# My little rant



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 15, 2012)

I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.

Camera snobs...
The ones with pro level cameras that completely trash talk entry level photographers. Acting like the persons $800 set up is childs play and can't be tolerated. 

To me I believe its not the camera that makes the pictures, it's the photographer. I've been shooting with a bridge camera and I believe I can keep up with my friend with a T1i just because I know my camera inside and out. I don't need to spend thousands of dollars to have the perfect set up to be pleased with my pictures. Granted i'll have a D5100 in hand within the next 2 weeks. It's something that will help me achieve more with higher resolution...lol

Ending rant, I wonder if anyone will be paying attention to this.


----------



## Overread (Apr 15, 2012)

It really depends on the context.

"Great photos" is such a highly subjective term that its almost impossible to discuss anything without first setting a benchmark for what it is one wants to create and achieve. Once that is on the table then, yes, people can debate the right tools for a situation. You'll find some just cut mustard, some fail utterly and some are close to the line, but not quite there.

A lot of people like the romantic idea that "its all the photographer not the camera" and to some extent it is a true statement to make. But so often people say it without thinking (or think it without pausing to consider what they are thinking). It works within limits as a statement, but can't be a coverall for any situation (if it were then professionals would not invest £1000s in their gear). 

I think you'll find that the D5100 won't just let you get more with more resolution, but once you learn more and start to push its limits you'll find that it releases equipment based restrictions upon your creativity that the bridge camera holds over you. (of course sometimes those bridge cameras win over the DSLR - macro depth of field; size; weight; cost as examples).


----------



## SCraig (Apr 15, 2012)

The same has been said for any art for millenia.  It isn't the canvas, it's the painter.  It isn't the camera, it''s the photographer.  It isn't the guitar, it's the musician.

Why, then, is a Stradivarius such a prized instrument if it doesn't matter?


----------



## DorkSterr (Apr 15, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.
> 
> Camera snobs...
> The ones with pro level cameras that completely trash talk entry level photographers. Acting like the persons $800 set up is childs play and can't be tolerated.
> ...




I like your attitude! Just keep shooting do what you're doing and don't let them bother you. 



Goodluck.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 15, 2012)

Your logic is fine when you are talking about hobbyists and beginners, but what happens when it is your gear that limits your ability to properly perform the task at hand? Frames per second... ISO... sharpness... largest maximum aperture... dual card slots for instant back-ups...  the list can go on. 

I think where most people act like "camera snobs" are when new users post up about how they are about to shoot their first wedding with their Canon Rebel. In this case, the snob is completely justified. 

Now, for shooting your kids and daily activities, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with less expensive gear. Use the gear that fits you best, and meets all of your needs. When you reach the limitations of your gear, then it is time to become a gear snob yourself.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 15, 2012)

Technically it IS the camera that makes the pictures, but that's beside the point lol. I know what you mean.

The only flaw with that almost cliche piece of wisdom is that some photos can't be made with certain cameras. That's why we have so many people asking "how do you get that blurry background with my p&s?" It does matter to some degree. 

another example is sports. I can't shoot sports effectively with a cheaper camera. It just wouldn't work. I've never trash talked any photographer who owns an entry-level camera or a pro camera. I just try and show them up with my images. lol


----------



## mishele (Apr 15, 2012)

We live in a "who has the bigger dick" world. It's never going to change. Do your own thing and don't worry about everyone else.


----------



## Demers18 (Apr 15, 2012)

mishele said:
			
		

> We live in a "who has the bigger dick" world. It's never going to change. Do your own thing and don't worry about everyone else.



Quote of the year!


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 15, 2012)

The main reason you might see some bashing of photographers with entry level gear.. is that so many of those photographers have gone PRO! *With no skills, and entry level equipment they barely know how to use*... but they are still charging for thier "work", as crappy as it might be!  

Even then.. the bashing is at the photographer, not the entry level gear! 

If you are referring to that... I don't know what to tell you!

Hopefully you aren't part of the incompetent MWAC PRO explosion!


----------



## gsgary (Apr 15, 2012)

Demers18 said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She likes big dicks  so I've heard


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 15, 2012)

The opposite side of this coin are those who wonder why people go out and spend tens of thousands of dollars on gear and spend years perfecting their images.  Why?  

For $500, you can go into Best Buy, talk to some 17-yo drop-out, get a camera, and become an instant, total, bona-fide, genuine professional.


----------



## jriepe (Apr 15, 2012)

Sarah,

You will soon be getting the D5100?  Many here could tell you the limitations of an entry level DSLR that may be important to you when your photography progresses such as no in body auto focus motor, the built in flash unit not having a commander mode, etc.  That kind of information is provided to you in helping you in deciding if you are making  the right decision and not to be snobbish.  If I state I would not buy a camera for certain reasons I wouldn't be saying that to be a snob but rather because that particular camera does not have some features that are important to me.  So maybe you're taking things the wrong way.

Jerry


----------



## mishele (Apr 15, 2012)

gsgary said:


> Demers18 said:
> 
> 
> > mishele said:
> ...


No Comment....


----------



## Overread (Apr 15, 2012)

Darn Richards get all the luck


----------



## IByte (Apr 15, 2012)

Demers18 said:
			
		

> Quote of the year!



Lol coming from a person with a ...rooster for an avatar lol, love this forum.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 15, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.
> 
> Camera snobs...
> The ones with pro level cameras that completely trash talk entry level photographers. Acting like the persons $800 set up is childs play and can't be tolerated.
> ...



First off, I actually don't see much of that behavior on this forum.  Do you? 

Second, you know what's interesting is I get the reverse of this all the time.  "I need to buy a big camera like that so I can take great pictures!"  

You're right that it's not the camera, it's the photographer... to a degree.

Want to shoot some very low light photos?  My D300 crushes a lot of entry level cameras.  As someone else said... want that shallow DOF?  A better lens or a full frame camera is going to crush lesser gear.  The simple fact is that better gear has fewer limitations.

Honestly, almost every time I've ever heard anyone make the complaint you are making was when that person was being defensive.  The person had lesser gear and their ego was tied up in that fact and they bristle when anyone else suggests that they would do better if they purchased better gear.

This is also why I said I don't really see what you're talking about here on TPF that much.  I don't often see anyone bashing anyone else for their gear, but I DO see a whole lot of people getting their feathers ruffled when they THINK their gear is being bashed.


Also again on that Stradavarius point made earlier.  There really is a difference in "better stuff", otherwise it probably wouldn't exist.


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 15, 2012)

Wow guys I came back to this. 
I guess I should first state that the first post was wrote in about 3 minutes so I guess I should elaborate.
At the moment I'm using a SX30IS and I will be buying the D5100.
Why not the 7000, well first off I'm pretty broke but that's besides the point lol. I didn't really need an auto focus motor because well I can focus just fine by myself, and I don't really like auto-focus that much, I find it somewhat faulty still. The D5100 share the same censor so image quality isn't any different. I know about the lack of a wireless transmitter for flash but that doesn't affect me so much. I already ordered my 50mm 1.4/g. Maybe one day I will upgrade to a full frame sensor cam, but for now I am perfectly fine with my entry level. Anything is better than my SX30IS well maybe that's an overstatement, I guess photography me is less about the megapixels and auto-focus and more about creativity.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 15, 2012)

So you bought a lesser camera... because you could not afford a better one... and are posting complaining about people telling you that your camera isn't all that great?  And in this very post you're saying things like "I don't need this and that because I can compensate for it..."?

Yeah.  I'm sorry but that smacks of seriously defensive.

There's nothing wrong with purchasing only what you can afford and working with that, but being defensive about it is going to gain you nothing but frustration.


----------



## MTVision (Apr 15, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:
			
		

> Wow guys I came back to this.
> I guess I should first state that the first post was wrote in about 3 minutes so I guess I should elaborate.
> At the moment I'm using a SX30IS and I will be buying the D5100.
> Why not the 7000, well first off I'm pretty broke but that's besides the point lol. I didn't really need an auto focus motor because well I can focus just fine by myself, and I don't really like auto-focus that much, I find it somewhat faulty still. The D5100 share the same censor so image quality isn't any different. I know about the lack of a wireless transmitter for flash but that doesn't affect me so much. I already ordered my 50mm 1.4/g. Maybe one day I will upgrade to a full frame sensor cam, but for now I am perfectly fine with my entry level. Anything is better than my SX30IS well maybe that's an overstatement, I guess photography me is less about the megapixels and auto-focus and more about creativity.



Well you still have a focus motor - in the lens you bought - so it will autofocus. And if your serious about full manual focus you might want to buy a different viewfinder screen since the d5100's screen isn't made for manual focus - its very small and dim. But the autofocus works fine as long as you know how to use it properly and not let the camera choose where to focus.


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 15, 2012)

I'm not saying I wouldn't like a more expensive camera, but I'm saying no one should underestimate someone because of their tools. And yes I know my 50mm has an auto-focus motor...I wanted a lens for walking around candid shots. 
I mean every camera has its potential for certain things, but automatically judging someone off their gear is a little frustrating. I'm not talking about it on this forum in particular but in some situations people wont listen to me because of my bridge camera, acting like I don't know anything about photography because I have a cheapish camera. I mean I kinda understand from certain aspect but blowing someone off is just plain unjust. 

Also its also frustrating when someone has a thousand dollar camera and uses nothing but auto...but thats a different point.


----------



## mishele (Apr 15, 2012)

Less frustration about things you can't control.....:thumbup:


----------



## Dryver14 (Apr 15, 2012)

I thought, about 18 months ago I was the bees knees when I got a panasonic G1 for my birthday, It came with the standard 14 - 45 mm lens and whilst I regret jumping so early with the G1 as all other G series have video mode which i think I would like, I am quite happy with this little camera. That said my photographs now are no better than when I used a digital pocket camera a canon IXUS 50. the 12 mega pixels are apparent against the 5 megapixels but that is about it.  The camera was put away for about a year.  The last few weeks I have been toying with the purchase of 2 new lenses, both £400 each a 25 mm F1.4 and the 100 - 300 mm zoom ( not both at the same time ) but then I look at something like the canon D5 and wonder whether to part ex and start over before lens purchase......decisions decisions.... my point, by the way from my perspective is the camera is a third of the battle, from what I am learning on line or I think I am learning is the lenses seem to be the difference.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:
			
		

> I'm not saying I wouldn't like a more expensive camera, but I'm saying no one should underestimate someone because of their tools. And yes I know my 50mm has an auto-focus motor...I wanted a lens for walking around candid shots.
> I mean every camera has its potential for certain things, but automatically judging someone off their gear is a little frustrating. I'm not talking about it on this forum in particular but in some situations people wont listen to me because of my bridge camera, acting like I don't know anything about photography because I have a cheapish camera. I mean I kinda understand from certain aspect but blowing someone off is just plain unjust.
> 
> Also its also frustrating when someone has a thousand dollar camera and uses nothing but auto...but thats a different point.



You say people shouldn't judge you for your gear, and yet you're essentially judging them for theirs. 

If they spent less than $1000 on a camera would it be ok for them to lock it into program mode?  That also sort of implies that YOU look down on people with lesser gear, so why would you expect more of anyone else.

Face it... You're jealous and bitter that you're stuck with a marginal camera.


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 16, 2012)

Honest opinion, here: I think you're making a poor investment.

There's a lot more to photography than, "Oh hey, I like this, I'm going to take a picture of it." With a low-end entry level camera, you're going to find yourself very limited, very quickly.

The best advice I can offer you is stick with the camera you have until you can buy something that will not leave you limited in such a short time span.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

You can learn with any camera! Even if your camera lacks the basic features and abilities, you can still work on composition and framing. So what's the problem?


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> You can learn with any camera! Even if your camera lacks the basic features and abilities, you can still work on composition and framing. So what's the problem?



That can be done with her current equipment!


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 16, 2012)

Additional thought, to clarify what I was trying to say earlier: there's really no point, IMHO, to go from entry level to another entry level. Unless your original is broken, of course.


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.
> 
> Camera snobs...
> The ones with pro level cameras that completely trash talk entry level photographers. Acting like the persons $800 set up is childs play and can't be tolerated.
> ...



My 5D MKII with my awesomely fast primes and L series zooms along with my thousands of dollars of lighting gear make me a better photographer than you will ever be.



Equipment does matter at a certain point. I'm sure it's been iterated already, but I skipped the entire thread.


----------



## RedVixen81 (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> To me I believe its not the camera that makes the pictures, it's the photographer.



I am not a pro by any means but i would like to say that your statement here sometimes can be true. But think about it this way.. Would a painter paint with cheap paint? maybe but it may not look great on canvas, it may not dry properly. Yes he/she may know how to manipulate the paint to create a great picture but if high quality paint isnt used they could be limited in the outcome..or we can use a sculptor as an example.. they could buy the cheap clay to use but it may not heat right in the kiln or it may not hold its shape and there again that artist is limited...the same goes for photography.. i myself know that eventually my camera gear will limit me, but because i don't have a lot of money to burn on better lenses or a body i have to go with what i was able to afford at that time.


----------



## STM (Apr 16, 2012)

Allow me to add a few points to this discussion. In some respects your rant is spot on, but in others it is clearly not.

I have been doing photography for going on 40 years. That being said, I learned on film, and still shoot almost all of my personal stuff on film. I agree that it is the photographer BEHIND the camera and not necessarily the camera itself that makes the photograph. But on the other side of the coin, a low end consumer quality DSLR and kit lens like you have is going to fall far short of professional quality gear in many incidences beyond "every day" photography. 

I would never denigrate someone who is just starting out on the quality of their gear. Let's face it, photography gear is expensive. Consumer DSLR's and kit lenses are capable of making some very good images. But as your skills progress, you are going to find that that cheap camera and lens is just not going to cut it any more. At least I would HOPE you will, otherwise you will have relegated yourself just to an also-ran amateur photographer making ordinary photos. If you really want to learn about REAL photography, go get or borrow a MANUAL 35mm film camera and take a basic photography course at a local community college.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 16, 2012)

^ what he said.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

This is "one of those" threads


----------



## MTVision (Apr 16, 2012)

jowensphoto said:
			
		

> Honest opinion, here: I think you're making a poor investment.
> 
> There's a lot more to photography than, "Oh hey, I like this, I'm going to take a picture of it." With a low-end entry level camera, you're going to find yourself very limited, very quickly.
> 
> The best advice I can offer you is stick with the camera you have until you can buy something that will not leave you limited in such a short time span.



I don't see it as a poor investment - she's going from a bridge/p+s to an entry level d5100. The d5100 has some limits but she won't hit them anytime soon. It has no AF motor so the lenses she'll need are a little bit pricier - flash doesn't have a commander mode - there are ways around that. Off camera flash is still an option. The d5100 handles high ISO's really well especially when done properly. It may be an entry level camera but it is definitely a step up from what she's been using. It's not like she's a professional photographer - and jeez even some of the "Pro's" out there use even worse entry level cameras. 

It's a great entry level camera and she got a great lens with it.


----------



## Railphotog (Apr 16, 2012)

I'm curious how the OP manages to do manual focus with the Canon SX30?  I have one, use it most of the time over my DSLR, and find the manual focus option is rather cumbersome.  Can't equate its manual focus with the same on a SLR or DSLR.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Apr 16, 2012)

SCraig said:


> The same has been said for any art for millenia.  It isn't the canvas, it's the painter.  It isn't the camera, it''s the photographer.  It isn't the guitar, it's the musician.
> 
> And that is all very true.
> 
> ...



Is it a prized instrument to an irish fiddle player? Hell NO! Is it a prized instrument to a member of some rock band using a violin in some video? Hell no.

Is it a prized instrument to the last teenager who forgot one on the NYC subway? Hell YES. But only in the sense that they know they are going to catch hell for forgetting it somewhere...

If you don't get the difference between art and bull****, so be it, but don't try and make your views the ultimate views...


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

Railphotog said:


> I'm curious how the OP manages to do manual focus with the Canon SX30?  I have one, use it most of the time over my DSLR, and find the manual focus option is rather cumbersome.  Can't equate its manual focus with the same on a SLR or DSLR.


Manual focus on the SX30IS is very annoying, I guess I've just have become used to it though, I use nothing but manual on that camera now. I really pay attention to the focus meter thing on the side and the distance away from the subject.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 16, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:
			
		

> Is it a prized instrument to an irish fiddle player? Hell NO! Is it a prized instrument to a member of some rock band using a violin in some video? Hell no.
> 
> Is it a prized instrument to the last teenager who forgot one on the NYC subway? Hell YES. But only in the sense that they know they are going to catch hell for forgetting it somewhere...
> 
> If you don't get the difference between art and bull****, so be it, but don't try and make your views the ultimate views...



Cloud are you a musician?

I am.  Have been one for 30 years.

It doesn't matter what type of music you play, a quality instrument in talented hands makes a pretty significant difference.

I don't generally find a relationship between art and bull****, but I must admit that your bull**** is quite the work if art.


----------



## cgipson1 (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> Railphotog said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious how the OP manages to do manual focus with the Canon SX30?  I have one, use it most of the time over my DSLR, and find the manual focus option is rather cumbersome.  Can't equate its manual focus with the same on a SLR or DSLR.
> ...



Has it occurred to you that you might be taken more seriously by those you complain about ... if you would use proper terminology, and not *"the focus meter thing on the side, etc"*? Just a helpful hint!


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

manaheim said:


> ShutterbugSarah said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow ok bud whatever you say. I'm judging them for their gear, but I believe if your going to be spending that much money on something you should be using it for its full potential. Otherwise it's a bit of a waste. And still I do get somewhat bitter towards people who do shoot on nothing but program/auto who have entry DSLRs. 
But I'm not bitter, and I wouldn't call it "marginal gear". It is something very capable of taking good pictures, and that's what I need it for. I call it living in my means. I could of bought a D7000 but that would of left me almost nothing left for glass. I'll probably upgrade later on once I have a better stockpile of money.


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> ShutterbugSarah said:
> 
> 
> > Railphotog said:
> ...


 I'm just not sure what its called, i'm sorry... I know most technical terms other than that. But it's an odd little widget, if he has the camera he probably knows what I'm talking about.


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

MTVision said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for the kind words, it's nice to have someone not doubting me. I believe I've met the full potential of my SX30 so its a step up. And by buying the 1.4/g i'm leaving room for use of a full frame in the future.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> But I'm not bitter, ...



Um, perhaps you missed the title and basis for your own thread?


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> Honest opinion, here: I think you're making a poor investment.
> 
> There's a lot more to photography than, "Oh hey, I like this, I'm going to take a picture of it." With a low-end entry level camera, you're going to find yourself very limited, very quickly.
> 
> The best advice I can offer you is stick with the camera you have until you can buy something that will not leave you limited in such a short time span.


 I honestly am sort of confused since you have T2i, the D5100 is basically Nikons competitor for it..But ok


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> ShutterbugSarah said:
> 
> 
> > But I'm not bitter, ...
> ...


I'm ranting... So your saying you don't get upset and tell someone the story or reason. Doesn't mean I'm bitter, I kinda wanted to see other peoples opinions.


----------



## SCraig (Apr 16, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Is it a prized instrument to an irish fiddle player? Hell NO! Is it a prized instrument to a member of some rock band using a violin in some video? Hell no.
> 
> Is it a prized instrument to the last teenager who forgot one on the NYC subway? Hell YES. But only in the sense that they know they are going to catch hell for forgetting it somewhere...
> 
> If you don't get the difference between art and bull****, so be it, but don't try and make your views the ultimate views...


Why don't you do us both a favor and add my username to your ignore list like I just added yours to mine?


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 16, 2012)

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that the ranter is ranting about other ranters, and in the process they have created a thread full of ranting that is just as bad, if not worse, than the threads they are basing their rant on? 

Another thread full of win, no doubt.


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

I'm not basing my thread about any thread on here...And it is a Rant thread, that's why I titled it that.


----------



## STM (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > ShutterbugSarah said:
> ...



Honestly Sarah, if I were you I would just quit while you're ahead. This thread has descended almost into the realm of stupidity. It has FAR OUTLIVED ANY USEFULNESS.


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

STM said:


> ShutterbugSarah said:
> 
> 
> > Josh220 said:
> ...


 Your right, thank you.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> But I'm not bitter...



You rang?


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 16, 2012)

c.cloudwalker said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> > The same has been said for any art for millenia.  It isn't the canvas, it's the painter.  It isn't the camera, it''s the photographer.  It isn't the guitar, it's the musician.
> ...



From what I understand of contemporary art (which encompasses post-modernism), there is sometimes a VERY thin line between art and bull****.

My sister is an artist in Austin, TX, and she was featured in an exhibit last summer where some of her earthwork that she worked 6 months on was shown. The guy who shared her room in the exhibit had an artwork that consisted of a leafblower blowing a dollar bill against a piece of glass. Maybe it just goes way over my head, but I would not exactly call that art when I look at it from a critical standpoint.


----------



## OscarWilde (Apr 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> ShutterbugSarah said:
> 
> 
> > But I'm not bitter...
> ...


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

OscarWilde said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > ShutterbugSarah said:
> ...


I wasn't gonna reply any more but hahahah good one.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 16, 2012)

LOL @ $800 setup.... I'm happy with my $600, depreciated to $250 setup. Stop down metering, ftw!

(And if you don't know what that means, I guess I have a right to be snobby. With or without a 5d mk whatever)


----------



## STM (Apr 16, 2012)

I will do you one better, my first 135mm lens in 1972 had a PRESET APERTURE RING! Now THAT is dating myself!


----------



## unpopular (Apr 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > SCraig said:
> ...


I made my whole undergrad education about bullshart. I painted a canvas white and forged Claude Monet's name and asked $150 million for it. Much of the later postmodern stuff was meant as a mockery. The fact that neoclassical art is starting to make a resegance to replace postmodernism says only that the postmodernists were right - "What do we do now? Go back to boring dull, uninspired realist paintings of barns and bowls of fruit I guess"


----------



## unpopular (Apr 16, 2012)

STM said:


> I will do you one better, my first 135mm lens in 1972 had a PRESET APERTURE RING! Now THAT is dating myself!



Hell man. If I could afford it, I'd still be shooting my Graflex RB Series B. My Wista didn't even have a shuttered lens, rather a JML 150\4 process lens mounted on a linhof board.

But of course, stop down metering is by definition preset aperture. My two favorite lenses are preset. I only have one AF/AE lens, which I never use. There is something to be said about taking things slowly. It's hard to say if I had more money I'd invest in modern optics, and of course the cheapy aps glass costs about as much as many older lenses I have my eye on, but I like the process and the look which older glass offers.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> Wow ok bud whatever you say. I'm judging them for their gear, but I believe if your going to be spending that much money on something you should be using it for its full potential. Otherwise it's a bit of a waste. And still I do get somewhat bitter towards people who do shoot on nothing but program/auto who have entry DSLRs.



Really? Do you _really_ want to go down that road?  I'm betting you spent more money than most people have available to them on what gear you _have_, and I would bet all that money and more that you are not using it to its fullest potential.  If you can make that assertion of those who spent more than you, than there are those who spent less than you that can make the same assertion about you.

In both cases the argument is ridiculous.  You spend what you can afford to spend and what you choose to spend... your skill level or how you use what you choose to buy is irrelevant.



ShutterbugSarah said:


> But I'm not bitter, and I wouldn't call it "marginal gear". It is something very capable of taking good pictures, and that's what I need it for. I call it living in my means. I could of bought a D7000 but that would of left me almost nothing left for glass. I'll probably upgrade later on once I have a better stockpile of money.



It is marginal gear, plain and simple.  Does it take pictures?  Sure!  Does it even take decent ones?  Sure.  Does it have all the capabilities of some of the better bodies?  Hell no. It's absolutely middle of the road.  Nothing wrong with that, but accept it for what it is.  

It makes perfect sense that you would buy what you can afford and live within your means... right up until the point where you point at people who have spent more than you and judge them unworthy of having such a device. 

Look someone else said it... quit this.

Ranting threads are always the same.  Someone has their panties in a knot about something where they really don't have much of a leg to stand on and they foolishly say it out loud.  Everyone trounces on them for their crappy logic and offending them and such.  This is what you've accomplished.

I'd be SUPER impressed if you surrendered and admitted you were way off... but you can at least salvage this by just dropping it and not defending your position anymore... because... really... it's a BAD position.


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

I don't have to impress anyone, and if you don't like it, I don't care, this is just a little internet argument.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 16, 2012)

manaheim said:


> You spend what you can afford to spend and what you choose to spend... your skill level or how you use what you choose to buy is irrelevant.



YES!!!


----------



## ShutterbugSarah (Apr 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > You spend what you can afford to spend and what you choose to spend... your skill level or how you use what you choose to buy is irrelevant.
> ...


That's what I've been getting at the whole time...


----------



## IByte (Apr 16, 2012)

OMG 6 pages and this thread is still going >&hellip;<


----------



## manaheim (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> > manaheim said:
> ...



 but only when it's someone else picking on YOU because you have spent x$ with y skill level.  It's ok if you do it to someone else.  Hysterical.



ShutterbugSarah said:


> I don't have to impress anyone, and if you don't like it, I don't care, this is just a little internet argument.



Well congratulations on not impressing pretty much everyone on TPF then.

Kudos.

I'm out.

Good luck.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 16, 2012)

I feel I have a pretty reasonable position on this debate (which is old as dirt, btw).

All equiptment comes with some limitation, one way or another, a point and shoot is going to have poor high ISO performance and very deep DOF with little way around that. Photography by it's nature is limited, and the phtographer must, regardless of the equiptment he or she uses, chooses to use, can afford, whatever, work within these limitations.

A true measure of a phtographer's abilities is how effectively they can work within the limitations of the equiptment they use, and knowing what limitations they can expect. But a good photographer will be able to convey truth within any limitation, and find creative ways to express their world view regardless of the equiptment is available. Blaming a p/s limitations says nothing more than the photographer's own lack of vision.


----------



## IByte (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:
			
		

> That's what I've been getting at the whole time...




But he said in a few sentences.


----------



## fotomumma09 (Apr 16, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> I feel I have a pretty reasonable position on this debate (which is old as dirt, btw).
> 
> All equiptment comes with some limitation, one way or another, a point and shoot is going to have poor high ISO performance and very deep DOF with little way around that. Photography by it's nature is limited, and the phtographer must, regardless of the equiptment he or she uses, chooses to use, can afford, whatever, work within these limitations.
> 
> A true measure of a phtographer's abilities is how effectively they can work within the limitations of the equiptment they use, and knowing what limitations they can expect. But a good photographer will be able to convey truth within any limitation, and find creative ways to express their world view regardless of the equiptment is available. Blaming a p/s limitations says nothing more than the photographer's own lack of vision.



Aside from this ridiculous thread, I absolutely love this quote!


----------



## Austin Greene (Apr 16, 2012)

I absolutely agree that some cameras would be inappropriate to use for certain professional activities for most photographers, however, there are always people who can achieve extraordinary things with lower-end cameras that most professionals wish they could. If you can use an entry-level camera and deliver a product that your customer is happy with, then thats all you should care about. 

As for me, I have been perfectly happy with my T3i. Do I plan on upgrading one day to a higher-end set-up? Sure thing, but am I so worried about being limited that I feel the need to drop $3,000 on a camera? Hell no. At least in my case, the T3i has been wonderful. Its got the same sensor and very comparable ISO capabilities as the 7D, along with a slew of other fully customizable functions. The bottom line is that I know my camera well enough to feel perfectly comfortable shooting right next to someone with a professional body in my comfort zone of wildlife.

If people stopped whining so much about their setup's pricetag, and focused more on learning their gear through and through, I suspect we'd be seeing much better photos all around. Half the people out there with a 7D, 5D, or equivalent higher end camera can't shoot worth a damn, so don't worry about them. Just focus on learning your gear and only expanding when you have truly reached its capacity for creative expansion. 

At the end of the day you can think of it like this: Just because you've had a wonderfully flavorful and perfectly cooked meal doesn't mean you automatically assume it came out of a kitchen with stoves worth as much as most houses. In fact, most of the time it is the oldest and tiniest of kitchens that produce the best food.


----------



## Crollo (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> To me I believe its not the camera that makes the pictures, it's the photographer.



This cliche is thrown around all too often by amateurs who are desperately trying to justify their choice to not buy a half decent camera. It's fine if you're only a small hobbyist, but a good photographer will often hit the barrier rather quickly with what they can accomplish with entry level equipment, thus the 'trash talking' on entry level gear. 
It doesn't matter how good _you are as a photographer_, you cannot take the same picture a hasselblad h4d-40 can get using an iphone. 
Not unless you're intentionally butchering the hasselblad's capabilities to put it on even grounds with the iphone.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 16, 2012)

+1, if it was the photographer and not the gear, not one pro would bother with the top shelf stuff.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Apr 16, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.
> 
> Camera snobs...
> The ones with pro level cameras that completely trash talk entry level photographers. Acting like the persons $800 set up is childs play and can't be tolerated.
> ...



"The proof is in the pudding".  It doesn't matter how great the gear is if you don't know how to use it.  Spending thousands of $$ on gear is irrelevant if the spender doesn't also spend the time and energy to match his/her skills to the requisite level required to properly utilize the tools.  Trust me, It's VERY easy to make an image taken with a D3s look exactly like one taken with a D3000.

However, to your rant...I've spent a little over $10k on gear, but it definitely bothers me when all I hear a "pro" talking about is the 8 grand resting on his shoulder.  Some things never change...


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 17, 2012)

ShutterbugSarah said:


> I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.
> 
> Camera snobs...
> The ones with pro level cameras that completely trash talk entry level photographers. Acting like the persons $800 set up is childs play and can't be tolerated.
> ...



Honestly your rant seems a bit snobby when you drop that you keep up with your friends with a bridge or t1i. Why throw your friend under the bus? Are they the camera snob you refer to? Why upgrade if you are up to par already? 

I dont want to call you out but i do want you to think about what you are really saying here. Plus with cameras you usually get what you pay for but good gear and good skills are not the same thing. Plus you will end up spending thousands on gear for your 5100. There is no focusing motor so you will have to buy the more expensive lenses since you got the lesser motor.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 17, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> ShutterbugSarah said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a noob on here so I shouldn't probably be posting this but its something that thoroughly upsets me.
> ...



I had a pro offer to let me shoot with his 1d mark iv at a wedding one day. I took one pic with it and was scared to do anymore. Way to much gear for me but iso 12800 is pretty freaking awesome.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 17, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> +1, if it was the photographer and not the gear, not one pro would bother with the top shelf stuff.


It's about limitations, not abilities. It will be much harder to shoot in diverse conditions and while meeting client expectations with anything less than the least restrictive equiptment. Just as every camera has it's limitations, so does every photographer, and no photographer would forego a paying client at she expense of equiptment chosen simply because he or she lacks the skill to make do with what works.

That and 90% of professional photographers are nothing short of technicians.


----------



## unpopular (Apr 17, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> iso 12800 is pretty freaking awesome.


*sigh*


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Apr 17, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> iso 12800 is pretty freaking awesome.



if all goes according to plan, late this summer I'll be purchasing a D3s.  I dream about that day... :lmao:

I certainly have no problem at all with people buying the best DSLR gear and shooting better pictures than me.  Nothing pushes me more than seeing someone deliver an image that I can't deliver.  Composition, exposure, sharpness, etc..... your gear can only take you so far.


----------



## Redeyejedi (Apr 17, 2012)

my .02
it all depends on what the equipments' uses will be.
a professional barber, who wants to keep his customers won't use the same scissors he used in grade school for are projects.
a professional chef will use the best cutlery, pans, and ingredients they can get their hands on to make the finest meals to their ability.
a professional seamstress will have quality sewing machines.
pros get the best tools they can to do the job.

are there people who purchase more camera than they need? yes
are there people who make excellent photos with baseline/entry level gear? of course.

the thing ask yourself is, as with almost anything, what are the people using who are achieving the results you want?
are your aspirations to be a restaurant birthday photog? or an disneyland family portrait shooter? the photog on a cruise ship shooting from the red tape on the floor? what are they using?
do you envision slightly more challenging work? sports events, weddings, fashion, portraits....? these scenarios don't require top of the line gear but, better gear allows you to do more with the conditions you may be faced with.

instead of just saying, "i'll be fine with 'x' and can compete with many who have tens times better stuff..." ...... ask yourself:
do i need good low light capability?
do i need a high frame rate?
is remote control of flash important to me?
is weight a factor?
auto focus motor?
camera metering capability?

there is solid reasoning why professional wedding photographers don't use iphones, but instead many have TWO upper level cameras they use at an event.

also, to the isht-talking about shooters with lesser gear....this is a societal thing, and you will see this with anyting; my bike is faster, my printer has larger gamut, my lens has nicer bokeh, my scissors cut hair better, my balls are bigger but shoot nothing but net.....


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> All equiptment comes with some limitation, one way or another, a point and shoot is going to have poor high ISO performance and very deep DOF with little way around that. Photography by it's nature is limited, and the phtographer must, regardless of the equiptment he or she uses, chooses to use, can afford, whatever, work within these limitations.
> 
> A true measure of a phtographer's abilities is how effectively they can work within the limitations of the equiptment they use, and knowing what limitations they can expect. But a good photographer will be able to convey truth within any limitation, and find creative ways to express their world view regardless of the equiptment is available. Blaming a p/s limitations says nothing more than the photographer's own lack of vision.



I think it depends aswel on the audience that criticizes the photograph.

You can be happy with your own photograph, but if the audience does'nt like it? 
Or, you cannot be happy with a photograph yourself, but apparently the audience seems to like it more than you.

For example, this picture I took with a lens that has it's limitations. It's a screw-up fisheye converter on my low-cost kit-lens.
I'm not happy with the result, as the image is definitely not sharp, lens has aberration, somehow oversaturated, the front is not well exposed, only the building, etc... 







Put this on a professional photo forum and no one will like it. 
Put this on an alternative forum where people don't mind sharpness, but rather creativity, compositon, weird colors or whatever... and you will get positive reactions.

I put this on Flickr as a test, and there were already a bunch of people that seemed to like it. 
Even though the image is not sharp. Is sharpness overrated? (<<< that thread already existed but is closed)
Why can't they just be honest and say it is not sharp? Or have some constructive critique to say what needs to be done to have it good? 

Yes, good (or better) gear is needed here. Yes, this photo should be offline until it has been shot better.

Actually I'm always unhappy with my own photo results, it can always be done better. Probably, when I'd have the best gear, I won't be happy neither. There is always shortcoming. 

How do you guys personally you feel about it?

Any other statements to make?

The thread's not closed yet.


----------



## jake337 (Nov 24, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> Technically it IS the camera that makes the pictures, but that's beside the point lol. I know what you mean.
> 
> The only flaw with that almost cliche piece of wisdom is that some photos can't be made with certain cameras. That's why we have so many people asking "how do you get that blurry background with my p&s?" It does matter to some degree.
> 
> another example is sports. I can't shoot sports effectively with a cheaper camera. It just wouldn't work. I've never trash talked any photographer who owns an entry-level camera or a pro camera. I just try and show them up with my images. lol




Blurry background with a  cell phone!!!!


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 24, 2012)

yay! I got in before someone locks up this old and ridiculous thread!
BOOM!


----------



## The_Traveler (Nov 24, 2012)

Wow, seven months dead before someone digs it out in order to post a picture in a thread to show just how a spectacular photographer works.


----------



## jake337 (Nov 24, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> +1, if it was the photographer and not the gear, not one pro would bother with the top shelf stuff.




The photographer still chooses their gear.....


So it is still the photographer.  


At a pro level I believe it is more about achieving a money making workflow.  A good workflow can't have one dicking around with cheap gear that may or may not work for the situation.  Professional just want their gear to work, repeatedly, in any situation that is put in front of them, time and time again.  Hence the need for professional gear, for professional.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

Hey unpopular... dunno about you but this it the other recent trend I noticed... noobies digging up dead threads.


----------



## Tee (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Hey unpopular... dunno about you but this it the other recent trend I noticed... noobies digging up dead threads.



True, except this thread was dug up by a member who's been here since '05.  LOL

I was going to quote your first post in  this thread which is agree that there aren't many gear bashing people but it's more towards the person.  Everytime I see rant threads about bashing newbies gear I'm always left scratching my head.  Maybe that's how they perceive the feedback being given to them.  I just picture them with a finger in each ear not listening to what is actually being said.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Hey unpopular... dunno about you but this it the other recent trend I noticed... noobies digging up dead threads.


Sometimes, when starting new threads on forums, you get reactions that similar threads already exist and you should have used the search function on the forum first. That way you respond on a topic without creating a new thread that actually already existed.

Better to dig up something where you can reply on something that fits, than starting a new thread to get responses that are already said?


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 24, 2012)

mishele said:


> We live in a "who has the bigger dick" world. It's never going to change. Do your own thing and don't worry about everyone else.


Don't worry about my nickname :blushing:, but still, this thread has the best quote of this year.

*worth digging


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

Tee said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Hey unpopular... dunno about you but this it the other recent trend I noticed... noobies digging up dead threads.
> ...



Wow... low post count. (I only looked at the post count, not the join date.)

I don't follow the rest of what you're saying, unfortunately...



Dikkie said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Hey unpopular... dunno about you but this it the other recent trend I noticed... noobies digging up dead threads.
> ...



The (usually unspoken) implication of the statement "go search" is that not only will they find the threads that answer the question, but that everything that could ever be said about that particular topic has already been said at least 3,000 times, so there's NO point in revitalizing the discussion... either by new thread OR old.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:


> The (usually unspoken) implication of the statement "go search" is that not only will they find the threads that answer the question, but that everything that could ever be said about that particular topic has already been said at least 3,000 times, so there's NO point in revitalizing the discussion... either by new thread OR old.



Fact is that every topic has already been discussed, and that all sub forums of Foundations of Photography, like beginners' forum and photographic discussions have to be closed down and only available read-only by the search function.


----------



## mishele (Nov 24, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > We live in a "who has the bigger dick" world. It's never going to change. Do your own thing and don't worry about everyone else.
> ...


 Did I say that?! :lmao: 
Thanks for digging!


----------



## Tee (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:


> I don't follow the rest of what you're saying, unfortunately...



I was referring to this quote in that I agree with what you said. 



manaheim said:


> Honestly, almost every time I've ever heard anyone make the complaint you are making was when that person was being defensive. The person had lesser gear and their ego was tied up in that fact and they bristle when anyone else suggests that they would do better if they purchased better gear.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

If people are going to start debates, I'd rather start new, stale debates than dig up old stale debates.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 24, 2012)

This thread and the positions espoused within are so old and stale that I refuse to even respond at all with even a single post to it!

So there!


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

Dikkie said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > The (usually unspoken) implication of the statement "go search" is that not only will they find the threads that answer the question, but that everything that could ever be said about that particular topic has already been said at least 3,000 times, so there's NO point in revitalizing the discussion... either by new thread OR old.
> ...



That's a nice theory and it sounds true if you stick to the surface of the argument, but there are nuances there that you're conveniently glazing over to sound like the righteous defender of the weak... and I call bull.

Discussions around "People with better gear are mean to those of us with lesser gear", "xxx makes me a professional", "xxx does NOT make you a professional", any "pro vs not" discussion, or really anything where either the subject or the content of the first message includes the word "rant", are not only often repeated but _utterly _valueless at their core.  Yes, I did say that.  What I'm saying is that this very TOPIC, and all like it, should be _banned_, and the forum could only be enriched for its banning.

Now everyone will decry what a horrible monster I am... oppressive and the whole bit.  Sure, sure.  W_hiners._  Every single one.  People want so DESPERATELY to be heard, and so DESPERATELY to be accepted and feel like they're special even though they have a cheaper camera or less experience or whatever their particular hang-up is.  What people need to really do is learn how to accept THEMSELVES for who they ARE and stop posting raving complaint threads on internet forums looking for a pat on the back and assurances that everything will be ok and that they're just _great _because at least 300 other people are in the same exact boat as them, and they all can get together and think it's _all ok_.

Bah.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:
			
		

> That's a nice theory and it sounds true if you stick to the surface of the argument, but there are nuances there that you're conveniently glazing over to sound like the righteous defender of the weak... and I call bull.
> 
> Discussions around "People with better gear are mean to those of us with lesser gear", "xxx makes me a professional", "xxx does NOT make you a professional", any "pro vs not" discussion, or really anything where either the subject or the content of the first message includes the word "rant", are not only often repeated but utterly valueless at their core.  Yes, I did say that.  What I'm saying is that this very TOPIC, and all like it, should be banned, and the forum could only be enriched for its banning.
> 
> ...



Me and the wife dont think your a monster. We think you are awesome bunny!


----------



## mishele (Nov 24, 2012)

^^^^Chris, did you have your coffee this morning?


----------



## EIngerson (Nov 24, 2012)

Buckster said:


> This thread and the positions espoused within are so old and stale that I refuse to even respond at all with even a single post to it!
> 
> So there!



Wait just a minute......


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

I know a few topics which haven't been discussed because it's beyond all your simple little minds to comprehend.


----------



## KmH (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Hey unpopular... dunno about you but this it the other recent trend I noticed... noobies digging up dead threads.


Recent trend?


----------



## Overread (Nov 24, 2012)

I'll only get worried when its the oldies who start digging up old threads


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

inside joke.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

mishele said:


> ^^^^Chris, did you have your coffee this morning?



*Slurp*

I start work on Monday. I'm in a pissy mood.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

being that it's still saturday, you either love your job, mana, or you're perpetually pissy.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> being that it's still saturday, you either love your job, mana, or you're perpetually pissy.



Probably the latter, though I've been TRYING to be better... though SOMEONE on this #$)@#$ forum feels it necessary to call threads that will tick me off to my attention!!!


----------



## ewick (Nov 24, 2012)

mishele said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Demers18 said:
> ...



too funny.


----------



## Overread (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > being that it's still saturday, you either love your job, mana, or you're perpetually pissy.
> ...



So is that a subtle hint that you don't want me to pm you the next time I put up a bug thread?


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

noooooooooooooooo...


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 24, 2012)

Overread said:


> I'll only get worried when its the oldies who start digging up old threads



You just have to do the things you love when you still _can_... I mean, within one month, the world can be gone according to the maya calendar.

But I still have some credit here... 
Things would only get worse if I'd digg up old threads with an average speed of 9 posts per day.
In contrary, I have an average of 0,09 posts per day on this forum, even if i'm hanging out here longer than you 
No one can blame me for spamming or n00bing


----------



## mishele (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^^Chris, did you have your coffee this morning?
> ...


 Do you have to ride a train to work?  Are we going to make new friends? Yea I can't wait to find out.lol


----------



## andrewochs615 (Nov 24, 2012)

mishele said:


> We live in a "who has the bigger dick" world. It's never going to change. Do your own thing and don't worry about everyone else.




I thought it was "it's not the size that matters, it's how you use it."


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

mishele said:
			
		

> Do you have to ride a train to work?  Are we going to make new friends? Yea I can't wait to find out.lol



Tragically... Yes.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

^^ just pretend to fall asleep on stranger's shoulders, loud snoring is adds to the fun.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> ^^ just pretend to fall asleep on stranger's shoulders, loud snoring is adds to the fun.



The guy mish is referring to would probably strangle me.


----------



## mishele (Nov 24, 2012)

manaheim said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yay!!! I have something to look forward to in the morning again!!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

wait. do you guys take the same train?


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 24, 2012)

Yes, if by train, you mean Facebook.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

wtf! you guys have a secret facebook society?!

I bet you guys gossip about me.


----------



## mishele (Nov 24, 2012)

unpopular said:


> wtf! you guys have a secret facebook society?!
> 
> I bet you guys gossip about me.


We have a Fan Page dedicated to you!!


----------



## unpopular (Nov 24, 2012)

Sweet! You should start a "bring back the t-rex" campaign!


----------



## manaheim (Nov 24, 2012)

I like t-rexes.

on facebook

with monkeys.


----------



## Dikkie (Nov 25, 2012)

I'm sure I did good with digging up this thread, some people aren't done talking, yet.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 25, 2012)

about nonsense! that's what happens when these threads are pulled up.

don'y make me get the My Little Ponies out...


----------



## manaheim (Nov 25, 2012)

I think we should use the rant thread to rant about unrelated stuff until a mod locks it.

So last night we ate in a restaurant and I sat opposing this kid at another table who...

1. Hadn't cut his hair in four years.
2. Hadn't washed his hair in one.
3. Was talking about #@$@)(#$ minecraft the whole dinner.
4. Was chewing... rapidly... with his mouth open.

If I were this kid's parent I'd be horrified.  I mean, really, to be honest... #1 and #3 are whatever... but 2 and 4?  Unacceptable beyond belief.  And disgusting.  Ugh.


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 25, 2012)

aside from photography and cooking...my wife sews.  she has a nice husqvarna sewing machine and overlock machine. (serger)
went to a joann fabrics yesterday since they were running some good sales over the weekend and she got $120 in thread. JUST THREAD! two friggen bags of nothing but thread! (admittedly the overlock machine uses 4 spools at a time so it eats thread pretty fast)  today she is going back for some fabrics they have on sale too. she mostly does quilting, sheet sets, blankets, baby receiving blankets,stuff like that.


----------



## Tee (Nov 25, 2012)

I'm sitting in a local diner right now with two late 60's-ish sea hags yapping like their trying to talk over a rock concert. There's 4 people in here. Lol. It's so loud I can't even concentrate writing this post. I have a strong dislike for people who do not follow social protocols in public places.


----------



## mishele (Nov 25, 2012)

I can't stand when people complain about old sea hags in Diners that talk too loud!!


----------



## Tee (Nov 25, 2012)

mishele said:
			
		

> I can't stand when people complain about old sea hags in Diners that talk too loud!!



You're a loud diner talker I presume.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 25, 2012)

I can't stand people between the ages of 40-50. I mean seriously, you're the ones who parented those spoiled 18-25 year olds ... take some responsibility!

And if I hear "I am now realizing how much I don't know" one more time ... it's BS and you know it!

(and if you're thinking "oh, but my kid is special!" ... yeah, i'm talking about you)


----------



## unpopular (Nov 25, 2012)

Tee said:


> mishele said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i can see that. I bet she gets the cackles.


----------



## texkam (Nov 25, 2012)

When your gear limits your ability to properly perform the task at hand, you should try to upgrade. That is why a Stradivarius is such a prized instrument.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 25, 2012)

^^ stay on topic.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 25, 2012)

unpopular said:
			
		

> ^^ stay on topic.



I know, seriously.

I hate people who don't stay on topic.  They're shredding the fabric of society.  Who raises these people?!


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 25, 2012)

sooo....3 hours at the Joann Fabrics in Sanford for the last day of the thanksgiving weekend sale. yesterday was $120 in thread.  today was fabrics. $300 in blizzard fleece bolts and one bolt of flannel. her overlock machine is going to be putting in some serious overtime. good thing she makes money with this...


----------



## manaheim (Nov 25, 2012)

Lol wow.


----------



## Patrice (Nov 25, 2012)

My wife also caught the quilting bug a few years ago. Photography as a hobby can't hold a candle to this as far as capital costs go.

Long arm programable and computer controlled quilting machine, Janome programable sewing machine, Janome overlock machine, peripheral equipment such cutting mats, layout tools, various sharp implements : $20,000+

This suff exclusively takes the whole of the largest room in our house (the long arm quilter is 10 ft long) : 1/8th of a 4 br home - $30,000

Materials and shop time to build the support tables and ancillary furniture for this stuff : $10,000

She does try and sell some quilts, revenue to date - $1200. If she pays herself $12/hr then she just covered her time to produce that quilt. (Note the use of the singular.)


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 25, 2012)

Patrice said:


> My wife also caught the quilting bug a few years ago. Photography as a hobby can't hold a candle to this as far as capital costs go.
> 
> Long arm programable and computer controlled quilting machine, Janome programable sewing machine, Janome overlock machine, peripheral equipment such cutting mats, layout tools, various sharp implements : $20,000+
> 
> ...



yea, she doesn't have a longarm machine. maybe next year. her equipment is Husqvarna, which she has been very happy with. she does do quilting, just not as much. and, of course, it takes a lot longer to quilt on a regular machine compared to a longarm.


----------



## dbvirago (Nov 25, 2012)

Wow on the quilts. My grandmother made hers by hand and she spent months on each one. I'll treasure mine even more having read this.


----------



## Luke345678 (Nov 27, 2012)

The photographer is very important but so is his gear. Now the price of the gear does not matter, it's really just what you prefer. Not everyone is as fortunate as others and some people just prefer bridge and point and shoot cameras.


----------

