For Landscape photographers
I would put Tripod as #1
For Event photographers
Flash as number #1
For everything without exception
Photographer's skill as number #1
Thanks guys for your candid, enlightening view.
I should qualify the question again..." if you have that extra $$ to spend" which gear would you upgrade first? Again this is a very open question and the response can be very different from different photographer.
For me, I would get a Epson P5000
Cool down guys, actually this question is somewhat valid to me (at least).
I come from the old film days and only got into DSLR just 2 years back.
When previously asked which is more important between the lens and body I always tell people that no doubt it is the lens and I am also willing to invest more on the lens than the body.
In the good old days it was always the lens because the medium aka film are all the same and you use what ever you want, the body was considered only a black box to house it.
With the difference in sensor size, technology and the processing power build into the body it seems like the body plays a very important part now as it is the "film" that you are going to be stuck with as long as you are using the body. So you now have to choose the body as carefully as the lens. My order of importance would now be :-
1) Body & Lens (of equal importance)
Body includes metering and functionality that comes with it
The rest are secondary.
Just my 2c worth
1. you.. your skill/creativity
For my needs i would need a wide-mid or mid-tele (24-70L *drool*) 2.8 zoom for my indoor work I can survive with my single lens-body-flash seup for now.
Top priority gear - "Lots of lots of CASH"
With cash u can get any gear u want..
2.) Operator (you)
3.) Camera Body
5.) Recording media (film/memory cards)
6.) Lens (Standard zoom)
7.) Camera Bag
8.) External Flash Lights
10.) Lens (Tele Zoom)
10.) Lens (Macro)
10.) Lens (Ultra Wide)
infinity.) Time to buy Nikon/Canon shares
No. 1 is still needed for all of the above..
This is an electronic post which requires no signature.
So suffice to say, if I have a little budget left, I might consider improving myself by attending a photograhy workshop or seminar, buy a few good books to read up etc etc
Though the question may sound brainless, I believe there are enough ppl to participate in this "pointless" discussion as can be seen in the posted replies. That's why they have this section, the Kopitiam - or some ppl call it the place to talk C O C K. I am sure thru this "pointless" discussion, there will be bound to have some ppl who believe they have learn something, becoz not everyone is created equal.
For eg, there are bound to have some photographers who will always believe that besides a cam and a lens, the next most important gear is an expensive bag (a Billingham?) ... so there goes ....
This type of question will always pop out every now and then in our life .... if u cant stand it, juz walk away...
always the Light, .... always.
too much money?
go for a photo trip and take more photos
Sometimes, the seemingly "brainless" questions will trigger one to ponder; what about "who am I?", "what really matter to me in life?" .... So to a large extend, we can only have our own answers for ourselves as far as this thread title is concerned.
There are bound to have people who think they are smarter and more intelligent than the others and it can't be helped. Quite typical of Singapore (or rather Singaporeans) who always think they are number 1 in many aspects including interlectual or thinking process , how brutally naive.
I have much to learn from the folks in this forum, so I will heed the advice to just walk away from people who are crude hahaha.
Given a limited budget, I say you can do without the "high end lens" for many, many years. I believe the kit lens will serve 80% of everybody's needs 80% of the time. People who say you MUST get high-end lens say so only because they're so used to it and would not settle for anything less. And rightly so. But as long as you're happy with YOUR gear, know their shortcomings and workarounds, everything can be pretty rosy. I know of people who have one cheap film SLR, one cheap 35-70mm, and they are plenty happy.
Having said that, what's important to you really depends on your application. That's why with my cheapo slow lenses, when it comes to indoor runway fashion photography for example, I know I'll be limited by my eqpt. Cannot afford 70-200mm f/2.8, so how? Don't shoot fashion, shoot something else, lor!
But to answer your question directly:
(1) Flash (and only because I do indoor shots for money)
(2) Tripod (which I really only rarely use)
a distant (3) "High-end" lens.
I believe with whatever limited free speech freedom we have, we can act on it still. Thus we don't have to walk away when we see something we feel that we want to make a statement about. True, that ITguy could have made a more polite way to help Hotzone prioritise his equipment purchase rather than criticise for his misinterpreted grammar. However, like in the real world, forums are visited by people dying to speak up and let themselves be heard where MOST of us are told to shut up and follow instructions at work or home by our bosses or spouses.
I hope the lucky few who are not like most people, can help empathise and just.. let it go..
In Hotzone's perspective of question, ceteris paribus, with everybody's talent level equal, a basic body capable of RAW capture and the best glass you can afford, followed by heavy tripod. (most landscape, macro and night photos are marred by camera shake, thus go heavy, not carbon fibre if you can take it) The heavier, the better damping you get.
Like all with an anus, I too have an opinion, I just hope it sounds good to you.
Last edited by ilurbu; 9th November 2006 at 04:11 AM. Reason: addition