Expensive Equips won't turn a new photograher into an instant pro. But not having good enough equips will limit capability.
5D MII w/16-35L,Sigma 28-70&Nikkors(35f2,85f1.4,105f2.5,180f2.8ED)
So the moral of the story is that although any camera can make good pictures, the chances with a good (and naturally more expensive) camera giving you better pictures are higher!
So what is the good equipment good to have rather than the XX one?
Pity the fool who looks at a beautiful image but only admires the equipment used to take the shot. It's just like looking at a Picasso masterpiece and asking what brushes he uses.
" it is the man behind the camera, not the camera "
it is about skills and experience, a better camera gives u "adds-on" like speed and range.
As a matter of fact, I would have more respect for the photographer who could produce a work of Art with an el cheapo camera - and many do.
It is not the equipment one uses, but how it is used and how well you've mastered the equipment.
I think this topic has been beaten to death, buried, dug up and beaten up once again.
Look here -> Better equip=better pics?
IMHO, it is unrealistic to say that "it's the man behind the lens" all the time. I think both play a part. If not, all the top fashion/press/sports photgraphers in the world would just use a compact camera. I could master a Fujifilm Quicksnap disposable camera, but would that get me anywhere?
The term "expensive" is relative: It's not expensive if it's worth the money.
Expensive? How much are u looking at? A $50K Hassy is expensive? A $16K 1DsMkII? A $5K 5D? A $3K S5Pro? A $2.8K D200? A $1.6K 400D? Or a $1.2K Alpha-100? A sub-$1000 Prosumer Cam? A sub-$800 Compact Point and Shoot or u do mean a $20 disposable quickshot?
Expensive equipment does not necessarily mean good photos, but similarly, holding extremely cheap cameras doesn't mean u'll be getting lousy photos all the way.
Where 1 offers more control and gives the experienced user the flexibility in deploying his/her technical knowledge into creative composition, the other offers more automatic controls in allowing a lesser level of learning curve in learning how to shoot good photos or does away with the hassle of deploying full manual controls when the situation simply doesn't call for/warrant the need for extremely advanced controls when all one needs is just a quick shot.
As for pricing-wise, there's only 4 words to explain: "Company's Targeted Marketing Segment". I'm sure the general crowd here is matured, educated with proper worldly knowledge to know precisely what do those 4 words mean without me having to type out an essay for it (I've got an exam dis week, plenty for me to do tons of writing, wanna save my energy for then).
Use the right equipment for the right job at the right time. Ask urself if u'd like to go on a relaxing holiday carrying 4x 1000watt studio lights, a 1DsMkII with 2 sets of 10 different primes of different focal lengths and apertures.
some photos just cant be taken with a cheapo while some ppl over kills shooting with expensive camera.
eg; a static flower can be shot with any camera with a close up lens. so if you compare shooting it with a 1DMK3, thats an overkill. you dont need the fast focusing, the 10fps etc.
So bottom line is do you know what is your camera designed for. You cant generallise the whole photography into using cheap or expensive camera. Anyway, cheap or expensive does not really exist in photography, the correct words should be Good or lousy. But usually the lousy ones are cheap while the good ones are expensive.. Note the word usually... not always.
I do not want to argue and I had used lousy lens with disapointed results before. Overall it cost me more $$$ in the long run using lousy equipments.
Last edited by raincool2005; 14th May 2007 at 01:48 PM.
Give a monkey a top end camera, can he shoot better than me??