A feather is a deadly weapon in the hands of a master.
A feather is a deadly weapon in the hands of a master.
Last edited by TheChef; 22nd December 2009 at 09:34 PM.
A ball of flour in the hands of a roti master can turn into a delicious prada.
Can I also say something..? I am still a beginner and began shooting a few weeks ago, so I am going to say things from a beginner's point of view.
Yes, I agree that the kit lens can accomplish many things, and is a versatile lens if you know how to use it. I usually take photos with the kit lens as it is lighter and it is more compact. And I also have the 55-200mm lens which is also a kit lens.
Why are beginners getting expensive equipments like cameras, lens etc? I feel that it's because many people always say that kit lens' IQ not good enough etc etc.. must get L lens or G lens or CZ lens. That's one of the many answers I saw when I was searching for some threads. A lot of people would say something like if you are serious, why bother about the kit lens? (not targeting anyone.) And these threads are created by beginners, well, most of them.
And many beginners would think that shooting with a DSLR equals to sure-nice-photos and must get nice and new and fancy lenses to compliment my DSLR. That's a misconception, and to be honest, I thought so too but not anymore now.
And many people think that if you were to get an expensive body, you HAVE to use expensive lens. I have seen these replies like wow you're using blah blah blah and your lens is a kit lens?! I don't see anything wrong with using a kit lens on a semi pro body or something. So what if I put an 18-250mm lens on a semi pro body? Yes, it is not a kit lens, but it equals to kit lenses. And in some cases, the kit lenses are sharper than the all-in-one zoom lens.
It is peer pressure, really. One example is the 50mm prime lens. Many beginners don't even know what this lens is for and why they need it. But they still bought it just because a lot of people recommend this lens due to it's price and the sharpness etc etc. I was like this, to be honest. But I asked myself, do I really need this lens that is a 'portraiture' lens? Or should I just get a telephoto lens as I would need that extra zoom range. I do not know why I need that so I did not get that prime lens.
I am new to this photography scene but I have friends who are more senior than me, but not like 10-20 years.. maybe 1-2 years. When I first got my dslr, they would ask me, eh you intending to get new lenses or not? I was like 'what?' Many of my friends (around 15-16 years old) feel that getting new lenses is a MUST when getting a DSLR.
But I feel that it is inevitable to not talk about gears like cameras, lens, tripods, flash etc. and oh yes, when the companies tried to classify the camera bodies into Entry Level, Semi Pro, Pro, Amateur, Enthusiast etc etc etc etc, the beginners would think that 'When I become an amateur photographer or semi pro, I MUST get that blah blah camera to make myself look like one amateur or semi pro.'
Everything I said is just my opinions. I did not intend to offend anyone through this reply. So hope you guys understand.
ok.. now my next question in mind.
How sharp is sharp? How often do beginners or amateurs print their photos into the BIG BIG size which u wanna see the fine fine details? For me, i am a poor hobbyist actually who can;t afford those SHARP SHARP lens, cos i dun need it at the moment or maybe in the future, as i am just a hobbyist, i dun earn from photography at all.
Seriously.. wat sharpness are we talking about? cos from my point of view... my pics dun look blur or out of focus to me if i set a correct setting, focus correctly and hold correctly and not shaking my camera to test how good my camera is. I wonder how those days when people use film( i did in my school days, and funny that i also dun get blur pics if i did it correctly, I only get underexpose or overexposed pictures lucky me), with no VR to shoot classic pictures from the past.... they must be VERY good then.
I mostly shoot landscape and flowers(sometimes) btw as i have no money to pay to shoot XMM, too lazy to find free models to shoot, too scared to see insects in my viewfinder etc... I prefer to take my own sweet time to find a location, take my time to plan my shoot, take my time to walk around the ground to see how to shoot.
i think that although many people in CS are preoccupied with equipment (me included), we also know that it's the guy behind the camera that matters. but i think the problem is that we KNOW the photographer matters more than the gear, and that's it we stop at knowing but not changing our attitude.
Hmm just a qn, so may i ask why did you even get a dslr if equipment is totally so unimportant, since there are plenty of compacts with full manual control? Especially that you mostly shoot landscape & flowers?
Only the pictures matter right? Compact cannot take good pictures?
Anything u can argue about how a dslr is better than a compact can be argued by others about how a F2.8 lens is better than a kit lens in low light, or how a D3 is better in noise control than a D70. No?
Debating about whether equipment is impt or not is meaningless unless the kind of subject you're taking is taken into consideration. A fast lens or good ISO performance might not be impt for you in landscape but they definitely help a wedding/sports photographer a lot. You might think you do not need those sharp sharp lens but how you know others think the same as you.
Of course there will be some people who only 'talk' equipment and dun try to improve their skills, but there will be others who seriously are trying to improve both their gears & skills to bring themselves to a new level in photography. So seriously, i really do not see how asking abt equipment is 'not photography'.
When you have pass the beginner stage, the real flame of passion into photography will rise, you will no longer ask yourself such question again.
You will rather concentrate on techniques, lighting skills and artistic means with whatever equipment you have on hand, and slowly save up for the tools that can execute the shots you want.
As what i wrote in my signature. A camera is just a tool to capture the soul of the moment, nothing more.
imo, if you're serious abt photography, even as starters, go for the best within your budget.
reason is simple. you need the right tools for the right job. you don't use a toothbrush to drive a screw.
if you're a hobbyist, then its fine to settle for cheaper stuffs that produces just enough the effects that you're trying to achieve.
in short, advice are given, but its up to the receiver to judge for themselves if thats what they need.
agreed with UandME.
wad ur using depends on wad u are taking.
sports photographer:5dmk2, 28-70 F2.8 is a must.
night photographer: 450d can easily do the trick along wiht a wide angle lens or something. even kit lens is ok.
product photograpehr: do u seriously need a iso 12800 for tat shot?
still if ur a event photographer/ all rounder. better equipments will give u a easier time.
Opp..... Not everyone is a pro here..... be a little bit accomodating ..............