Expensive Equipment = Good photo?
- Thread starter excelglsi
- Start date
- Status
In CS we have
more techies than hobbyists
more hobbyists than cameramen
more cameramen than photographers
more photographers than professionals
and usually the interest in equipment drop as you go down the list.
more techies than hobbyists
more hobbyists than cameramen
more cameramen than photographers
more photographers than professionals
and usually the interest in equipment drop as you go down the list.
Maybe .. just maybe. :dunno: Its possible. But i would say the chance of shooting a better photo with a manual camera is much slimmer.
But Monkey can only do business (Monkey business) and scratch it's friend's back :bsmilie:
but they get paid peanuts ok? dun play play, later their stuff are classified as avant garde :bsmilie:
"Expensive Equipment = Good photo?" is the same as "Cheap Equipment = Bad photo?"
One can use a cheap holga for that alternative effect he's looking for, or an expensive Hassy for the detailed rendition of the subject, both cases will yield equally impressive results, provided, the guy behind the camera knows what he's doing.
So there,...
I pity the fool who thinks he needs expensive equipment to take great pictures...
I pity the fool who thinks he's not good enough to own good equipment...
And most of all, I pity the fool who doesn't know what is needed to get the job done...
One can use a cheap holga for that alternative effect he's looking for, or an expensive Hassy for the detailed rendition of the subject, both cases will yield equally impressive results, provided, the guy behind the camera knows what he's doing.
So there,...
I pity the fool who thinks he needs expensive equipment to take great pictures...
I pity the fool who thinks he's not good enough to own good equipment...
And most of all, I pity the fool who doesn't know what is needed to get the job done...
No... but most good photos usually come from expensive equipment.
Quite simply, people who depend on photography on their livelihood tend to spend a bit more on their equipment. So, there are more good photos coming out of expensive equipment.
That does not mean that expensive equipment produce more good photos. There are too many ignorant people who think that their pictures will become nicer if they spend more on their equipment, only to be disappointed. Sometimes, they don't know any better... but never mind lah... as long as they are happy spending their money.
Quite simply, people who depend on photography on their livelihood tend to spend a bit more on their equipment. So, there are more good photos coming out of expensive equipment.
That does not mean that expensive equipment produce more good photos. There are too many ignorant people who think that their pictures will become nicer if they spend more on their equipment, only to be disappointed. Sometimes, they don't know any better... but never mind lah... as long as they are happy spending their money.
it depends on who is behind that manual camera
And just because the camera is manual, does not mean that it is cheap.
And just because the camera is manual, does not mean that it is cheap.
it depends on who is behind that manual camera
I was replying to the "monkey" not a person using the manual camera. :sweat: Of course I agreed fully that a manual camera can give superb photo and some manual cameras are not cheap.
once a while this kind of thread will appear over and over in CS.....
common, is there anything to argue here? 3 pages of post, and NOBODY will say Expensive equipment = good photo.....
Why do people start this kind of thread? Izzit because they see lousy photographers buy expensive gear which they cannot afford? Jealous or what?
People buy "expensive" cameras for their own reason. If they want to churn out bad photos using a 10k system, it is their choice.
common, is there anything to argue here? 3 pages of post, and NOBODY will say Expensive equipment = good photo.....
Why do people start this kind of thread? Izzit because they see lousy photographers buy expensive gear which they cannot afford? Jealous or what?
People buy "expensive" cameras for their own reason. If they want to churn out bad photos using a 10k system, it is their choice.
What's so foolish about that?
There are people who thinks their skill level is so good, that they don't need expensive equipment to take great pictures... They claim to take great pictures even with lousy equipment, but because they are so good, they deserve the best equipment (not that they can't take good pictures with cheap equipment if you know what I mean).
Then... they bring their monster lenses to events, but their results are Kana Sai... Worse still, they think their pictures are so very nice.
Actually, it's better to tell people that expensive equipment is necessary to take good photos. Then rich kids will buy them, grow tired of them, and sell them in the secondary market... Then we can buy them cheap! ;p
Just because you can, doesn't mean you need to. If there are more productive ways of achieving goals, one should consider them. If one sticks to meager means out of dogmatism, it is nothing to be proud of, hence I pity such fools.
But of course, as long as one knows what is needed, it is ENTIRELY up to the individual to have the freedom of choice. The key here is to know first, and act second. If you don't even know, well...
Does Samuel L Jackson use that phrase a lot too?
It is usually linked with Mr T - who was famous first.
Was never really an A-team fan. The word "fool" is used at two extremes of the spectrum. It's used generously among black American rap artists, and used eloquently in Shakespearian plays.
- Status
Similar threads
