Articles we will all hate!

[swishbrade]

I hate these articles! And am sure all of you will share the same sentiments as me

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

And I hate William Tsoi too!
http://photo.net/photodb/presentatio...tion_id=317651

[denniskee]

sorry, but i love the 1st article. what he wrote is true what, i only print at 4r, most 8r, 4mp is enough for that. so still using g2 and d60.

[swishbrade]

Originally Posted by denniskee sorry, but i love the 1st article. what he wrote is true what, i only print at 4r, most 8r, 4mp is enough for that. so still using g2 and d60.

Haha I was just being cheeky Denise. I love his articles and the truth they bear. I hate it because he makes us wonder why our king-sized dry cabinets are so full

[denniskee]

Originally Posted by swishbrade Haha I was just being cheeky Denise. I love his articles and the truth they bear. I hate it because he makes us wonder why our king-sized dry boxes are so full

because we love to play with new toys? there will always be a kid inside us no matter how old we gets.

but i think camera makers hate these articles.

[Simon_84]

kinda makes me wonder why some ppl claimed that they are newbies but still end up with semi-pro bodies...maybe they should take a gd look at krw articles before making a big-time purchase but then again...maybe they have too much $$$
do they always think that expensive cam body = better photos ??
why would a self-proclaimed newbie be able to take such a steep learning curve on a semi-pro body...my guess is maybe they are not so newbie after all...or is it an excuse they made whenever they post poor photos ??

i'm a 4r printer as well so i suppose 6 to 8 meg would be more than enough for me.

[Lenscapes]

Originally Posted by swishbrade Haha I was just being cheeky Denise. I love his articles and the truth they bear. I hate it because he makes us wonder why our king-sized dry boxes are so full

when did Denniskee become a denise?

[denniskee]

Originally Posted by Lenscapes when did Denniskee become a denise?

ha ha ha, i also didnt notice. i suddenly become girl girl liao.

[Churchwolf]

I actually have to agree with these articles. In the end it really isn't the camera that makes the difference (within reason of course!). It is how the photographer learns to use the camera that they have in hand to get the best possible photos in any given situation. That is what makes photography an art. If you give a great photographer a disposable camera he will still take fantastic photos. If you give a crap photographer a $5000 DSLR with every possible add-on he will still take rubbish photos.

[m3lv1nh0]

Thanks. After reading thru the articles. I have decided to gave up the thought of buying my next lens.....

[ClipperSG]

The number of equipment whores in this forum is not surprising. However, I do question their purpose in spending $$ on these equipment. Is it for the fame and glory, or is it a "I can afford it, but you can't" sort of thinking?

I'm a photography hobbyist, but who also freelance as an official sports photographer for various events like marathons, duathlons, triathlons, etc.

At a recent event, I saw 2 photogs, who were not the official ones, set up a whole light strobe system with sensors and cameras along the cycling path. So everytime a cyclist goes past, whoosh, and they got their shots. I was kind of perplexed because I wonder what do they do with those shots? They surely can't be doing it for a living..can they?

I use a simple DSLR with a 200mm to take each and every participant cycling. Participants can purchase their photos on various sizes and formats from the website. Truth be told, 90% of them don't really give 2 hoots about the quality and colour balance of the shots. They just want their faces, that's all.

So, at the end of the day, is it the equipment, photographer, or the reason for photography that drives the equation?

[flipfreak]

Originally Posted by ClipperSG The number of equipment whores in this forum is not surprising. However, I do question their purpose in spending $$ on these equipment. Is it for the fame and glory, or is it a "I can afford it, but you can't" sort of thinking? I'm a photography hobbyist, but who also freelance as an official sports photographer for various events like marathons, duathlons, triathlons, etc. At a recent event, I saw 2 photogs, who were not the official ones, set up a whole light strobe system with sensors and cameras along the cycling path. So everytime a cyclist goes past, whoosh, and they got their shots. I was kind of perplexed because I wonder what do they do with those shots? They surely can't be doing it for a living..can they? I use a simple DSLR with a 200mm to take each and every participant cycling. Participants can purchase their photos on various sizes and formats from the website. Truth be told, 90% of them don't really give 2 hoots about the quality and colour balance of the shots. They just want their faces, that's all. So, at the end of the day, is it the equipment, photographer, or the reason for photography that drives the equation?

i think i know who are the 2 guys u were talking abt. i guess end of the day, its what u want to derive from photography. even if the person is a hobbyist, i don't see any wrong in investing more than a professional photographer.

[Luval]

Originally Posted by Simon_84 kinda makes me wonder why some ppl claimed that they are newbies but still end up with semi-pro bodies...maybe they should take a gd look at krw articles before making a big-time purchase but then again...maybe they have too much $$$ do they always think that expensive cam body = better photos ?? why would a self-proclaimed newbie be able to take such a steep learning curve on a semi-pro body...my guess is maybe they are not so newbie after all...or is it an excuse they made whenever they post poor photos ?? i'm a 4r printer as well so i suppose 6 to 8 meg would be more than enough for me.

It bcos , it feels "good" to be seen to own a semi Pro Body. and Who the f*%Ky is bother with these people. Are they really dying for attention.

[ClipperSG]

Originally Posted by flipfreak i think i know who are the 2 guys u were talking abt. i guess end of the day, its what u want to derive from photography. even if the person is a hobbyist, i don't see any wrong in investing more than a professional photographer.

Oh..don't get me wrong..spending on equipment to upgrade is fine by me...but I'm more curious as to the reason behind it.

If the upgrade helps to improve the shots or enable one to take a new market of shots, that's ok. But if its for equipment whoring purposes, then I think it's just plain ridiculous.

It is unfortunate that newcomers to this hobby believe that only a DSLR can take proper shots. This is partly due to the influence of equipment whores and pixel counters on this forum. Its sad that a universal hobby like photography has been skewed by them.

That's why after 3 years, I still refuse to offer any critique on anyone's shots. We each take our own within our own ability and creativeness. There's no right and wrong way of shooting any pictures..and it's certainly not the equipment to blame.

[denniskee]

Originally Posted by ClipperSG At a recent event, I saw 2 photogs, who were not the official ones, set up a whole light strobe system with sensors and cameras along the cycling path. So everytime a cyclist goes past, whoosh, and they got their shots. I was kind of perplexed because I wonder what do they do with those shots? They surely can't be doing it for a living..can they?

i think as long as they have the knowledge on using strobes, dont see why not.
hobbist can also be at the level of professional photographer but it is just that they are not doing it for a living.

[ClipperSG]

Originally Posted by denniskee i think as long as they have the knowledge on using strobes, dont see why not. hobbist can also be at the level of professional photographer but it is just that they are not doing it for a living.

I would agree with you on that..if they were indeed hired to take the event. But they weren't..and their photos certainly are not sold to the cyclists..because the participants don't even know them.

On a sidenote, because the cyclists have to cycle up and down that path 5 laps, the strobes actually blinded them temporarily such that they lost their momentum while struggling to maintain their balance. This is highly unprofessional as photography should in no way intrude or affect the event itself.

I may not make a living fulltime with this, but I think it's important to understand what the customer wants, rather than what you want...

[Simon_84]

Originally Posted by ClipperSG On a sidenote, because the cyclists have to cycle up and down that path 5 laps, the strobes actually blinded them temporarily such that they lost their momentum while struggling to maintain their balance. This is highly unprofessional as photography should in no way intrude or affect the event itself.

correct.
even EPL photographers do not use flash, most of them use prime f2.8 zoom lens.
as a form of respect to indoor performances, is best also not to use flash as well so as not to distract them from their performance.
seems like in recent years when cam bodies are getting cheaper all the time, wannabies will do anything to get the shots they wanted.

[ClipperSG]

Originally Posted by Simon_84 correct. even EPL photographers do not use flash, most of them use prime f2.8 zoom lens. as a form of respect to indoor performances, is best also not to use flash as well so as not to distract them from their performance. seems like in recent years when cam bodies are getting cheaper all the time, wannabies will do anything to get the shots they wanted.

That is why i didn't regard them as professionals. No self-respecting professional would do that..which leads me to conclude logically that it was just an equipment "exhibition" by them.

[kcuf2]

Originally Posted by Simon_84 correct. even EPL photographers do not use flash, most of them use prime f2.8 zoom lens. as a form of respect to indoor performances, is best also not to use flash as well so as not to distract them from their performance. seems like in recent years when cam bodies are getting cheaper all the time, wannabies will do anything to get the shots they wanted.

diaozz, the players are more than 100, 200m away, even sb800, 580ex, hammer heads wont be able to reach them, of course there is no flash.... use flash only kena laugh by those surrounding photographers.. its not they dun wan to use, its not they rspect, its jus that technology is not capable enough.

u remind me of a scene, i saw someone inside the singapore flyer taking night shots of singapore scenery and switching on the flash..

[ClipperSG]

Originally Posted by kcuf2 diaozz, the players are more than 100, 200m away, even sb800, 580ex, hammer heads wont be able to reach them, of course there is no flash.... use flash only kena laugh by those surrounding photographers.. its not they dun wan to use, its not they rspect, its jus that technology is not capable enough. u remind me of a scene, i saw someone inside the singapore flyer taking night shots of singapore scenery and switching on the flash..

Its exactly the same scene at the stadium when 10,000 flashes go off when the kick-off starts...hilarious.

But I gather that the goal area is close enough for a flash to reach, but still it would not be appropriate to use it.

Anyway, I digress that I have caused this thread to go off-topic. I was merely voicing my curiosities...

[Daedalus Trent]

Originally Posted by swishbrade I hate these articles! And am sure all of you will share the same sentiments as me

LOL!

you may hate them, but all the pauper photographers like me out there wouldn't

gives ppl who can't afford big toys hope