Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 97

Thread: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

  1. #61

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    Believe me... the 8 fps doesn't work as you just mentioned. I've over 100 shots continously bursted off a D2X, D2H/S, none of them is usable/keepers. The body is as good as you can control it, once you can control it, it's 8fps will give you what you want.
    in my original post i said:

    "i'm not going to say i will get more keepers with a good pro body, but i have personally encountered moments where i wished i had a higher fps to catch more frames of a funny look."

    so i'm not sure what you thought i said, but there it is again. my point was, in a given 1 sec "moment", and with say a 3 fps camera, the photog will only be able to get 3 pictures to choose from, while if the same guy with the same subject and same "moment" had a 8fps camera, that 1 sec would have reaped 8 shots to pick from, and those 8 shots would have better white balance, better metering, possibly less noise and improved dark resolution EVEN WITH THE SAME GLASS.

    so that's basically where i was coming from. i totally agree that if you point the camera at a turd and machine gun it, you will get nothing but turd. that is stating the painfully obvious.

    your point of bringing in "control" as how a photog can control a camera is irrelevant. it was not a variable as stated in the original poster's question to the forum. whether or not the burst sequence is satisfactory to the photographer, is entirely up to the photographer. if they turn out lousy, then they are all thrown away. however, if they are good, and he could freeze that moment with 3 frames or 8 frames, i think anyone in their right mind would rather have 8 frames to pick from.

    cheers
    Last edited by Dunnomuch; 19th August 2005 at 10:28 AM.

  2. #62
    Senior Member jnet6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    not here often anymore
    Posts
    8,169

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    not again.........................................

    use a video cam la.. 30FPS.... sure to catch 1 frame.

  3. #63
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunnomuch
    in my original post i said:

    "i'm not going to say i will get more keepers with a good pro body, but i have personally encountered moments where i wished i had a higher fps to catch more frames of a funny look."
    Yeah, I did. I read this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunnomuch
    so i'm not sure what you thought i said, but there it is again. my point was, in a given 1 sec "moment", and with say a 3 fps camera, the photog will only be able to get 3 pictures to choose from, while if the same guy with the same subject and same "moment" had a 8fps camera, that 1 sec would have reaped 8 shots to pick from, and those 8 shots would have better white balance, better metering, possibly less noise and improved dark resolution EVEN WITH THE SAME GLASS.
    Well, not really. Go try it out and you'll see what I mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunnomuch
    your point of bringing in "control" as how a photog can control a camera is irrelevant. it was not a variable as stated in the original poster's question to the forum. whether or not the burst sequence is satisfactory to the photographer, is entirely up to the photographer. if they turn out lousy, then they are all thrown away. however, if they are good, and he could freeze that moment with 3 frames or 8 frames, i think anyone in their right mind would rather have 8 frames to pick from.
    Is it irrelevant? I've seen so much posts on the equipment, which one to get, what this/that can do, 3fps vs 5fps vs 8fps, 4 vs 6 vs 8 vs 10 vs 12 MP. At the bottomline, nobody bothers to think if they can control or not control the camera or even understand the camera, they only know 'Wow, it's a pro body". Many blame the D70 for being too slow, not enough fps as compared to D2HS and all that jazz, look at flash77's sports shots, done with a D70, incapable?

    If you say my comments in controlling the camera is irrelevant, I seriously think you're mistaken.

    You can still miss a moment with 8fps. Ask Jed, ask Ian, they're used to such bodies and it's more than just a 8fps, you need to know when to get the shot. Relying on equipment is only one part of photography. Understanding, knowing the equipment is another.

    Even if you get a pro glass, you do not understand it's characteristics and weaknesses, you'll miss the shot totally. It works both ways. Even if the threadstarter's intention didn't ask for fps, or control of the body, I think it doesn't hurt to highlight that out too.

  4. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Please allow me to chip in my 0.02. I'd say this comes down to personal perference. Photography is not only measured by what type of equipment you have. sad to say life is not much simpler than that. As long as I am happy with the result then so be it.

    I'd say that pro-level glass does give you slight edge when circumstances arises, such as low light capability (constant f), better contrast, better sharpness, etc. For instance, comparing the "little" 50/f.18 and 18-70 Kit lens. We will see the color redention and contrast. Or I can argue having pro-body will give you faster auto-focus, etc as usually it has its own motor drive. One can argue AFS will blur this line but heck..

    Again depends on yr subject. At the end subject and artistic matters not much of equipment. I hv seen marvelous shot that made of small P&S in terms of framing/composition. I always see photography is the extension of our eyes. We capture what we would like the other to see in a photo.

    I may be wrong but let's be honest... how often do we blow up our print? unless we always print larger than A4 size, it does not really matter. besides, high res like D2X will require a really good quality glass to match up. There's no point of using really consumer grade on D2X, something like fixing 18-70 on D2X. D2X should go with 17-55. Heck.. I hv seen some tourist (may be) that is holding pro body and pro lens but the way they hold and took the shoot, make me wanna approach them and say "look, here's i'd trade with ya".

    Again, not saying that I am not drooling over D2x or I am not drooling over 80-200VR

    The bottom line is: your skill and artistic matter the most than your equipment. And i'd say if you are making a living out of photography, depends on yr market. if just normal photo studio, c'mon.. who cares about this and that.. but not if your consumers are media like ntl geo or such. hehehe.


    Ice
    http://bdjojo.fotopic.net

  5. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong, Pokfulam
    Posts
    1,157

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    I frankly still don't see how flexible ISO100 can get as compared to ISO200. Is the flexibility difference that great? To me it's a one stop difference that's about it, all functional and all other aspects remain the same. It doesn't really make a difference, or at least to me it doesn't.
    it does make a difference if you're doing night time shots. anyway, it never hurts to have more options available.
    Last edited by djork; 19th August 2005 at 10:53 AM.
    Canon 300D, 30D, 5D. 17-40 f4 L, 24-105 f4 L, 70-200 f2.8 L IS

  6. #66
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by djork
    it does make a difference if you're doing night time shots. anyway, it never hurts to have more options available.
    Does it? To me it doesn't, but yes, more options never hurts.

  7. #67

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    Yeah, I did. I read this.

    Well, not really. Go try it out and you'll see what I mean.

    Is it irrelevant? I've seen so much posts on the equipment, which one to get, what this/that can do, 3fps vs 5fps vs 8fps, 4 vs 6 vs 8 vs 10 vs 12 MP. At the bottomline, nobody bothers to think if they can control or not control the camera or even understand the camera, they only know 'Wow, it's a pro body". Many blame the D70 for being too slow, not enough fps as compared to D2HS and all that jazz, look at flash77's sports shots, done with a D70, incapable?

    If you say my comments in controlling the camera is irrelevant, I seriously think you're mistaken.

    You can still miss a moment with 8fps. Ask Jed, ask Ian, they're used to such bodies and it's more than just a 8fps, you need to know when to get the shot. Relying on equipment is only one part of photography. Understanding, knowing the equipment is another.

    Even if you get a pro glass, you do not understand it's characteristics and weaknesses, you'll miss the shot totally. It works both ways. Even if the threadstarter's intention didn't ask for fps, or control of the body, I think it doesn't hurt to highlight that out too.
    thanks for your insight. i understand and agree with what you're saying. i just didn't think it was appropriate to pull other factors into the discussion.

    well, as anyone can guess from the way i write, i'm a newbie to this hobby, and i don't doubt that a good photographer can work wonders with an average camera, and still get better pictures than an average photographer with great equipment.

    i was putting my points forth as a prosumer body user who has begun to notice the limitations of the body i am using, and while i will stick with the body for now and probably a long time to come, i cannot ignore the potential a better body offers, even if i cannot maximise the potential of my current DSLR body.

    i like this thread and what has been said on it so far. lots of strong opinions that really throw out in the open all the different angles the forummers see. this should be a good read even a few months down the road.

  8. #68

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Just forget about all these equipments nosense, go out and shoot some pictures.No matter how good your equipments are, if your skill sucks, most captured pictures will turn out bad.Go out and shoot and have fun!

  9. #69
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Planet Nikon
    Posts
    21,905

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunnomuch
    thanks for your insight. i understand and agree with what you're saying. i just didn't think it was appropriate to pull other factors into the discussion.

    well, as anyone can guess from the way i write, i'm a newbie to this hobby, and i don't doubt that a good photographer can work wonders with an average camera, and still get better pictures than an average photographer with great equipment.
    Newbies or not don't matter la. I also newbie. Just happen to talk a lot more than I shoot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunnomuch
    i was putting my points forth as a prosumer body user who has begun to notice the limitations of the body i am using, and while i will stick with the body for now and probably a long time to come, i cannot ignore the potential a better body offers, even if i cannot maximise the potential of my current DSLR body.
    There will be limitations on the bodies, things you can and can't do. That's why they always say, one mountain will always be higher than the other, it's a never ending lure.




    Quote Originally Posted by scanner
    Just forget about all these equipments nosense, go out and shoot some pictures.No matter how good your equipments are, if your skill sucks, most captured pictures will turn out bad.Go out and shoot and have fun!
    PRO Comment

  10. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    143

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    and btw, i will take consumer body but pro lens anytime of day. Lens stay with me as long as I stick to the NIkon system. but i can change my cam body anytime as tech advances.

    ICe

  11. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Pasir Ris
    Posts
    3,530

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Comparing the same generation say a D70 vs D2H or a 350D vs 1DMkII.

    How many here would use the 8 fps on the pro body to try to capture a sporting action moment, rather than anticipate and shoot? As Ian and Jed had mentioned quite a few times, machine gunning is not the way.

    How many here use the higher resolution of a camera and say to themselves, "aiyah, can crop later lah; framing it just right is not important" ? These are examples of lazyness and not wanting to learn the proper technique.

    Analogy: If there is an expert system that can be used in diagnosing and provide solution for cranial and neuro injuries, how many interns would spend an extra mile to learn all the details? Even now, car mechanic defer to the automatic diagnostic and problem rectification system and avoid learning all the nitty gritty details.
    good piece of comment ... people think that their AF is fast enough to keep track with the 8 FPS ... maybe 2 more years down the road there will have SWM ( supreme wave motor ) or ( Ultimate slient wave motor ) by then , then we shall see ... learn to control a 3 FPS first

  12. #72
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    I frankly still don't see how flexible ISO100 can get as compared to ISO200. Is the flexibility difference that great? To me it's a one stop difference that's about it, all functional and all other aspects remain the same. It doesn't really make a difference, or at least to me it doesn't.
    Well brother, the difference is not great if you compare just the ISO alone but I am sorry I did not emphasize my point properly.

    The D100 I have has the lowest ISO at 200, and highest flash sync speed of 1/180 sec with D-TTL capable flash, and 1/160 sec with PC sync strobes. At this settings and shooting in broad daylight could mean setting a 1/160 sec shutter speed with aperture down to f/16 or more which many Speedlights could not handle properly. And because I was shooting at such small aperture my background always look tack sharp regardless of what lens I used. It made my pictures look so "un-pro".

    The D2X at least allows me to shoot at ISO 100 and has a higher flash sync speed of 1/250 sec which means at least I could still open up the aperture 2 stops for f/8. With hi-speed sync of up to 1/8000 sec means I still have some creative possibilities. Hi-speed sync is by the way not available on D100 and SB-80DX.

    For outdoor shoot I could still get away with setting a bigger aperture if I am using studio strobe lights with power pack and attaching a -3 stops neutral density filter in front of my lens as the wattage of the strobes is strong enough, but my concern is when what I have on that day of shoot is only a speedlight which is not strong enough.

    For available light photography, the ISO 200 is not a concern at all.

    Now when is the damn shipment for D2X coming in?
    Last edited by Andy Ho; 19th August 2005 at 04:26 PM.

  13. #73
    Member Andy Ho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    389

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Well, one piece of advice to all newbies here. I never shoot 3 fps with my D100 or 8 fps when I was using my F5 regardless of what shoot I do, even in sports and journalism. I always shoot 1 frame at a time and I always nail the shot. I am not bull-shitting, I wish I could invite some of you to join me on a shoot to witness that yourself but I can't.

    Always be vigilant. Know your equipment well so that you don't have to fumble with it on a shoot. Know what you want to capture, keep your eyes trained on your subject and try not to even blink. Study every moment and expression and squeeze the shutter when the time is right. This has been my practice since day 1 when I took up photography. Client chose me for the job because they know I always nail the expression they want to see and it save them a lot of time.

    The reason why you need 8 fps is because you are unsure what exactly you want to capture so you are just hoping luck would be in your way at 8 fps, or your reaction may be a little slow so go train on that area.

  14. #74

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Comparing the same generation say a D70 vs D2H or a 350D vs 1DMkII.

    How many here would use the 8 fps on the pro body to try to capture a sporting action moment, rather than anticipate and shoot? As Ian and Jed had mentioned quite a few times, machine gunning is not the way.
    Anticipating the shot is essential, but without high fps, you may or may not be able to catch the exact moment. With high fps, your chance increases. Machine gunning for machine gunning sake is not the way, but to capture a fleeting moment of an athlete crossing the finishing line, I will trust an 8 fps over a 3 fps anytime!

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    How many here use the higher resolution of a camera and say to themselves, "aiyah, can crop later lah; framing it just right is not important" ? These are examples of lazyness and not wanting to learn the proper technique.
    The higher resolution/image size is not the way to supersede proper framing, but gives you the flexibility in post processing and exhibiting the image. We have not even touched on the richer color and wider dynamic ranges of the pro camera vs consumer camera. Larger and higher resolution sensor beats smaller and lower resolution any day. Didn't we all agreed medium format out performs 35mm in image quality?

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Analogy: If there is an expert system that can be used in diagnosing and provide solution for cranial and neuro injuries, how many interns would spend an extra mile to learn all the details? Even now, car mechanic defer to the automatic diagnostic and problem rectification system and avoid learning all the nitty gritty details.
    I hope we get to the day sooner rather than later when medical technology reaches the "Star Trek" standard, then interns will be learning how best to use these technologies to save more lives! Three cheers for the scientists and doctors that brought us there.

    Regarding auto mechanic, they still have to do the nitty gritty disassembling and reassembling, but with the introduction of many electronic components in our cars today, came together with new diagnostic methods to find out what's wrong. The mechanic still have to gets his hand dirty and fix the problem.


    Perhaps, photography is way too technically advance for your liking, that you prefer the traditional use of brushes, paint and canvas. I say this becasue, with camera, digital or film, artists no longer has to learn the nitty gritty of reproducing a scenery or image, they just point and click!
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  15. #75
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    ClubSNAP community
    Posts
    2,775

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Ho
    Well, one piece of advice to all newbies here. I never shoot 3 fps with my D100 or 8 fps when I was using my F5 regardless of what shoot I do, even in sports and journalism. I always shoot 1 frame at a time and I always nail the shot. I am not bull-shitting, I wish I could invite some of you to join me on a shoot to witness that yourself but I can't.

    Always be vigilant. Know your equipment well so that you don't have to fumble with it on a shoot. Know what you want to capture, keep your eyes trained on your subject and try not to even blink. Study every moment and expression and squeeze the shutter when the time is right. This has been my practice since day 1 when I took up photography. Client chose me for the job because they know I always nail the expression they want to see and it save them a lot of time.

    The reason why you need 8 fps is because you are unsure what exactly you want to capture so you are just hoping luck would be in your way at 8 fps, or your reaction may be a little slow so go train on that area.
    Well said. And from someone whose pictures on a particular island off Singapore I respect.

    Your equipment and what you want to capture - you do indeed want to know them, understand them and respect them. I find it ridiculous that ANYONE would want a D2X or D2H or a 1DII just to catch a drop of water falling...? Or that you'd need that 70-200IS/VR/AFS/USM just to catch a stray cat in mid-yawn... Duh. I'm still shooting with my Coolpix, for clients.

    For newcomers, be more creative. All that gear is NOT going to take you anywhere if you keep harping about the technicals/math. The eye, the right brain, both are far harder to train than the left.

    But seriously, I'd rather do my outings and meet like-minded friends. My last post in here.

  16. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadpoet
    Anticipating the shot is essential, but without high fps, you may or may not be able to catch the exact moment. With high fps, your chance increases. Machine gunning for machine gunning sake is not the way, but to capture a fleeting moment of an athlete crossing the finishing line, I will trust an 8 fps over a 3 fps anytime!
    Read what Andy Ho said above. As for the 8fps, one note: there is 1/125 sec between frames. If you had seen what Ian had posted regarding the cricket shot, the difference is significant. But the issue here is that if you are NOT a pro earning $$$ but has cash only for either or.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadpoet
    The higher resolution/image size is not the way to supersede proper framing, but gives you the flexibility in post processing and exhibiting the image. We have not even touched on the richer color and wider dynamic ranges of the pro camera vs consumer camera. Larger and higher resolution sensor beats smaller and lower resolution any day. Didn't we all agreed medium format out performs 35mm in image quality?
    Well, the additional MP does give you flexibility, but how many here, if the image is so crucial will have only cash for either or again. Richer color, wider dynamic range? I guess you have not seen Thom Hogan's website; I had posted the link. He shot with a D50 (currently cheapest consumer DSLR from Nikon) with 12-24 AFS (which is a pro lens). As for your blanket statement "Larger and higher resolution sensor beats smaller and lower resolution any day" I guess you have not seen Bjørn Rørslett review of D2X.

    If you want to talk about MF vs 35mm, the irony is that like what student had said, on film, the body does NOT matter. Color and dynamic range is due to the film and lens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadpoet
    Regarding auto mechanic, they still have to do the nitty gritty disassembling and reassembling, but with the introduction of many electronic components in our cars today, came together with new diagnostic methods to find out what's wrong. The mechanic still have to gets his hand dirty and fix the problem.
    The fact is that many now follow the diagnostics and instruction but not the "why" part. Not understanding but following route and dogma will limit your progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadpoet
    Perhaps, photography is way too technically advance for your liking, that you prefer the traditional use of brushes, paint and canvas. I say this becasue, with camera, digital or film, artists no longer has to learn the nitty gritty of reproducing a scenery or image, they just point and click!
    Ironic, consider that I've been told that I'm too focus on the technical aspect of Digital Photography and that I've been in the IT industry for >10 years. Just point and click is not going to give you the knowledge and skill of taking good photos, just like following receipes is not going make you a chef.

  17. #77

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Read what Andy Ho said above. As for the 8fps, one note: there is 1/125 sec between frames. If you had seen what Ian had posted regarding the cricket shot, the difference is significant. But the issue here is that if you are NOT a pro earning $$$ but has cash only for either or.
    8fps will give you an extra shot by the time a 3 fps fires off its second shot. If you need to capture the moment, can be significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Well, the additional MP does give you flexibility, but how many here, if the image is so crucial will have only cash for either or again. Richer color, wider dynamic range? I guess you have not seen Thom Hogan's website; I had posted the link. He shot with a D50 (currently cheapest consumer DSLR from Nikon) with 12-24 AFS (which is a pro lens). As for your blanket statement "Larger and higher resolution sensor beats smaller and lower resolution any day" I guess you have not seen Bjørn Rørslett review of D2X.
    Of course, at theend of the day, it's the photographer behind the cmera that is most important. However, in this discussion, I sure hope you are making the photographer a constant, not a variable. And I will again say, better camera with larger sensor wins. This is my personal experience and that's what is important. Other ppl's review is other pll's opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    If you want to talk about MF vs 35mm, the irony is that like what student had said, on film, the body does NOT matter. Color and dynamic range is due to the film and lens.
    Am I glad you quoted student's comment. In the digital world, the film has been replaced by the sensor. Since the sensor is permanently attached to the camera, we have to talk about camera, don't we? And again, my experience, a 6 MP MF sensor beats the 16 MP sensor of a 1DsMk2 hands down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    The fact is that many now follow the diagnostics and instruction but not the "why" part. Not understanding but following route and dogma will limit your progress.
    Ironic, as you also said, you left off my medical example? Now that we are using the computer to help us do lots of previously manual calculation, is loosing the ability to use an abacus a good thing or not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    Ironic, consider that I've been told that I'm too focus on the technical aspect of Digital Photography and that I've been in the IT industry for >10 years. Just point and click is not going to give you the knowledge and skill of taking good photos, just like following receipes is not going make you a chef.
    Totally agree with you, good lens bad camera or good camera bad lens, will both yield disasterous result. There is no receipes to follow, but from the collective experience of all photographers, then we make our decision. However, catagorically saying that a high end comsumer DSLR is better than a pro level DSLR, is just like following a reciepe blindly. It depends on the type of pictures you like to shoot.

    Back to the OP question, Pro Body or Pro Lens, I say it depends!
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  18. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by espn
    I frankly still don't see how flexible ISO100 can get as compared to ISO200. Is the flexibility difference that great? To me it's a one stop difference that's about it, all functional and all other aspects remain the same. It doesn't really make a difference, or at least to me it doesn't.
    whether someone needs the flexibility or not depends. but the more options there are, the better it is for a photographer to get the type of picture he wants.

    that said, there are many who could get great pics with "consumer/prosumer" level equipment.
    Last edited by mpenza; 19th August 2005 at 09:12 PM.

  19. #79
    Senior Member jnet6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    not here often anymore
    Posts
    8,169

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    Quote Originally Posted by mpenza
    whether someone needs the flexibility or not depends. but the more options there are, the better it is for a photographer to get the type of picture he wants.

    that said, there are many who could get great pics with "consumer/prosumer" level equipment.
    well said.
    got $$ buy all pro things else consumer also can do the job with some restrictions...

  20. #80
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NTU and Wdls
    Posts
    2,622

    Default Re: Pro Body vs Pro Lens

    I really wonder if the cameras of the 50s are as technologically as advanced as even the simple Ixus. I don't think so. And I don't think the photographers ever dreamt of burst mode, bracketing, etc.
    Yet, most riveting images are from the 50s, 60s. Few from the 2000s. Even with the most high tech cameras.

    I know of a photography teacher who can get 36 good, quallity photos out of 36 shots using film. I know of digital buffs who using the Drat-tat-tat-tat-tat-tat method getting 1 good shot from 40 shots.
    My view is that pro bodies are pro because they allow a lesser photographer to do things easier, which to a better photographer is a no brainer. If you feel that you don't have the skill to take a good shot with a press of the shutter, perfect exposure everytime, then should work towards a pro body 1st. if you have the skill to take the best photos at the level of 1 shot 1 kill, then you would start looking into lens.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •