Why Your Camera Does Not Matter

[MooEy]

y bother with those silly articles written by people who prolly have every single piece of equipment they need. statistics prove more than anything. go see all the photo gallery and see wat equipment people are using. macro and close-up gallery is full of users with their macro lens. world of nature forum is full of users with their big prime lens. look at reportage and sports, 70-200 f/2.8 everywhere.

like wat student said, go shoot macro with a 50mm prime lens. to me equipment counts as much as skill.

~MooEy~

 

[shutterspeed]

Thanks.

Ya, would love to see Picasso do that! I have to exercise great restraint to such ridiculous examples. Picasso can draw a picture with a charcoal better than I can with the best brushes. But he will have a heck of a time doing the wonderful psychedelic images with the charcoal!

The silly thing about this kind of talk is an illusion of pseudo-intelligence and pseudo-wisdom.

Read again - YOU CAN MAKE GOOD PICTURES WITH ANY CAMERA, PROVIDED YOU WORK WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF WHAT THAT CAMERA IS MADE FOR! PERIOD!!!!!

It is pure stupidity to say that equipment does not matter. Examples are given in thread to "illustrate" that it does not matter. Yet there can be more examples to illustrate that it does.

You CANNOT take a 1:1 macro shots with your average 50 mm lens. Want to try.

You CANNOT take an architectural shot of a 20 storey building without it falling backwards with your average 50mm lens when standing on the ground. Want to try it

You CANNOT take a face shot of the tigers in the Singapore Zoo without risking being mauled by trying to get close enough to smell the tigers halitosis.

Need I give more examples?

But you CAN make wonderful images with that great 50mm lens. A grandmaster who use practically ONE lens is Ralph Gibson whom I have the pleasure of meeting. On his Leica M. Yet for his latest work on the guitars, he had to use a SLR with a macro lens.

I really hope this thread is all for a laugh, which is fine with me. But if taken seriously................

Just to add spice to the thread.

I think painting and photography is slightly in the sense that for painting, you can go into the abstract eg. painting a 'ghost', which is very subjective. When Picasso sketches, he need not make sure a horse looks like a horse as long as we know its a horse.

Photography, IMHO is restricted by reality. Hence the variation in perspectives for a given subject is necessarily limited. Our ability to capture an image (assuming we have reached a certain standard by now) is further limited by our equipment.

However, if we were to take the equipment constraints away, some part of me feels that photography can move up a notch or two. I dare hazard a guess that if 2 photographers (not beginners) were to photograph the same guitar player with the same Leica 50 mm lens, the output from the 2 person would not be too different. Else, we won't think most wedding photographers take the same shots. :bsmilie:

The argument so far has been centred around comparing a beginner to a pro. Since, we have so much time to 'discuss', I assume that we have all reach a certain understanding / standard in photography, and hence, IMHO again, an improvement in equipment will certainly help.

 

[zaren]

y bother with those silly articles written by people who prolly have every single piece of equipment they need. statistics prove more than anything. go see all the photo gallery and see wat equipment people are using. macro and close-up gallery is full of users with their macro lens. world of nature forum is full of users with their big prime lens. look at reportage and sports, 70-200 f/2.8 everywhere.

like wat student said, go shoot macro with a 50mm prime lens. to me equipment counts as much as skill.

~MooEy~

of cos u need the right tools for the right job. u can't play decent golf with an iron bar.

when it comes to photography, the mindset is key. if your reportage shots using a 70-200 f/2.8 happens to suck, what goes through your mind?

is it; "gee, i definitely need a 20fps 22mp dslr with 70-300/1.4 lens to improve my shots"

or; "hmm, need to think through my shots more and mebbe i'll get better shots next time"

same goes for any genre of photography that you care to mention.

 

[zaren]

Just to add spice to the thread.

I think painting and photography is slightly in the sense that for painting, you can go into the abstract eg. painting a 'ghost', which is very subjective. When Picasso sketches, he need not make sure a horse looks like a horse as long as we know its a horse.

Photography, IMHO is restricted by reality. Hence the variation in perspectives for a given subject is necessarily limited. Our ability to capture an image (assuming we have reached a certain standard by now) is further limited by our equipment.

However, if we were to take the equipment constraints away, some part of me feels that photography can move up a notch or two. I dare hazard a guess that if 2 photographers (not beginners) were to photograph the same guitar player with the same Leica 50 mm lens, the output from the 2 person would not be too different. Else, we won't think most wedding photographers take the same shots. :bsmilie:

The argument so far has been centred around comparing a beginner to a pro. Since, we have so much time to 'discuss', I assume that we have all reach a certain understanding / standard in photography, and hence, IMHO again, an improvement in equipment will certainly help.

on the contrary, give two photographers of similar technique and identical equipment, shooting the same subject (say a wedding), and you can still get two very different shots of vastly different quality. that's becos each photographer "sees" differently.

 

[Zplus]

Gee... ken rockwell does it again...

Anyway, right equipment for the right job... thats about it... Don't worry too much about the article and just shoot more. There's no one piece of equipment that does it all. Even Ken uses different lenses.

 

[2100]

Actually, the only person who has churned out very decent pics in this forum is Newguy69, who does not have seemingly great equipment (FZ-10). He posts in the World of Nature. Other than that we can argue all we want on paper here, but in reality it's as rare as a 5-carat diamond.

 

[zaren]

Actually, the only person who has churned out very decent pics in this forum is Newguy69, who does not have seemingly great equipment (FZ-10). He posts in the World of Nature. Other than that we can argue all we want on paper here, but in reality it's as rare as a 5-carat diamond.

uh huh...and renowned magnum photog alex majoli uses oly 5050/5060 (only a prosumer digicam??!!) for his assignments.

 

[shutterspeed]

Do we know that for a fact or is this what the marketing department of Olympus wants us to believe?

Not that its not possible to churn out good photos with minimal gear, an amateur would appreciate all the help they can get.

 

[nickmak]

How about you give picasso primary school childrens' mickey mouse colour pencil and ask him to paint the sistine chapel?

Picasso cannot paint with coloured pencils... :dunno:

Neither can we...

 

[2100]

uh huh...and renowned magnum photog alex majoli uses oly 5050/5060 (only a prosumer digicam??!!) for his assignments.

There are certainly some of these examples around on the net if you look hard enough. I certainly have not seen similar work around this region, not here in CS, not in offstone, no nothing. What you are quoting is like the example of infamous Terry Richardson who shoots with a 35mm P&S compact for magazines like Vogue, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ed and brands like Gucci. If there are any of you who can be like 1% of that calibre, raise up your hands.

That's just like saying you wanna be Creative's Sim Wong Hoo or MS Bill Gates or that Sun Microsystems guy, so i don't have to study.

The real fact is, NO. Not unless I strike Toto Grp 1 first.

 

[ndroo]

sorry....have to disagree with you. the photographer can do the following to get the shot;

1. drive his jeep very close to the lion, then bait or provoke it to charge at the jeep. take the shot with the disposable cam once the lion is close enough. of course make sure the jeep is adequately protected by iron bars, like a shark cage.

2. go lion hunting with the a local african hunter who uses a spear only. bring the disposable camera along. once the lion discovers you he will charge at you. snap him closeup just as the hunter's spear pierces its heart. (need to be brave for this one)

3. set up the disposable camera on the ground so that the shutter can be activated by a long stick held by you from the branches of a tree above the camera. use a bait, such as a dead goat, to attract the lion close to the camera. take the shot once it is close enough.

these are only three examples, i'm sure photographers can use their resourcefulness to come up with many more.

:bsmilie:

well said ... :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[student]

well said ... :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Well said????? :think:

Ahhhhh, sometimes I do need to check my intellect, or the lack of it...........

Seems to be slipping somewhat.........................

 

[zaren]

There are certainly some of these examples around on the net if you look hard enough. I certainly have not seen similar work around this region, not here in CS, not in offstone, no nothing. What you are quoting is like the example of infamous Terry Richardson who shoots with a 35mm P&S compact for magazines like Vogue, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit ed and brands like Gucci. If there are any of you who can be like 1% of that calibre, raise up your hands.

That's just like saying you wanna be Creative's Sim Wong Hoo or MS Bill Gates or that Sun Microsystems guy, so i don't have to study.

The real fact is, NO. Not unless I strike Toto Grp 1 first.

precisely, the road to improving one's skill as a photographer is *long* indeed. terry richardson is one good example of what you can achieve with a 35mm p&s. so, instead of relying wholly on upgrading ur cam to get the *better* fashion shot, learn to *see* like him first.

*raises hands* of cos i can be 1% of that calibre. 1% of that calibre is basically *crap*. :bsmilie: otoh, 50% of that calibre is pretty darn good.

sim wong hoo and bill gates are visionaries. if u aint got the vision, don't expect to achieve greatness.

good luck with your toto.

 

[satan_18349]

Once you are FAMOUS, EVERYTHING or ANYTHING that you do, use or say is GOOD.

 

[imaginary_number]

That's just like saying you wanna be Creative's Sim Wong Hoo or MS Bill Gates or that Sun Microsystems guy, so i don't have to study.

That's not an appropriate analogy. Many people think of these entrepreneurs as people who had a stroke of luck, and "did not have to study". In truth, they were more hardworking than many around them - they did study, in their own way. Bill Gates e.g. worked during his vacation, gaining lots of exposure to computers while his peers just took their breaks. Sim Wong Hoo, too, worked hard - remember cubic 99, yeah he had his failures too.

 

[satan_18349]

Hardworking is one thing but i believe if you have a strong "backup" i.e $$ its easier down the road. Try asking all those so called "entrepreneurs" esp the ones in Spore about their background... even though they did not finished their studied here, their rich dad or mom would have sent them overseas to get a degree, come back, "lent" some $$ for them to set up business... so EVEN IF they failed, they will still not starve to death cos thay still have the "backup".

But of course they are some which really make it on their own and i mean those who save and use their own $$ and yet at the same times SUPPORTING the family.

 

[zaren]

Hardworking is one thing but i believe if you have a strong "backup" i.e $$ its easier down the road. Try asking all those so called "entrepreneurs" esp the ones in Spore about their background... even though they did not finished their studied here, their rich dad or mom would have sent them overseas to get a degree, come back, "lent" some $$ for them to set up business... so EVEN IF they failed, they will still not starve to death cos thay still have the "backup".

But of course they are some which really make it on their own and i mean those who save and use their own $$ and yet at the same times SUPPORTING the family.

ivy lee is one example of someone who made it on her own by sheer perserverance, much self study/improvement and superlative customer service. despite a very tough childhood she is highly successful today. :thumbsup:

 

[zaren]

Once you are FAMOUS, EVERYTHING or ANYTHING that you do, use or say is GOOD.

not always true.

luciano pavarotti (one of the famous *three tenors*) was booed by the audience during one of his concerts when his singing sucked.

 

[MooEy]

i dun get it, y do people like to bring in all the exceptions to the case. wat percentage is that 1 exception in a world with tens of thousands of photographer? 0.001%?

go be one of the exception if u like it. instead of staying in a 3/4/5 room flat like most of the population, go stay in a 1 room flat, or even better, sleep in the streets. not that it can't be done. be the 1% or even 0.001% of the population. i'll stick with the majority of the population and stay in my hdb.

~MooEy~

 

[2100]

i dun get it, y do people like to bring in all the exceptions to the case. wat percentage is that 1 exception in a world with tens of thousands of photographer? 0.001%?

hehe....lets take CS for example. On the front page, the stats is that we have 11k members, but lets take 10k. I guess there are about 200-300 members posting decent pictures in the galleries. Of those 200-300, less than 20 are of any seriously good and consistent work. How to train the rest to be the top 10 or 20? And we do often come across in posts the axiom of "the photog is more important than the camera".