Deep pocket = good photography?
- Thread starter UncleFai
- Start date
:bsmilie::bsmilie: can't help it but i'd done the same too.
anyway, deep pockets equates good photography? to a certain extend maybe. partly due to the gears that you can afford. but it all boils down to the basics. ie. if you can't get a grip on the basic settings or even the handling, i don't forecast a good outcome from those shots taken. just my opinion
I think it's human nature, be one a medical physician or not.
It is oft difficult to differentiate want from need:
I like the way Kit puts it - it's the icing on the cake.
To those who can afford it, it's not even the icing, it's the box that covers the cake.
It is oft difficult to differentiate want from need:
- I will need a reasonably ok DSLR (e.g. 450D, 550D) and a relatively functional lens to allow me to take good photos, provided I am hard working and am willing to practise and observe the principles and art of photography.
- But very often, I want to buy the latest body (e.g. 1DsMkIV) and the best lenses (EF 70-200 f/2.8L MkII) because they, respectively, give me high ISO capacity and very good hybrid IS. And these make it easier for me to capture subjects that i would otherwise find difficuilt capturing had I been without these better equipment.
- that special scene with a moving human subject in the dark with your latest high ISO Nikon D3s camera,
- that special 3D pop-up effect where the subject jumps out from the surrounding with your M9/lenses, etc. etc..
I know of Doctor friends who shoot beautiful pictures with their mid-range Canon DSLR's and mid-range EF lenses. And they look at me with a funny look whenever I talk to them about new equipment.- that special 3D pop-up effect where the subject jumps out from the surrounding with your M9/lenses, etc. etc..
I like the way Kit puts it - it's the icing on the cake.
To those who can afford it, it's not even the icing, it's the box that covers the cake.
maybe it took a different response from TS when the price tags of those cams were mentioned:dunno:
It depends on what you want to achieve, and what determines "good".
Many people see Lomography as art and are happy to achieve blurry pics and toy cameras are enough for them.
Many people see Lomography as art and are happy to achieve blurry pics and toy cameras are enough for them.
If he had a low end camera, would you continue the conversation? Why shut up and sigh? Did his high-end gear intimidate you? Nothing wrong with high end equipment if he can afford it. Whether his pictures are great or not does not really matter. If he likes to collect high-end cameras, so be it. It's his money after all. Instead of sighing, you shld take the opportunity to asked more questions. Perhaps even borrow the Leica ? :sweat:
I do believe better gears do provide better photos in terms of photo quality. I am speaking from this point of view, straight from cam photos without a single bit of Post Processing.
I am sure when shot at ISO 1600 on a Canon 450D and a 5DMKII can gives u a very good explaination why i said the above.
not only cameras.. lens too..
Check out those nice pictures in P&P.. how many are actually taken with kit lens and built in flash?
All those very nice, very good.. althou some of the photographers does have skills, more often than not, the nice pictures are from the L lens.. Not all.. but most..
And some are with external flash with diffusers = extra equipment, extra cost.
At least, those that I feel is nice are all taken with L lens and/or external flash.. YMMV thou..
landscape maybe a bit different thou.. while large aperture almost always help in portraits.. An L lens may not offer much advantage over a kit lens on a tripod, other than sharpness and contrast which can be improved via PP..
In short, equipment does matter. Not talking about artistic picture thou.. those are largely subjective..
Last edited:
better not borrow this leica... scaly the moment u took it, it goes faulty how? haha.. then u really becomes good pg liao....
haha
I remember seeing this smwhere.. :bsmilie:
Author to Photographer: Hey, Ur pix r very nice, wat cam u used??
Photographer to Author: I read ur books, very nice too! Wat typewriter did u use??
Author to Photographer: Hey, Ur pix r very nice, wat cam u used??
Photographer to Author: I read ur books, very nice too! Wat typewriter did u use??
Deep pocket = good equipment.
That doesn't necessarily equate to good photography.
Ever seen Point&Shoots getting great photos? It can be done. Perhaps needing a bit more creativity and patience but still doable.
Ferrari = good driver? You get my drift
That doesn't necessarily equate to good photography.
Ever seen Point&Shoots getting great photos? It can be done. Perhaps needing a bit more creativity and patience but still doable.
Ferrari = good driver? You get my drift
Some ppl just collects cameras and never use them. Money doesnt equate good images. But there are certain effects that can easily be created thru good use of expensive gear. This include software, computers and a host of other things.
Deep pocket does not equal to good photography, or tennis skills, or driving skills or whatever skill you are trying to acquire, but one thing for sure, it does give you access to more resources, and one cannot deny that the more resource you can access to, the better chance of your success.
It is not an absolute yes or no.
But again, who is to say that photography, or driving or tennis or table tennis, is about starting from the most basic equipments. Entry level is only as low as the depth of your pocket.
If my pocket is deep enough, is there anything to stop me from getting a Nikon D3X instead of the D5000 I got, absolutely not. After a few months if I wanted to change to A Mark 1 or II or III, whatever it is, will I go out and get it, of course I will.....but only if my pocket is deep enough.
If my pocket is deep enough, will my first car be a Honda Accord instead of a Nissan Latio I am driving now?, of course it will be.
Is this a waste of money? If i have deep pocket, then no.
One thing we have to accept, this is a hobby, its never about getting the best composition, the best mood, or telling the best story with my shot, its about hobby, a past time,...a toy.
If the guy next to me can afford a more expensive cam and lens, then I am glad that he can afford a more expensive toy, jealous? of course, I will probably be as green as the incredible hulk.
Contradicting to what the cam manufacturer would like you to believe, for me, if you know nuts about photography , you need all the help from technology you can get, so for that, A D3X should be an entry level cam, and a D3000 should be a professional cam.
Many people talked about "man behind the cam", "best Composition", " If you are good, you can take better fotos with a PnS then a DSLR".
So will deep pocket gives you better fotos?
until I see this same group of people carrying a Canon Ixus with them instead of a DSLR, I am sitting on the fence sliding towards a marginal "yes".
It is not an absolute yes or no.
But again, who is to say that photography, or driving or tennis or table tennis, is about starting from the most basic equipments. Entry level is only as low as the depth of your pocket.
If my pocket is deep enough, is there anything to stop me from getting a Nikon D3X instead of the D5000 I got, absolutely not. After a few months if I wanted to change to A Mark 1 or II or III, whatever it is, will I go out and get it, of course I will.....but only if my pocket is deep enough.
If my pocket is deep enough, will my first car be a Honda Accord instead of a Nissan Latio I am driving now?, of course it will be.
Is this a waste of money? If i have deep pocket, then no.
One thing we have to accept, this is a hobby, its never about getting the best composition, the best mood, or telling the best story with my shot, its about hobby, a past time,...a toy.
If the guy next to me can afford a more expensive cam and lens, then I am glad that he can afford a more expensive toy, jealous? of course, I will probably be as green as the incredible hulk.
Contradicting to what the cam manufacturer would like you to believe, for me, if you know nuts about photography , you need all the help from technology you can get, so for that, A D3X should be an entry level cam, and a D3000 should be a professional cam.
Many people talked about "man behind the cam", "best Composition", " If you are good, you can take better fotos with a PnS then a DSLR".
So will deep pocket gives you better fotos?
until I see this same group of people carrying a Canon Ixus with them instead of a DSLR, I am sitting on the fence sliding towards a marginal "yes".
got 1 plus side. pisses off all the ppl who knows how to use,especially those who wishes for an upgrade cause limited by equipment but dun have money one:angel:
I re-read your post, you didn't mention did he ever show you some of his works nor he only boast about what cameras and lenses he owns.
so "Deep pocket = good photography? " is your own conclusion or your doctor friend's?
This friend of mine is a AV and computer geek. He has even done wedding videos for a number of our friends. So while I have not seen his photos, I am very sure he is no idiot.
My question/comment is just as simple as it says: do you need deep pockets to do good photography? If so, how deep?
On a related note: I was talking to a sales person at Mee Too (in JB). And he told me that for commercial magazines, even the best DSLR is no longer acceptable - only medium and large format need apply. The ante seems to be going up and up.
My question/comment is just as simple as it says: do you need deep pockets to do good photography? If so, how deep?
On a related note: I was talking to a sales person at Mee Too (in JB). And he told me that for commercial magazines, even the best DSLR is no longer acceptable - only medium and large format need apply. The ante seems to be going up and up.
well, if TS's doctor friend knows what he is buying then good....if not, then good for the seller...
If your talking about technology there is always a sweet spot where you can get the best value for your money.
Beyond this point the marginal return reduces gradually until it is too small to justify the added cost.
IMO brands like Leica charge far too much for just the brand name. Hasselblad is probably the worst culprit - there is no point in paying 60k for a camera that will be obsolete in a year.
Beyond this point the marginal return reduces gradually until it is too small to justify the added cost.
IMO brands like Leica charge far too much for just the brand name. Hasselblad is probably the worst culprit - there is no point in paying 60k for a camera that will be obsolete in a year.
Similar threads
