has been for some time what people call "exotic" in terms of wide-angle.

The proof included in this article really consists mostly of extremely 'shopped *photo illutrations*. But yeah, if one takes an image,ANY image by the way, and then 'spends two hours to three hours creating a photo illustration, the genesis of the image is much less important than is the skill of the Photoshop artist who is creating the illustration.

I love click-bait articles though. They pander so,so well to their intended audience, but they give others plenty of fodder for discussion.


----------



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I thought the author's point was good, his intentions perhaps honest, but since when did the Sigma 10-20mm ultra-wide zoom and the Canon 85mm f/1.8 EF lenses become "entry-level" gear? A 10 to 20mm wide-angle lens is at the very cutting edge of ultra-wide angle, and has been for some time what people call "exotic" in terms of wide-angle.



The ef 85 isn't "entry-level" but it's certainly not a "pro-level", nor is the sigma.

I think what is causing people to get flustered is the photographer particular style of editing. It's not my cup of tea either but I can look past that and look at things that can't be photo shopped. 

My point in posting this was to show people that worrying about not having the most expensive gear and lenses shouldn't get in the way of actually going out to taking photos. The fact that, depending on taste, you can have photos that look like that they were taken with a much more expensive camera should be inspiring, not angering.


----------



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

ORourkeK said:


> I think you are missing what I'm saying. Most of the pictures look  fantastic. Are they completely altered from their original image? Yes.  Does that mean I am missing the point? No. The idea is that you can end  up with great images with entry level gear, and that is a true  statement. I feel as though the idea could have been better presented  with photos that were more natural to their original image.



I agree that A. the editing style was a bit much for most people on here tastes and B. that showing perhaps the original or a lightly edited photo would have lent more credibility to the point trying to be made.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 13, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I love click-bait articles though. They pander so,so well to their intended audience, but they give others plenty of fodder for discussion.



Wait, I was click-baited?  Ahh... crap.  Well, I guess I shouldn't complain, you know, considering what that costs in Vegas...


----------



## limr (Jun 13, 2014)

runnah said:


> I think what is causing people to get flustered is the photographer particular style of editing. It's not my cup of tea either but I can look past that and look at things that can't be photo shopped.



I could with some of the images and those were the ones that were more effective. Some of those, though, I just couldn't see anything past the processing, and those were the ones that worked against his point.



> My point in posting this was to show people that worrying about not having the most expensive gear and lenses shouldn't get in the way of actually going out to taking photos. The fact that, depending on taste, you can have photos that look like that they were taken with a much more expensive camera should be inspiring, not angering.



Totally agree with this. I just wish he included photos that didn't totally distort the original, rendering the point moot. He needed images that showed what quality you can get from the _camera, _not out of the processing. Because yes, you could have that level of processing with a high-end camera as well, so when the image is that altered, it doesn't say _anything_ about the camera at all.

Honestly, I think Raj is the poster child of this idea. He's shown fantastic work that he took with a point and shoot, and yes he processes, but not to the point that it overtakes the image.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 13, 2014)

I read f-stoppers occasionally. Links to their more provocative articles wind up in my Facebook stream one way or another. The site is basically a click-bait specialist. They are The New York Post of on-line photo 'zines. As the article begins, " Let&#8217;s not kid ourselves, gear does in fact matter. However, does a photographer need top of the line equipment to produce mind-blowing images? Take a look at this collection and decide for yourself."

The piece shows a bunch of photos which are mostly subject-centric. And a bunch of images that have been Photoshopped and Photoshopped HARD. Wayyyyy hard. And that accounts for the "mind-blowing images". I'm familiar with what it's like to shoot with low-end gear. I struggled against low-end gear for about 10 years,then got mid-level gear, and over the last 13 years I have been fortunate to hit middle age, and the ability to own and use some high-end gear. As to the Sigma 10-20mm lens and its price: its PRICE has absolutely NOTHING to do with being low-end; it is an extreme wide-angle...sooooo much more wide-angle than basically anybody had, or was even on the market at a reasonable price, for literally decades. A 15mm rectilinear ultra-wide??? C'mon...that is an ADVANCED lens design. The d-slr with BUILT-IN image developing and a fully-adjustable contrast,saturation,and sharpening engine with 3D color matrix metering and Nikon's Scene Recognition System? And then, Photoshop to create an image that's basically un-recognizable as the original???

Try shooting you junior high school track meets with a 40-year-old and way out of date 1938 Argoflex twin-lens reflex with an uncoated, pre-World War II f/4.5 lens and 1/25 to 1/200, manually cocked shutter with red-window, knob film advance. THAT is what I started my 'serious photography' career with. Is this guy f***ing kidding me? A d-slr and a 10-20mm ultra-wide zoom, and a world-class 85mm f/1.8 Canon EF (a lens I owned for seven years, and am intimately familiar with, BTW).

I'm not angry at the guy, but the article is full of BS. A 10-20mm ultra-wide rectilinear zoom lens is better than the chit NASA sent up with the Space Shuttle crews. These mind-blowing images are good, as far as they go, yes. Nice illustrations. But I want to see a few wildlife images. And some indoor NCAA volleyball shots. And some wedding reception shots. I'd love to see some straight photography, and some photographs, as opposed to heavily-manipulated photo illustrations. So, that's where I was coming from. I KNOW what it is like to be limited by equipment. Try shooting with 12-shot rolls with knob-wind film advance and a hand-tensioned shutter for a few years. Then  tell me how bad things are with an 18- to 24-megapixel d-slr and a 600-shot RAW frame memory card.

I "get" the point of the f-stoppers article. But the "proof" shows me more about how much Photoshop is used as a full set of crutches (AND a wheelchair, in some instances!) than it does about how good the shooters were, or how capable a 10-20mm ultra-wide rectilinear zoom lens and the Canon 85/1.8 EF lenses are on a built-in-darkroom-dslr-camera. If this "article" had some text, it would be an article. Instead, it's click-bait. As he says,* "Let's not kid ourselves, gear does in fact matter." *And then he trots out the Photoshop parade.


----------



## Designer (Jun 13, 2014)

limr said:


> Totally agree with this. I just wish he included photos that didn't totally distort the original, rendering the point moot. He needed images that showed what quality you can get from the _camera, _not out of the processing. Because yes, you could have that level of processing with a high-end camera as well, so when the image is that altered, it doesn't say _anything_ about the camera at all.



Ditto


----------



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I read f-stoppers occasionally. Links to their more provocative articles wind up in my Facebook stream one way or another. The site is basically a click-bait specialist. They are The New York Post of on-line photo 'zines. As the article begins, " Let&#8217;s not kid ourselves, gear does in fact matter. However, does a photographer need top of the line equipment to produce mind-blowing images? Take a look at this collection and decide for yourself."
> 
> The piece shows a bunch of photos which are mostly subject-centric. And a bunch of images that have been Photoshopped and Photoshopped HARD. Wayyyyy hard. And that accounts for the "mind-blowing images". I'm familiar with what it's like to shoot with low-end gear. I struggled against low-end gear for about 10 years,then got mid-level gear, and over the last 13 years I have been fortunate to hit middle age, and the ability to own and use some high-end gear. As to the Sigma 10-20mm lens and its price: its PRICE has absolutely NOTHING to do with being low-end; it is an extreme wide-angle...sooooo much more wide-angle than basically anybody had, or was even on the market at a reasonable price, for literally decades. A 15mm rectilinear ultra-wide??? C'mon...that is an ADVANCED lens design. The d-slr with BUILT-IN image developing and a fully-adjustable contrast,saturation,and sharpening engine with 3D color matrix metering and Nikon's Scene Recognition System? And then, Photoshop to create an image that's basically un-recognizable as the original???
> 
> ...




I guess we get different things from the same article.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 13, 2014)

gear does matter. The person behind the gear does too of course.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 13, 2014)

MSnowy said:


> Great subject matter goes along way in making great pictures, no matter what gear your using.



Being able to separate a beautiful subject, like a stunning woman, or an exotic locale, and look at* the photography*, is very difficult for most people. If you want to impress most people with your photography skills, it's far better to shoot photos of beautiful women, handsome men, and lovely natural-world locations than it is to be technically "good".


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 13, 2014)

IzzieK said:


> ........looked at my gears again and thought of Kris and his birdies, AstroNikon, Danny...do I really want to be like them when I grow up? Or take macro shots? How many times do I go to the forest to look for birds to photograph? or Florida? Am I really interested in bugs and insects? Do I really need another credit card transaction or two I have to pay off? hmmmmmmm.......I am not Snerd............



Umm .. I think you have better equipment than me ... your d800e, d300s, d90 (from your profile)
compare that to my d7000 and d600

and my lenses  are all second hand ... 80-200/2.8 D dual ring (not the modern 70-200/2.8 variants) for sports,  35-70 D/2.8 (really old push pull - yes they are bad pointed to the sun or semi bright light source),  18-35 D/3.5-4.5 (okay, kewl UWA but not too expensive), 24-85 D/2.8-4 (great walkabout lens that does macro .. oh yeah, I have to process those little spider pics I took with macro) & my $100 AF 75-300/4.5-5.6 push-pull ... and all are screw drive.

I have one modern AF-S lens .. the kit 18-105 with the d7000 which great sharpness and faster focusing than all my other lenses.
I do have a telescope .. but it's not a very big one compared to the BIG ones.

Of course, AFS speed focusing would help in sports, and the grab the focus ring for focusing through the soccer net too. But I don't have those advanced features on my older lenses.  For that one $$ 70-200 vrii lens .. I basically bought all the lenses that I currently have with several hundred dollars to spare.

The key is learning how to use them, and post processing to get the look you want.  My photos have taken a BIG step forward in just learning how to use Lightroom in relation to exposure, color, and other controls.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 13, 2014)

Well, like KmH said, 30 photos shot with low-end gear, and which were NOT PHOTOSHOPPED TO DEATH would have made a point. But instead, we got a click-bait piece.

I grew up shooting realllllly low-end gear...stuff that was 40 YEARS behind the state of the art. Articles like this one where heavy, heavy, and skilled Photoshop manipulation are required to transform that sow's ear into a rayon purse [not silk, but rayon, an imitation silk), do not impress me with their intellectual honesty.

Here are two cameras I learned on. The SLR has a non-instant return mirror and a FIXED, 45mm f/2.8 lens and an external selenium cell meter. The Kodak Pony 135-B had manually set focus by distance estimation, no light meter, had an f/4.5 lens and speeds of 25.50.100.200, manual knob-wind advance, and a shutter that had to be cocked before each shot.







I'm pretty familiar with low-end gear and what can be done with it. My friggin' iPhone 4 from the summer of 2011 is a better camera than either of these two.


----------



## runnah (Jun 13, 2014)

It's not about the photoshopping, it's about being happy with what you have and using it to it's full potential.


----------



## MSnowy (Jun 13, 2014)

Derrel said:


> MSnowy said:
> 
> 
> > Great subject matter goes along way in making great pictures, no matter what gear your using.
> ...



This is exactly what I was thinking. This approach sells billions of dollars worth of products a year.


----------



## snerd (Jun 13, 2014)

My ears were burning, now I know why! Turn your back for a second and tongues are wagging!!



astroNikon said:


> .......... The key is learning how to use them, and post processing to get the look you want.  My photos have taken a BIG step forward in just learning how to use Lightroom in relation to exposure, color, and other controls.



This. Totally what I'm doing now. Learning how to use my development software. I realized I hadn't a clue about using LR effectively. Even just the basics! If I'm shooting only raw, I simply cannot hope to be any type of amateur photographer if I cannot figure out how to convert my photographs from the camera to being viewable, whether via computer, web or print! I have learned just a couple of the basic things now, and the frustration level is already easing somewhat. I even used the radial filter and the graduated filter for the first time! WOOT!!

 Even my bad photos have to be processed correctly, so I just don't think you can separate digital photography from the software that you use to process it.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 13, 2014)

Put beautiful people into beautiful locations, and you can sell anything, from vitamins, to hair products, to beer, to cameras, to insurance, to watches.  What does the eye candy have to do with the products sold?  What, are you an anarchist?  That's the way the world works!


----------



## snerd (Jun 13, 2014)

IzzieK said:


> ............. Do I really need another credit card transaction or two I have to pay off? hmmmmmmm.......I am not Snerd........



By golly, the assumptions are strong here. Who said I bought on credit, other than the initial transaction?! 32 days on someone else's money ain't a bad deal!




robbins.photo said:


> .......... Snerd has a sense of humor? Huh. Are you sure about that? He just always seems so darn.. stoic really.......



Hey! All I got for you is............. virtue is sufficient for happiness. So there!


And for runnah.......... I liked the linked article. Thanks for posting.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 13, 2014)

snerd said:


> My ears were burning, now I know why! Turn your back for a second and tongues are wagging!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I've recently learned the Highlights & Shadow tools .. awesome .. just awesome.  In some of my car shots of the car with the engine compartment open, the shadow feature really brought out the polished engine compartments in all their glory.    And incamera Auto WB really just kinda gets you there in overcast days.  So much to learn to just bring what you see with your eyes  to what you output in the photo.  I spent a year trying to perfect that in the camera.  Now it's just quicker to tweak it in LR.


----------



## nzmacro (Jun 13, 2014)

And not one decent BIF shot amongst it............  why do I click on these links !!  

Danny.


----------



## snerd (Jun 13, 2014)

Izzie............... just yanking your chain!

Robbins............ that was Seneca, btw.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 13, 2014)

snerd said:


> IzzieK said:
> 
> 
> > ............. Do I really need another credit card transaction or two I have to pay off? hmmmmmmm.......I am not Snerd........
> ...


See what I mean?  downright vulcan.  spooky really.

lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 13, 2014)

They are all wonderful pictures. But the equipment used although called entry level are all better that most pro film cameras ever used. The point is today, most people have superior cameras that can shoot wonderful pictures if they learn to shoot wonderfully. No one can complain that their equipment is holding them back. That's just a canard in the industry to get you to buy more stuff.


----------



## snerd (Jun 13, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> ...... See what I mean?  downright vulcan.  spooky really.
> 
> lol



Shazbot! Nanu Nanu!!!


----------



## limr (Jun 13, 2014)

snerd said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > ...... See what I mean?  downright vulcan.  spooky really.
> ...



That's not Vulcan, that's Orcan!


----------



## snerd (Jun 13, 2014)

limr said:


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



Damn! Busted again! Wrong alien. That is illogical.


----------



## limr (Jun 13, 2014)

snerd said:


> That is illogical.



That's more like it


----------



## sashbar (Jun 14, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> They are all wonderful pictures. But the equipment used although called entry level are all better that most pro film cameras ever used. The point is today, most people have superior cameras that can shoot wonderful pictures if they learn to shoot wonderfully. No one can complain that their equipment is holding them back. That's just a canard in the industry to get you to buy more stuff.



Could not agree more. I will not be surprised if in 10 years time someone will say: look one can take wonderful pictures with an old, outdated, obsolete camera like Canon 5D Mk III , which is even worse than today's beginners kit.


----------



## IzzieK (Jun 14, 2014)

Thanks for the million laughs this yawning, Snerd, Danny and Todd. It's going to be my lucky day just laughing at how you turn this post into something else than serious...LOL


----------



## bribrius (Jun 14, 2014)

for all these people saying gear doesn't matter I would wonder why they aren't all shooting with fifty dollar point and shoots.


----------



## shefjr (Jun 14, 2014)

runnah said:


> How many straight out of camera shots do you see from any level camera?



The majority of my photos are straight out of camera. I have cs6, LR5 and develop my images from a RAW state and that is it. Lens correction, noise reduction and maybe a slight adjustment in exposure is about all I ever do. I have often wondered if my inability to use photoshop has hampered the quality of my photos. For quite some time now I have thought about asking someone on TPF to take one of my RAW images and edit it as though it was theirs just to see if it is a matter of my editing or I just suck at photography.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 14, 2014)

snerd said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > ...... See what I mean?  downright vulcan.  spooky really.
> ...


Wow.  That just explains a ton right there...   lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## hamlet (Jun 14, 2014)

The takeaway from this thread is that: if you don't know how to photoshop, then though luck. And i happen to be a master at the vibrance slider. :mrgreen:


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 14, 2014)

shefjr said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > How many straight out of camera shots do you see from any level camera?
> ...



Before I actually learned a few things about Lightroom I was using JPEG on my camera and trying to get everything right from the camera.
Thus I was taking alot of photos of just one scene, reviewing it in the LCD, and then making adjustments.
Since I've learned lightroom better I have also settled knowing that I can fix it in post, and then tweak it even more.

The one thing that I'm trying to learn "at the camera" is whitebalance,  Slight cloud cover, in and out sun ... all affects the whitebalance.  But I'm not sure how to really correct that other than becoming familiar with the settings in certain scenarios.  I don't think I want to carry a gray card around and spot check just before I take a shot ... it just sounds too painfully slow.

But then ... is there a WB feature on some light/flash meters ?
but in the end ... LR/PS lets one "just settle" on the photo as they know they can fix it in post.  That's what I've learned though.  BUt each time I go out I try to get as best a shot as I can .. but even then, most of the time AUTO WB isn't my friend for the correct colors.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 14, 2014)

Gear or not, photoshop or not, I just kinda thought it was cool to see the images.

They _were _pretty cool.

The whole "whether or not you need top gear" conversation is just so tired.


----------



## Ilovemycam (Jun 14, 2014)

OP, sure it matters. If your AF wont set focus you miss the shot. If you can't adjust the focus because of no distance scale you will be messed up if you need to zone focus. Many of the cams mentioned in the article will sub for each other. But if a cam can't do something easily then it is hard to bring home the pix.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 14, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Gear or not, photoshop or not, I just kinda thought it was cool to see the images.
> 
> They _were _pretty cool.
> 
> The whole "whether or not you need top gear" conversation is just so tired.




Says a guy who shoots the Nikon D800 and top-shelf lenses. In a thread started by a Canon 5D Mark III shooter. Not exactly entry-level gear in ANY way,shape, or form. You two guys shoot camera bodies that cost more than the entire outfits of many people.

I've noticed the same exact statements made over many years. Namely, that one needs only "one light", or "The simplest of equipment." Almost always by people who own state-of-the-art equipment and shoot that regularly.


----------



## manaheim (Jun 15, 2014)

Well, you've been watching me enough to know what I shoot, but not watching me enough to know my stance on this topic.

As I always say... YES. Gear is important, but NO you do not have to have top-tier gear to produce tier-end images, with the exception of specialized cases such as moving subjects in very low light.

Also, as I've said numerous times, this whole question is a defensive one. People rally around one view or another largely based on their need to justify either their inability to purchase this kind of gear, or to justify having spent more money on gear than most people spend on a car.

Also, as I've said numerous times, this question is tiring because there really IS an answer to it, but no one wants to hear it. BECAUSE, as in the case of any polarized argument, the real answer is somewhere in-between the two poles, and both sides are far too far from center emotionally to be able to see it.


----------



## snowbear (Jun 15, 2014)

.


----------



## bc_steve (Jun 17, 2014)

A D3x00 or D5x00 or D3x00 with a 50mm prime or 18-55 isnt _that_ primitive...


----------

