DSLR, Are Behind the Times

[JohnG]

tjsnaps wrote:

If your trying to shoot something 10 feet away with a 400mm or 40 yards away with a 24-70 then the quipment is not the problem it's the photographer.

Exactly my point - the photogrpher must have the right equipment with him/her in order to succeed. If all he has is the 400mm or all he has is the 24-70 then he'll fail. And yes the photographer needs to know this - but just knowing it isn't good enough. He has to know it AND bring the right equipment to succeed. So it takes both - the photographer's knowledge AND the right gear. And don't forget for the type of thing we're talking about - "success" is most often not defined by a single photo - you typically need a couple hundred. You're not going to get a couple hundred if you've brought the wrong gear (and yes I absolutely agree you're not going to get them if you don't know what you're doing).

[peripatetic]

I can drink beer from the can but I prefur to use a mug. Does that make me a hypocrite?

It does if you keep blathering on about how the vessel doesn't matter. Besides it's a bad analogy. A mug or a can is just a vessel for the end product. We're not talking about which album or frame to use here. It does make a difference to the quality of the beer what ingredients and equipment you use to make it in the first place.

Without a camera you can't make a picture. (A pinhole camera made of cardboard is still a camera).

Of course I do sympathise with the general point you are making. On the last photography course I was on there were two participants from opposite ends of the spectrum. One artistic young woman, no money, tons of talent, taking some brilliant photos with an old 2nd hand Olympus 35mm camera that cost her around £50. The other a rich businessman with a bag full of Canon pro equipment worth about £4000; and he was taking perfectly sharp, well exposed, landscape shots which were so incredibly boring that you wanted to kill yourself before you got halfway through looking at his portfolio.

And everyone wished she had access to his equipment, her photos would have been better for it and we all knew it.

But to be fair he was enjoying his hobby and really was trying to get better. And you don't have to pass a test to buy an expensive camera, you just have to have the money.

If you had to choose between:
1. Lots of talent and crap equipment
2. No talent and great equipment

Obviously everyone agrees #1 would be better. But the best combination of all is lots of talent AND good equipment.

[tjsnaps]

No ... My piont was if the subject is too close or too far away for the lens. Then the photographer should move his ass or better plan his shots. Not wish he had another lens. Easier said than done sometimes yes. But that's how you get the shot. We all want more and better equipment. Hell I'm really ticed off the my digital turns the ulta wide lens I saved for a year to get into a friggin kindawide. But I'm not going to pack it up and go home. I'm going to get some images. And good ones.

[JohnG]

tjsnaps wrote:

No ... My piont was if the subject is too close or too far away for the lens. Then the photographer should move his bottom or better plan his shots. Not wish he had another lens.

UMMM - that's a real nice theory except we're talking sports. You can't march out onto the football field to get closer :blah: But you're welcome to try it (and from 25 to 25 is sectioned off for the team so you don't shoot from in that area).
And you aren't going to move to the other side of the fence and wait for the action to get close.

Or in a basketball gym - you've got walls - you want to shoot from the floor not the stands and there are walls preventing you from backing up so you better have the right focal lengths - and if you're shooting HS you better have fast primes or use flash/strobe (but some places won't allow flash or strobes so you better have that fast prime or you get crappy shots).

Or how 'bout wildlife? "Hold still mister Grizzly bear I need to get within 20 feet since I only have my 50mm lens with me" :G

Your theory works great when you can plan a shot and you know where that shot is going to be. It's completely unworkable in real life sports shooting and often impractical in wildlife. In fact there are times where you're restricted to a certain area. So you better have the equipment necessary to cover as much of the action from that location.

[JohnG]

but let's leave the theoretical out of it and talk reality. In reality you want SPECIFIC photos not just whatever photo you can plan.

A shot of my niece's first communion. No flash allowed, no one allowed to stand at the front of the church. So this was taken from a balcony through glass - ISO 1600, f2.8 186mm at 1/60.

Try capturing that moment with your 3x p&s that is only good to ISO 200. 1/8 shutter speed plus heavy crop - I'm sure the resulting picture would be a treasure



So let's see - we need a LENS WITH ENOUGH REACH (a piece of equipment), HIGH ISO PERFORMANCE (again another piece of equipment), some mechanism for keeping a 200mm 2.8 lens steady at 2.8 from a standing position with no railing to brace on (either anti-shake or tripod or monopod or some other EQUIPMENT to keep gear steady).

Or gee, how bout this one. ISO 1600 f2.0 85mm 1/400. Much slower and blur is too horrible. Oh, and no flash is allowed. Oh, and my back is against the wall and off to my right there is more aparatus - to the left is the stands. So gee if I don't have the right equipment (high ISO, fast prime, right focal length) I can't get the shot. But according to your logic I should just break down the wall or tell them to move the aperatus so it's the right distance because I just have a 200mm lens. And oh yes, can you please install better lighting because I only have a 5.6 aperture lens.



Again - feel free to select you disposable film camera of choice and take this shot. Please share your results with the class.

Here's another. Shallow depth of field - because that's what I WANTED and indoors so I can't move back 50 feet because I'm trying to get shallow DOF with a tiny sensor and tiny lens and need to be at 480mm to get that DOF. OH, and I need flash too (another piece of equipment):



Could I take DIFFERENT shots if I had lesser equipment? Sure - but I couldn't have taken any of THESE three. I'm not saying you need pro level equipment but in all 3 shots having the RIGHT equipment was essential to achieving my photographic vision. And in the first two you simply wouldn't have the shot PERIOD without it.

Want more examples? I've got hundreds that show how equipment makes a huge difference. But that's in the real world - not in the theoretical world of classroom photography.

[tjsnaps]

ISO 1600, f2.8 at 1/60? Did you take a flashlight? I.ve never used ISO 1600 in my life. 800 is af fast as I have gone and that was for night club shooting. And if you are an experianced shooter (wich you obviousey you are) why do you need camera saport for 1/60th wiht a 200mm? If you were a newbie or went any longer I could see it. Those are good exsamples for the piont you are trying to make but I don't believe you could not have taken home some good shots with lesser quipment. Again I'm not saying don't use whay you have. I'm saying use what you have.

[JohnG]

tjsnaps wrote:

And if you are an experianced shooter (wich you obviousey you are) why do you need camera saport for 1/60th wiht a 200mm?

Well 45 minutes of ceremony taking photos of various kids. And it's a 2.8 lens so it ain't light. Why risk the quality of the photos for the sake of my ego? That support could be a $30 monopod, or a stack of books (if there had been something to stack them on) - but why leave it to chance? I brought my own support because I wanted to be properly prepared. Again, if all I took was one shot - sure I could hand-hold. But often times it isn't about getting a single shot - ESPECIALLY when you take shots for others. It's tough to predict what someone else will like - they often choose a photo purely for the expression on the subject's face and not because of the exact moment captured in another shot. It's why wedding photogs take 3,000 shots. It's why if I'm shooting a soccer match I may take 500 or 600 shots - you want as many different kinds of shots of each of the kids because you don't know what type the parents will like. Who wants to handhold equipment for that long? Having a camera support rather than handholding 8lbs of gear for 3 hours helps ensure all the shots are quality and the last period shots don't suffer because the photog has muscle fatigue.

And it goes the other way too - my brother-in-law got some great video of my niece yesterday at trick-or-treat. My dslr doesn't have video so I lost out on that little memory. I got some nice photos but sometimes video is just better. So the 'right' equipment isn't always the more expensive equipment.

[tjsnaps]

That support could be a $30 monopod or a stack of books

Now your talking ……. Use what you have

Why risk the quality of the photos for the sake of my ego?

I'm not saying risk the quality. And to heck with ego.
If you have the equipment, use it. All I've been saying from the start is don't NOT shoot because some guy in a forum told you, you need some piece of equipment you don't have/cant afford. And with skill you get good images.

You ever hear of Dr. Snaps??
Dr. Snaps was a young physician in the 70's who wanted to be a photographer. He forged a press pass and went to some war torn country. With nothing but two used Nikon bodies a 50mm and a 135mm 2.8, he became one of the most sought after photojournalist.

And it goes the other way too - my brother-in-law got some great video of my niece yesterday at trick-or-treat. My dslr doesn't have video so I lost out on that little memory. I got some nice photos but sometimes video is just better. So the 'right' equipment isn't always the more expensive equipment.

This is the best part of your post. Why? Talk to people who do video. The will say the same thing you have been saying. You can't do good video with out lots of expensive equipment.

I do agree I want to have the choises to improve my chances or make the job easier. I just hate to see people be told to give it up. None of us would likely be as good as we are. (or even stuck with it) if we didn't leand to make the best of what we had when we started with nothing.

[JohnG]

I've edited my response - this is going no where. So I'll close by saying I stand by my argument - the right tools for the job are important. Sometimes just plane necessary for certain types of photography.

And I agree with the one post - most of the people that pontificate gear isn't important are hypocrites. If gear doesn't play a part, please put your digital cameras away for the next year and shoot only with disposable film cameras. Put your "money" where your "mouth" is. :|