Deep pocket = good photography?

[AhFoo]

Alot of people has misconception that with good skill you can shoot any photo good. This is true that most photo that you shoot will be good, but without stuff like a good telephoto lens and camera that is fast enough, you cannot even shoot the actions in the middle of a football field properly (so what shoot the crowd and the uncle beside you cheering throughout the whole action and the title is football match?). Smiliarly you cannot shoot a huge group photo with a 50mm in a tight area (try stiching the photo ba ).

I believe the T.S mean expensive but no fuctionality of the equipments. In the tight area, u need a wde lens for a group shots, but do u need a expensive one wif a red ring to get a good shots?

I do shoot fast action sport before wif a normal tele len( sigma 70-300) and a not so great camera (40D), not really work of a pro but can record the moments nicely wif a good position. nowadays most camera body have a shutter speed that can freeze sport action juz fine and most sports event have good lightings. I believe if u give me a super tele L lens and a ID mkiV i cant come out wif a much better photos.

 

[PaulRussell]

Would a better microphone make the Flying Dutchman a better singer?
OTOH a better microphone will always bring out the best in a top level singer.

 

[Octarine]

Please help to bury the dead horse now ...

 

[wongcho]

I am not sure if I have read it correctly. I thought the thread starter just said his doctor friend has $$$ camera. Expensive is a relative term. To someone earning say $1million a year maybe $10,000 is considered cheap. To someone earning $50000 a year, $10000 may be considered very expensive. Anyway thread starter did not elaborate if the doctor is a good or mediocre photographer etc..

Following are just my thoughts.
The fact that doctors have to handle delicate medical instruments(at least in their training) and very often have to view photographs, scans etc.. I think they probably have an idea what they want type of camera meet their needs.
Many displays, cameras and monitors used in hospitals have some of the highest resolution available in the industry.
Thus even the high end camera and lenses mentioned by the thread starter may not be even comparable to what the doctor have been using or used to.

If the doctor enjoys the camera he has so be it (whether he is a good photographer or not).
If a rich newbie owns a "pro" camera and uses it on auto mode all the time but he is happy with it, so be it.
We may all have our different objectives so as long as it meet our objective we should be happy.

 

[wootsk]

I believe the T.S mean expensive but no fuctionality of the equipments. In the tight area, u need a wde lens for a group shots, but do u need a expensive one wif a red ring to get a good shots?

I do shoot fast action sport before wif a normal tele len( sigma 70-300) and a not so great camera (40D), not really work of a pro but can record the moments nicely wif a good position. nowadays most camera body have a shutter speed that can freeze sport action juz fine and most sports event have good lightings. I believe if u give me a super tele L lens and a ID mkiV i cant come out wif a much better photos.

If you let a normal (in the sense normal camera user) person uses a better wide lens, he might produce good pictures because he got the good equipments and it helps with better picture quality and lesser barrel distortion etc etc. Others still need to port it over to photoshop to correct those problems.

In soccer matches, a more accurate AI servo with a faster lens has advantage for catching the hottest action on the field like C Ronaldo fancy and fast footwork in frozen version etc. I am not saying it is impossible to do that using a normal cheaper telephoto Lens. BTW I am using a 30D, and it still serves me well

Anyway it is people money and people freedom, I will just suck my own thumb and focus on improving my photography skills to produce better photos at whatever I can reach for rather than envy whatever I cannot afford.

 

[AhFoo]

If you let a normal (in the sense normal camera user) person uses a better wide lens, he might produce good pictures because he got the good equipments and it helps with better picture quality and lesser barrel distortion etc etc. Others still need to port it over to photoshop to correct those problems.

In soccer matches, a more accurate AI servo with a faster lens has advantage for catching the hottest action on the field like C Ronaldo fancy and fast footwork in frozen version etc. I am not saying it is impossible to do that using a normal cheaper telephoto Lens. BTW I am using a 30D, and it still serves me well

Anyway it is people money and people freedom, I will just suck my own thumb and focus on improving my photography skills to produce better photos at whatever I can reach for rather than envy whatever I cannot afford.

I believe wat u said is correct, this can all be correct wif skill.

Case to case, there are pple wif top end lens wif biggest apperture that keep screwing up their photo becos they cannot control the DOF of a big aperture and some is lost when the pro grade camera no longer have the auto mode.

my 2 cent

 

[Limsgp]

deep pockets does not necessarily result in good photography, but it sure makes photography that much more enjoyable. in the same way that owning a ferrari does not automatically make you a better driver, but it sure makes driving more fun.

feeling good about your equipment does help you feel good about your photographs, and keeps the photography passion alive.

get the best equipment that you can afford, and make the most of it. excellence in photography comes from practice, not purchase.

very true indeed.. couldn't agree more.... :thumbsup::thumbsup:

It's actually quite painful knowing the limitations of your equipment but not able to buy better equipment.. because of the limitations.. a lot of constraint to get usable pictures..

For e.g., max aperture F5.6.. muz choose BG carefully then can shoot.. someone else with 200mm F2 lens just anyhow shoot and the BG will be blurred into creamy backdrop..

Shoot events.. muz use low shutter bcoz of small aperture.. hit and miss.. external flash is extra $$$$

Good equipment really really makes photography much more enjoyable..

 

[ManWearPants]

Please help to bury the dead horse now ...

Sometimes it is good to keep the dead horse alive. It is the same principle as buying 4D. You hope to strike it. Similarly, by envying people with bigger tools, one hope to be like them, owning bigger tools in time to come. It is good that people are hoping for better equipments cos it means that we are all striving to get them.

 

[DarkPa1adin]

http://stylepeterson.com/photography-articles/pro-consumer-lenses

its a very nice article. it makes me feel like being a pure SIGMAma, not saying that sigma doesn't produce pro-grade lenses but their pro grade may not be the best. Like Canon is known for Tele-superiority whereas Nikon, wide angle. not sure about sony/pentax/m43/43 strategy.

 

[DarkPa1adin]

Good equipment really really makes photography much more enjoyable..

I agree with it. more settings to play with.

 

[Jed]

Check out those nice pictures in P&P... 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..

Rubbish. There are plenty of people using Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Samsung, and other brands taking very good pictures too. Even, occasionally, Leica users, assuming you can see past the glow and pop and don't cut yourself on their glass that is just so sharp. Just because you're using an L lens doesn't make you more likely to take good pictures.

Incidentally, I do know what you meant by your comment.

The serious answer to your comment is that so many are taken with professional grade lenses because so many Singaporeans own professional grade lenses; the kit lens/basic lens/pro lens proportion is skewed unusually in favour of the professional grade lenses.

 

[Jed]

this thread brings me memories of JJ lin + M9 + rather rampant oof photos due thin dof...

The more oof, the more arty. True I tell you ^.^

 

[Jed]

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.

Your implication is that because he is an AV and computer geek, and has done wedding videos for friends, therefore he is no idiot.

You've not seen his photos. So how can you know he's not a good photographer? Or his videos/videographer?

 

[Jed]

TS, have you watch the Iphone 3Gs photoshoot?
conclusion, its all about lighting

No, it's all about pretention, arty fartiness, trends, fashion, Emperor's new clothes, and so on.

I find it quite silly when suddenly there's a whole bunch of "cool" iPhone photography hitting popular culture and the web, when there have been similar standard quality camera phones in other mobile phones on the market for a very long time, and better quality camera phones for some while as well.

Little bit like why Leicas take/took better pictures than Japanese cameras.

 

[Jed]

and most sports event have good lightings.

Just so wrong, I'm afraid.

 

[Jed]

Good equipment really really makes photography much more enjoyable..

Not always. I'd rather carry a small DSLR and compact lens than a couple of professional bodies and a bunch of professional lenses.

 

[Jed]

If you can take good photos, expensive equipment are like icing on the cake. If you can't take good photos, nothing can help you.

Kit speaketh the sense

 

[dannyfoxy]

I upgraded to iphone 3gs :devil:
it's a camera too.

 

[Limsgp]

Rubbish. There are plenty of people using Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Samsung, and other brands taking very good pictures too. Even, occasionally, Leica users, assuming you can see past the glow and pop and don't cut yourself on their glass that is just so sharp. Just because you're using an L lens doesn't make you more likely to take good pictures.

Incidentally, I do know what you meant by your comment.

The serious answer to your comment is that so many are taken with professional grade lenses because so many Singaporeans own professional grade lenses; the kit lens/basic lens/pro lens proportion is skewed unusually in favour of the professional grade lenses.

My mistake for quoting L lens.. What I meant is professional lens.. definitely not limited to canon..

but still, I'll say many picture are nice bcoz they're taken with professional lens. If the same photographer took the picture with kit lens, the result would probably not be the same. I'll be interested to check out their pictures that are taken with kit lens..

Go to a photoshoot, professional model pose for you. take out camera, set to Full auto and machine gun 100~200 shots at aperture 1.2.. surely will get a few "good" shots.

How many can delivery similar quality shots with kit lens AND w/o external flash? Of coz there are pros who can do it.. but not many. Definitely not the majority.

most of the time, the shots are nice bcoz of the sharpness and the bokeh, and the diffused flash.

I'm mainly referring to portrait shooting for above comments. examples in P&P & RLA. Not applicable to abstract arts.

Landscape is different story. There are many who takes nice landscapes even with cheap lens.

I would say, for landscapes, the photographer matters much much much much more then the equipment.. even with PnS they can take very very good pictures.

 

[Limsgp]

Not always. I'd rather carry a small DSLR and compact lens than a couple of professional bodies and a bunch of professional lenses.

I can only say, YMMV..