More DSLRs spotted

[liarliar]

Better still no more question no more problem. But got time only if there's any survivors and witnesses.

 

[Legoz]

I had just attended a friend's wedding and was kinda surprised by the number of DSLRs spotted during the dinner. I counted 5 and managed to differentiate the "official" photographer among the few. He was using a Nikon system and being the AD photographer of the nite, I was also surprised not to find any gold ring on his Nikon lens. On the other hand, one of the bridegroom's guests had a L lens mounted on his Canon 40D. =.="

I'm kinda happy that more and more people are joining the world of DSLR. At the same time, I was really keen to see the work of the AD photographer, shot with his non-fast Nikkor lens.

While i agree with most folks in the forum that any decent photographer would be able to produce very decent shots..

At the same time, i have seen my fair share of posers who take on jobs without much experience. Search around the net, you will find hundreds of folks with a DSLR offering wedding photography.
I wouldnt be surprise if you friend might have gotten one of these.

Then again, only time would tell when the pics come back. =)

Regards

 

[kuanwk]

"LOOK AT THAT TINY LENS U NOOB!"

that was funny.

next time this happens at the bird park, juz go, "my lens may be smaller, but my bird is bigger"
but juz at bird park only.

 

[kniveswood]

I guess what TS meant is that, as the hired photographer, he should have some better equipment so as to be able to deliver better products to his customer. Perhaps he can get the shots that he felt is good enough.. but he could also missed the shots that he could have had, if only he used a faster lens. For e.g.. As an experienced photographer, if he had better gears, he could had more to deliver and make it better value for his customers.

It's not so much about creative expressions using shallow DOF or whatever.. it more of situations like: the couple enters the ballroom, the lights dimmed, the PRO PG with his lens of max 5.6 aperture and ISO 1600 tries to take a shot that the camera calculated to require 1 second shutter speed for proper exposure (this is example only.. lets assume no flash or flash power not enough in that situation, whatever). Most likely, he will forgo such a shot. well.. fine.. but had this shot been taken and not noisy and blurred.. it may be something that the customer liked. (Let's not discuss whether it is possible to take that shot, the key point is, there may be situations that the equipments makes a difference to the Pro PG )

So, in summary.. a PRO with better gears can potentially and probably deliver better value.

This is not about "better equipment = better pictures?" debate, I guess.. so no point talking about non-pro PG with pro gears taking pictures not as good as pro PG with PnS.

Let's not forget about weight guys. Most of the gold rings are heavyweight zooms. As good as they may be, the weight can sometimes limit the photographer. He becomes less mobile, and he has to shoot the entire day. He don't have the luxury to take a break anytime he fancies.

Using limsgp's example, one could say the photographer could very well have made certain shots due to the lighter weight of the camera. Especially with a fast-moving event such as a wedding, you need to be quick on your feet. With a heavier camera he could have more difficulty going into various kneeling, lying, proning positions, resulting in non-ideal shots or absence of such shots. And they may very well also be photos that the couples would like.

 

[mpenza]

But yes, I have to agree with you that too many people make the assumption that "it's not the gear, it's the person". MY assumption is that when people say such things, they don't know what they're talking about.

C'mon people.

The camera AND the person behind the camera BOTH matter.

It's more of using the right gear that's important, rather than using the top gear. Someone can bring a top range 400 F2.8 VR to a wedding that is more expensive and has more high tech components than anything that the "pro" is using but he would fail miserably as a wedding photographer at the dinner.

Anyway, better equipment may produce a picture with better sharpness and contrast (marginal when printed on 4R or for sharing) but not necesssary better looking.

 

[bengchiat]

why are you so focused on the gear? what makes you think the as photographer needs to use G lenses? it's not the tools, it's the photographer. i'd bet that if he used a pns the shots would still be better than the 40D/L lens guest. too many people think you can only shoot good pictures if you buy the most expensive lens.

being a wedding photographer myself,
i simply can't agree with u.

just like TS, u have ur assumptions.
u assumed that he being the AD photographer,
he is a better photogapher.
n if he is using a PnS,
he is going to miss too many candids.

 

[Limsgp]

ok.. well I'm not too familiar with nikon.. but I feel that the Canon 50L or the 85L or even 135L (for e.g.) ;p is not that heavy.. Not practical to carry a fast telezoom to events like wedding right.. unless there is more than 1 PG.

I can't comment on whether the gear in TS's example is good enough.. but the main point of discussion is that better gear can potentially deliver better pictures in the right hands.

Using limsgp's example, one could say the photographer could very well have made certain shots due to the lighter weight of the camera. Especially with a fast-moving event such as a wedding, you need to be quick on your feet. With a heavier camera he could have more difficulty going into various kneeling, lying, proning positions, resulting in non-ideal shots or absence of such shots. And they may very well also be photos that the couples would like.

 

[mpenza]

I can't comment on whether the gear in TS's example is good enough.. but the main point of discussion is that better gear can potentially deliver better pictures in the right hands.

thought the main contention was about the point that a photographer always need top gear to deliver good pics this is the part that I believe is wrong.

it's definitely right to say that better (and appropriate) gears in the same/right/better hands will tend to produce better results.

 

[kniveswood]

ok.. well I'm not too familiar with nikon.. but I feel that the Canon 50L or the 85L or even 135L (for e.g.) ;p is not that heavy.. Not practical to carry a fast telezoom to events like wedding right.. unless there is more than 1 PG.

Then we have the issue of being limited by not being able to zoom at a twist of the fingers. Which potentially would miss some shots as well wouldn't it?

My point is, if given two lenses with the same weight and build, sure a professional should go for the better glass. But if there are certain tradeoffs such as weight, then I don't think it's wise to judge a person's choice of equipment. One could argue he might get better shots with better glass, while another might argue that with lighter weight he can obtain difficult shots that he might not attempt with heavier glass.

In short, good equipments does matter. Even the best photographers are limited if asked to shoot with a PnS. But if using reasonably good glass can give certain less tangible advantages than the best glass, why not?

 

[Anson]

I remember I heard someone said this statement before: "expensive equipment allows me to take sharper crap pictures :bsmilie:

 

[spheredome]

Well said. There is another absolute which has be derived by those who only talked about skill; "the premium L and gold lens are superior than non premium in all aspect". :thumbsup:

Many are so engrossed in the skill thing (others echoed) that they omitted variables between gears in their discussion, which means "the premium L and gold lens are superior than non premium in all aspect". Chopped and stamped.

it all depends on the situation.

if you give a world-class photographer a d60 with a 18-55 kit lens, ask him to shoot a lowlight football match, he's going to have a very hard time, pure and simple.

it's time to stop making absolute statements like "it's all about skill and nothing to do with equipment" or "it's about lens, not the body". it clearly isn't, plus these statements are predicated on unrealistic absolutes -- for instance, a non-professional with good gear still has *some knowledge*, not zero knowledge. so the non-pro still can pull some good shots after some practice and reading up.

 

[sinned79]

its easy to sum up this thread.

You need the right skills and with the help of the right equipments used in the right environment.

 

[grainpixel]

well..what to do?
equipments are really getting so much cheaper, that really every tom, dick, harry, jane, mary, sally has one now..

just minutes ago, i just heard another friend bought a DSLR.

I saw this trend recently...no joke, already 4 couples i know personally..

1) couple getting married
2) couple suddenly realised they are so good-looking after seeing photos taken by their PG with DSLR.
3) couple got spare cash after wedding dinner
4) then since they are going for a honeymoon....
5) lets get a DSLR and we take beautiful photos!!!! DSLR photos are GOD-GIVEN!!!!!

4 couples in 4-5 mths that i know, bought a DSLR after wedding and before honeymoon! ;p

 

[RezzShaz]

it all depends on the situation.

if you give a world-class photographer a d60 with a 18-55 kit lens, ask him to shoot a lowlight football match, he's going to have a very hard time, pure and simple.

it's time to stop making absolute statements like "it's all about skill and nothing to do with equipment" or "it's about lens, not the body". it clearly isn't, plus these statements are predicated on unrealistic absolutes -- for instance, a non-professional with good gear still has *some knowledge*, not zero knowledge. so the non-pro still can pull some good shots after some practice and reading up.

Said in a very good perpective bro....
Having a "good" system while shooting in a disadvantages condition really helps.
The only difference is the professionals make it nice while the non-pros make it less lousy....
As long as the photos are for their own keepsake and they're happy with the outcome....I gladly welcome them to the DSLR family...
Let the community grow....

 

[sinned79]

well..what to do?
equipments are really getting so much cheaper, that really every tom, dick, harry, jane, mary, sally has one now..

just minutes ago, i just heard another friend bought a DSLR.

I saw this trend recently...no joke, already 4 couples i know personally..

1) couple getting married
2) couple suddenly realised they are so good-looking after seeing photos taken by their PG with DSLR.
3) couple got spare cash after wedding dinner
4) then since they are going for a honeymoon....
5) lets get a DSLR and we take beautiful photos!!!! DSLR photos are GOD-GIVEN!!!!!

4 couples in 4-5 mths that i know, bought a DSLR after wedding and before honeymoon! ;p

thats nothing compared to the school kids (sec schools) using DSLRs :bsmilie:

at least working adults already working and can buy using their own paycheck... but school kids? :dunno:

 

[Titan10k]

thats nothing compared to the school kids (sec schools) using DSLRs :bsmilie:

at least working adults already working and can buy using their own paycheck... but school kids? :dunno:

What's wrong if they (sec school kids) are really passionate in photography? I surely see some kids with much more respectable knowledge in photography than adults. $500 can pretty much get them a capable DSLR with kit lens to start their hobby. I certainly give those lots more respect than adults spending thousands on their 50D/5D mkII/D300/D700 or whatever and still take crappy photos.

 

[kniveswood]

I think we all need to step back and stop judging others. As long as they are not using their cameras to hit you, why bother what others are using, or even what age they are?

 

[Limsgp]

Oops.. wrong choice of examples.. listed all the primes.. anyway there's EF 16-35mm f2.8L and EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM that is not too heavy I guess.

hmm.. not sure what "certain less tangible advantages" can there be? other than cost? Is the weight that much different to justify the choice of the lens with inferior optics..?

Anyway.. I'm one of those who believe that a better glass would certainly make my pictures better then if they were taken with cheaper lens (Not compare with others, only my pictures itself)

YMMV..

Then we have the issue of being limited by not being able to zoom at a twist of the fingers. Which potentially would miss some shots as well wouldn't it?

In short, good equipments does matter. Even the best photographers are limited if asked to shoot with a PnS. But if using reasonably good glass can give certain less tangible advantages than the best glass, why not?

 

[calebk]

Oh there's one possibility that the TS may have missed
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Gaffer tape.

 

[Cartman2000]

thats nothing compared to the school kids (sec schools) using DSLRs

at least working adults already working and can buy using their own paycheck... but school kids?

Alamak. I tanked a portion of my kit okay?? Going to pay back the rest via monthly instalments ;(;(;(