I hate it when ppl say "its not the camera, its the person behine it"


Status
Not open for further replies.
Sometimes skills is one thing, especially if u can grow old and improve yr skills with that good camera; but needs is a another.

If yr camera is limiting yr needs, then u hv a reason to change.

E.g. u need to shoot landscape 80% of the time, then the last thing u want is to have your images cropped off; best to upgrade to FF.

Anyway, a D3 or D700 is more suited for low light. So don't waste time on a D90, else u need to go through another upgrade exercise and endure your friends' "advice" another time. :D


basically I believe skill is still vital no matter what... and if ur skill/need matches what camera u hv then its great. If u dig my other thread, i asked about D90 as i see limitation in 450D taking indoor photos at night ... where currently i am exploring if a D90 will help or not. This is purely not "wanting" something of higher spec, rather i hv specific reason and i am researching on it. if its not worth it (like other hv suggested) then i will go try other means (flash, F1.4 lens etc like what been suggested)
 

Hey hey same with you.
I have friends who always tell me that old quote too.
However, ordinary photographers from flickr gave me inspiration.
This is what I saw online, one such person who likes photography too.
"I'm still stuck on 18-55mm.
Stayed simple, expanded creativity.
Don't mind...only embraced."
So don't mind what your friends said yea, as long as you thought over it and got a conclusion, good enough.
:) enjoy your photography!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I learned that too (just today) and I agree.
 

Sometimes skills is one thing, especially if u can grow old and improve yr skills with that good camera; but needs is a another.

If yr camera is limiting yr needs, then u hv a reason to change.

E.g. u need to shoot landscape 80% of the time, then the last thing u want is to have your images cropped off; best to upgrade to FF.

Anyway, a D3 or D700 is more suited for low light. So don't waste time on a D90, else u need to go through another upgrade exercise and endure your friends' "advice" another time. :D

Nah.. if a D90 won't do much help means I just need to find one way or another around what I hv now and fine tuned it towards the photography style I hope to get... (i also not able to spend more $$ on any camera beyond D90) ... also there's more trill too learning this way then simply just buy new stuff ...
 

Last edited:
Budget is such an annoying or limiting thing that can happen to an enthusiast. :D

Stick to 450D then. Get a tripod and faster lens. It will help.

Nah.. if a D90 won't do much help means I just need to find one way or another around what I hv now and fine tuned it towards the photography style I hope to get... (i also not able to spend more $$ on any camera beyond D90) ... also there's more trill too learning this way then simply just buy new stuff ...
 

I keep hearing this from my frens... super sian

yes we all know the person themself plays a vital role into a good photo.. but ofcos the camera needs to get some credit too...

u go give michael schumacher a cherry QQ and compete with a average driver in a 911 turbo and go track, see who win...

go take a camera phone and u go try to take a award winning photo and see (no heavy post processing ofcos)

I think the correct phase shld be "The person holding the camera is the most important element in taking a good photo, while the rest rest on the gears"

I would love to see you handle a 911 for the first time... and MS on a Cherry QQ... I would not be surprise you cannot even finish a proper lap. No kidding. Having driven super cars, I can only say, the person behind the wheel must know how to handle a beast. While MS would drive perfect lines and most likely drive throughout the laps without having to use brakes, and beat you in overall time... that unfortunately, is still the person behind the wheel, and not the car.
 

why not u arrange a test drive for me in a race track and see how?? hahaha...

just kidding
 

To TS, just take and post more photos ;)

Too much emphasis on instant gratification (ie. gears) nowadays. I see it on not only this forum but forums of other interests as well (Buy XXX shoe = run faster; Buy XXX goggle = swim faster; Buy XXX plant food = healthy plants, XXX drink = muscles, etc)

Countless great photos have been taken before modern cameras. It the thought process that makes a big difference.

very well said. :thumbsup:
 

Actually, I think the problem deep at the heart of statements like this is a mixture of egoism and unnecessary competitiveness. Why must photography become competitive?

Sweeping statements claiming that "it all depends on the photographer" or "it all depends on the gear" can't be right. Everyone here should know it's a combination of both that will always differ from case to case.

What's worrying is this need to see if "my photo is better than your one", "my gear is better than your one", or "I got more skill than you" which is really childish. Any photographer who is so deeply effected by these kinds of sentiments should just forego the art entirely.

If someone's photos look better than yours, learn how he did it and see if you can follow successfully. As you demand more and more from your photos with time, the buying of gear will follow accordingly.

Anyway TS, may I suggest that if you find yourself hanging around with aggressively competitive photographers too much, it's better to take photos on your own. These kinds will definitely effect your ability to create art, which is what photography is all about. Them being beside you is not going to make your shots any better.
 

Good point system-m
 

why not u arrange a test drive for me in a race track and see how?? hahaha...

just kidding

I can... if you can come to Silverstone. ;)
 

Please do not get me wrong. :) I merely wanted to help you ascertain your dilemma by suggesting you to move into forward situation to eliminating any doubts about kit. I fully supported your statement bec I have a choice. Meaning what I wanted vs aspired to be.

You see, people will have doubts when there are 2 sides to a coin. However by shifting to one end enable us to see the other. For instance, when a person constantly pursue the question about megapixel as quality, his/her answer will never be satisfied till they experienced beyond the norm; top down view. Afterwhich he/she will break from that cycle and look for other area to be questioned.

wow.. what a useful reply.... am i now in fault starting a thread that supposely is a "Everybody knows" topic?

its ok.. once a while we see such pointless post. It is fine.
 

I was thinking of getting the D90. Now I am scared to. Dang!
 

Please do not get me wrong. :) I merely wanted to help you ascertain your dilemma by suggesting you to move into forward situation to eliminating any doubts about kit. I fully supported your statement bec I have a choice. Meaning what I wanted vs aspired to be.

You see, people will have doubts when there are 2 sides to a coin. However by shifting to one end enable us to see the other. For instance, when a person constantly pursue the question about megapixel as quality, his/her answer will never be satisfied till they experienced beyond the norm; top down view. Afterwhich he/she will break from that cycle and look for other area to be questioned.

sorry for reading ur intented posting wrong.

i also never believe that higher end gears is suitable for everyone or myself... but like what i said before, i do not agree totally with this infamous quotes and i just wanted to pour my view here and see what other thinks.

Some ppl buy camera to take photos... but some people buy camera because its high tech... while some ppl believe too much on skills and might never move on with what technology can offer... i just believe we need to balance what we need and what we are worthy of.

anyway my intended post was just to bitch ard over some frustration.. never new this would grew to 4 pages long within half a day.

Shld this thread be locked?
 

sorry for reading ur intented posting wrong.

i also never believe that higher end gears is suitable for everyone or myself... but like what i said before, i do not agree totally with this infamous quotes and i just wanted to pour my view here and see what other thinks.

Some ppl buy camera to take photos... but some people buy camera because its high tech... while some ppl believe too much on skills and might never move on with what technology can offer... i just believe we need to balance what we need and what we are worthy of.

anyway my intended post was just to bitch ard over some frustration.. never new this would grew to 4 pages long within half a day.

Shld this thread be locked?

You can close this thread if you want. You are the TS.

I am also thinking of getting the D90. But luckily my friends are quite supportive. But I have been thinking for the last 6 months. Still thinking.
 

Take it this way...

Andy with 5DMkII is very very likely to shoot better photos compared to Andy with 300D. The equipment definitely counts.

But what if Andy is blind...? or is the visual's equivalent of tone deaf?
Then, no matter if he uses 5DMkII or 300D, he'll still shoot crap.
Maybe the 5DMkII will give him a better crap...but crap is still crap.

My 2 cents.
 

I keep hearing this from my frens... super sian

yes we all know the person themself plays a vital role into a good photo.. but ofcos the camera needs to get some credit too...

u go give michael schumacher a cherry QQ and compete with a average driver in a 911 turbo and go track, see who win...

go take a camera phone and u go try to take a award winning photo and see (no heavy post processing ofcos)

I think the correct phase shld be "The person holding the camera is the most important element in taking a good photo, while the rest rest on the gears"


Just go out there, take photos and have fun brotha! Its your life, live it to the fullest, no one can bring you down or rain on your parade! :D
 

Seeing how people debate over the 911 and QQ, I've reproduced a less extreme example which more clearly illustrates the point here:

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5349719&postcount=154

My objective view is that both the person (skill) as well as the camera (equipment) count towards the final product.

Extreme examples of giving a monkey a D3x or Ansel Adams a pinhole camera may not assist the TS in understanding this. Also, I would say that an absolute "The man matters, the camera does not" may not be helpful either.

It will be a sliding scale in between the extreme ranges, and whether the person matters more (note the use of the word "more", being a relative comparison) than the equipment is of course, a never-ending debatable point. My own view is that the person matters more but both the equipment AND the person matters.

To illustrate using the F1 driver analogy that is being bandied around; if you take say, Schumacher in a cardboard flinstones car; vs a non-licensed driver in a F1 car; both will probably run into trouble and its hard to tell who will reach the finish line; will Schumacher in his flintstones car win (walking and carrying the car) or will the unlicensed driver crash? Or will the unlicensed driver drive at 10km/h cautiously (and still win because that's faster than Schumacher's walking pace)? Again it may not be so clear.

If you then move towards the centre of the scale, say ask a normal F1 driver (ABC driver, not of Schumacher's standard) to drive say, an budget everyday car, say the Kia Piccanto vs say, a Singaporean race car hobbyist (ie he goes to Sepang to race with his friends for fun) in a F1 car; now who will win? Again it is not so clear now is it? Can we say "its the man, not the machine"? THe race car hobbyist may actually win even though he's of a lower skill level, simply because the Piccanto can never match up to the F1 car in terms of speed. All the hobbiyst needs to do is to ensure he doesn't crash, and hence instead of going to 300km/h in normal F1 races, he just needs to go around 150km/h and he will probably win the Piccanto (which for the purposes of discussion, say can go up to 100km/h).

In my view, the key when making comparisons is to realise that actually both man and machine matter; although perhaps to varying degrees. And that is the crux of the discussion.

To answer the TS, in my personal view, the D5000 or the like, will be sufficient for you to start off taking wedding photos; maybe for your friends, or as a tag-along 2nd photographer.

As you grow into this area of photography and get more experienced, like many others before you; you will realise that your equipment may be limited in certain areas; and then you will then consider if you need the additional features and then you start to source for a camera with those features and yet at a price point that you can manage with your business model.

I hope this is useful :)
 

anyway my intended post was just to bitch ard over some frustration.. never new this would grew to 4 pages long within half a day.

Shld this thread be locked?


Don't lock lah, we've got good discussions and great inputs by everyone here :)
 

Most people these days love to buy cameras more than loving to take photos.

That is, love buying expensive gears (and more, and even more...) but don't really take that many photos at the end of the day. They spend more time buying than shooting.

Some ppl buy camera to take photos... but some people buy camera because its high tech... while some ppl believe too much on skills and might never move on with what technology can offer... i just believe we need to balance what we need and what we are worthy of.

PS: No need close this thread, it might be more appropriate to be in Kopitiam section.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top