They think they are like Ansel Adams who can make brillant pics even from a pns or cam hp.
They think the rest are not as smart as them, so need to remind them again and again.
To comfort themselves when they couldn't buy the cam or lenses that were being discussed.
Nothing better to say, increase post counts.
I don't have the impression that the "it's not the equipment ..." thing comes up everytime. There can be (and are) technical discussions that have their merit. But I do have the impression that many postings a la "I am limited by my current camera, should I upgrade to a Nikanolta Mk5DS3+++ or a Leisselblad XL5/pro" are rather obvious pretexts for "I want to buy myself a new toy".
There's nothing wrong with getting oneself a new toy, but then be honest about it. If not, what's wrong with an answer like "it's not the equipment".
Of course, equipment limitations can be a hindrance in some cases. But looking at the vast majority of photos that people post here, it's clear that equipment is rarely the limiting factor. I also believe that once you understand/can appreciate the usefulness of/need for certain technical specifications, there's little left that would need to be discussed which hasn't been beaten to death elsewhere. It is very revealing if you want to buy a fancy camera because you "need" some high-tech feature, yet you don't really understand what it is.
i believe we may have some disagreement to the extent of the issue.
wanting the highest and the most expensive model without stating any limitations is rarely the case, or at least hardly as common as those who consider between entry/sub-entry models versus intermediate/semi-professional models without knowing why, how and what will change.
if your question is what's "wrong" with the statement, then there is two way of looking at it,
1. academically: the statement is true as a "most often" situation, but not as an absolute or almost always. also, subject and tools are not as minor as what the statement seem to suggest, despite of user being of a significant factor. limited subject and limited tools means that the user can only do things in a certain limited way which may or may not derive good pictures depending on how limited the subject and tools are, as well as how optimised the user can make use of the limits. for more specific requirements of a certain field or vision, the user plays less role, except for making the subject and tools available to him.
2. practically: non-specification between these one-liners is just as good as those who ask about upgrades without saying why. not considering what technical aspect indicates an upgrade is similar in a way to not specifying what user factor, when improved, would avoid wasting that money. put it simply, knowing or saying that statement alone is not enough - a user not only need to know he can do it, he also need to know how he can do it.
I think sometimes equipment really matters.
Like with my D40 and its kit lens, there's no way I can take shots like kongping did here.
For that case, it's the equipment, not the man behind the cam.
I think he meant with the same set up, there is possibility that he can get the same images and with practise and time, maybe that is a great possibility. At the end of the day, photography is a craft that makes the shooter improve over time...
Last edited by microcosm; 12th March 2008 at 11:24 PM.
I would say, with the correct knowledge and technique, yes. Btw don't have to put up a reply to racoon31e sarcastically and i don't think he mean it that way.
Its just like football "experts" saying "The Ball Is Round..." when they have no freaking idea what is going on......
Nikanon D3FXMarkIIIDS-1H with 5000mm f/128 & 0.500mm Macro f/0.4 & 0.70-2000mm f/256
And I think Nikon would not use freezing actions shots as a selling point for D40, of course.
thinking of equipment can solve all the issues, OK, than stand up for what you believe, say it out loud.
I'm asking racoon31e does he think that with better equipment he can produce superb picture? if yes, why not, that's his believing, which line that I wrote ever "hoot" him??
you are the one say I wrote sarcastically! and I'm not happy.
whats bothering you??.....and I'm not happy.
the equipment does play a large role in my photography
how are you suppose to take birds with a 10-22mm??
Anyway, from all the replies posted, I believe anyone (except for some you-know-who)who is reading should have a clearer picture of what this thread is about.
If the rest still thinks that this is about condeming the statement, so be it, go read all the posts up and down, left to right again and again.
Even then you would scare the birds awayHaa, i supposed maybe bring along a 10 metre high ladder?
I know, but maybe someone with superb skill who does not need any fancy nancy equipment can make it happen? Perhaps even with a pin-hole or lomo?
i did capture these kind of shots before, using m42 mount manual focus 300mm f4 on my eos-d60. though its only 50% hit rate.
when people say the statement, i doubt "They think they are like Ansel Adams who can make brillant pics even from a pns or cam hp."
also, i doubt they mean you can achieve a 300mm lens close up using a 18-55mm kit lens. but rather, given a good old m42 mount manual focus 300mm lens, with practice, you can take sport photo as you would with a 300mm auto-focus lens (now dslr, cheaper lar, not like doing film days) though the hit rate may be lower.
also, can anyone advice me what kind of eqpt are needed if i want to freeze the moment when a dart burst a balloon filled with water? modern day high tech camera and flash? i garentee u, answer is no.
Last edited by denniskee; 13th March 2008 at 02:02 AM.
photography makes one sees things from all angles.