Premium lenses

[goatee]

Am I alone in questioning the number of beginners in these forums that buy incredibly expensive bodies and lenses? Sure, there are some people who can afford to spend many hundreds (if not thousands) on pro bodies and lenses, before knowing if they'll keep at it, but does that not miss the point when learning about photography?

When I started out (excluding the nasty 110, and cheapo compact cameras), I learnt on a Canon EOS 1000FN and then a Minolta X300 - took them all over the place, relishing their portabliity, and not having to worry about them being prohibitively expensive to replace should they get damaged or lost or stolen. Finally, after owning and playing with a couple of digital p&s compacts, took the plunge, and got a 300D (though using my 8 year old 28-80mm USM f3.5-f5.6 lens).

I thought that when learning about photography, aside from the basics such as exposure, the main thing is learning composition. Having a portable camera you can have with you or take with you a lot of the time is essential, and so lugging L lenses, and semi / pro bodies surely will inhibit growth, as people struggle with the size and weight of the equipment, not to mention the complexity of using the equipment.

Or am I just jealous that I can't afford to buy such exotic stuff?

[aliflack]

I see your point, and I agree up to a point.

It does seem a bit daft to spend a whole chunk of cash on camera/lenses that you won't extract maximum value from straight off. On the other hand, if you buy decent gear to start with, you will grow into it and not only will you save money by not buying twice, but you'll only have yourself to blame for taking cr@p shots!

I started out with my interest in photography last September when I bought myself a 300D. The cost of that, compared to a decent P&S was not that great. I will buy myself L glass as soon as I can - even though I won't be selling my prints anytime soon.

Why? Because while the 300D will be replaced, the lens will remain. I will be keeping the lenses for the rest of my life (and as a soon to be 25-year old thats quite a while). So for me, the cost of an L lens divided by its potential years of service, make it good value.

Sure, right now I won't get the most from it...but give me 5 years and I will!

[goatee]

aliflack,
I agree that if you buy L glass, it will last a long time, and that you will grow into it, but if you're relatively new to driving, buying a Ferrari would be a waste of money because you wouldn't have the skill to get the most out of it - you're better off buying something less exotic, with less performance to hone your skills, and then moving to a supercar will yield a much more pleasurable experience.

I guess that if I had enough disposable income then I too would buy better glass, but until then I'm still producing some great photos (admittedly not as high a percentage overall as I'd like), and learning how to use and get the most out of my camera, and post processing software (PSE3).

P.s. you have some lovely images in your gallery - I really need to sort out my images, and gather the good ones together - the collection I have in usefilm really isn't a great representation of my better photos.

[condyk]

A Canon L is a very safe choice for a beginner as most of them are very fine lenses and some are quite exceptional. It's hard to screw up with a dud purchase. Resale is good too if they decide to give up the interest.

Low tax and low prices in the US makes it an easier choice for US people. For us Europeans (I don't know other markets!) we maybe have to do a bit more research and be a bit more creative in what we buy to get the same quality. I don't complain about the tax I pay as we have some excellent social and community services, but I do like to spend my disposable income wisely to help redress the balance a little.

It's also worth remembering that people often don't buy rationally, they buy on emotion. Check out TV advertising and it is hard to spot much rationality. It is usually appealing to deeper emotion, particularly around various insecurities. Many people have a need to 'look good' and to feel they are part of something successful or an elite group. Every day such insecurities are conditioned by the wider media. Some are susceptable to this and some are naturally more questioning. Photography is not different to perfume, shoes, or the Iraq war.

Objectively, lens by lens, thinking about value and performance ratio's, we may find better buys than a Canon L, but some people will still always buy a Canon L because they are meeting an emotional need that doesn't relate to just taking pictures. That is Ok too. Each to their own. It is also true that some can simply afford to buy what they like and have done all the research to make a rational choice.

[etaf]

i think it just comes down to how much disposable income you have.
you could ask why spend money on a eos1000n when you could buy a disposable camera.
for example if you need a watch to tell you the time why spend 20K on a rolex - after all it only tells you the date/time

I guess you look at the options on the market and then decide based on what you can afford.
If for example you have 10,000 disposable income then you buy a cheap car however, if you have 100,000 disposable income maybe you would buy a sports car.

I know all my purchased are based on how much can i afford, but i guess theres also a lot of status and look at me I can afford the best kit.

In the end its the photographs that matter, taken on a disposable or 10K kit

[allanc]

Yes, you have a point and it extends well past lens selections. I spent the first 15 years of photography using a Pentax K1000 or Nikon FM2. I was pretty much against those "cameras that think and focus" for you. Then I got a Nikon F4. WOW, it changed the way I looked at photography. I could take quick photos and spend more time on composition instead of fiddling with shutter speed and exposure. Now, I can think of all of those things at the same time. I know when to let the camera do the thinking and when to override it to get what I want. This is rapidly becoming a lost skill in this day and age of advanced cameras. Sure I use the program mode but I also switch to Tv, Av, or M as needed. I can calculate flash exposures from Guide Numbers, too.This is the line between amatuers and professionals.

Is it wrong to buy a powerful camera and the best L lenses and then take snapshots? No, not if you can afford it. If you want to take snapshots, you may as well take great snapshots.

Allan

[pcasciola]

Buy the best lenses you can afford. You will not learn on a cheaper lens any better than you will with an L lens. In fact, a cheaper lens in some cases will make it harder to learn, because you might not know if the problem is yours or because of the softness of the cheaper lens. Sure, you can buy a cheap lens, stop it down to f/16 and take sharp shots all day, but you will learn very little about photography that way.

[Pekka]

You have good points there, goatee.

Sad truth is that sharpness, low noise and color accuracy is more valued than composition or mood of the shot. Technical values are easy to evaluate and discuss. Compositional skills are simplified to obeyance of "rule of thirds" (simplified golden ratio) and that is often considered adequate. Using empty space is likewise considered a fault by many. Vignetting or burning edges is also bad bad bad, even though it can make a big difference to composition. Distribution of mass, color, DoF, bokeh, leading lines, backgrounds, exposure -- all the elements to emphasize subject and compose a shot is not something that many people think about.

That aside, lenses and cameras help you also to get inspired and try new things by sheer capabilities of the gear. All the "artsy" lenses are L: 85/1.2L, 24 1.4/L and 35 1.4/L, 135/2L, 300/2.8...

[SkipD]

I belong to the crowd that urges beginning photographers - who really want to learn photography skills - to stay away from (or at least not use) all the automatic functions on todays modern cameras. I don't know how a beginner can really learn about the creative side of photography if everything is done automatically for them.

The problem with much of today's equipment is that you can't find a camera that does manual mode easily or well. My Canon Powershot G2, for example, was very difficult to use in manual mode. The kit lens on my son's 300D, as another example, is a real bummer to use in manual mode. You have to twist the front edge of the lens to focus it. Put a polarizing filter on it, and every time you change the focus you need to re-adjust the polarizing filter (which probably upsets your focus again).

My 20D is much easier to operate manually, especially with the L USM lenses that allow you to turn the focus ring while in auto focus mode. The front elements on these lenses don't rotate, either.

Does this mean I recommend a beginner to go out and get a 20D plus high-end glass? Not at all. However, short of lending my Nikon F's to someone, it is difficult to recommend a good "starter" camera these days for someone who really wants to learn the basics well. There are so many variables that need to be addressed.

Would I recommend a film camera to start with? Probably not, because of the costs associated with film these days.

[goatee]

All of you make valid points, but I think that Pekka is the only person who has really understood what I'm trying to get at. Unless your sole purpose in photography is getting tack sharp photos, the kit lens, or my ancient 28-80mm lens (or a longer cheapish lens if you want to do telephoto) give you enough to get on with the creativity bit. Ok, the images may not be perfect, but photography isn't about perfection - it's an art, and as such is meant to convey feelings, and emotions.

Slight technical imperfections in in images can be fixed so easily these days in photoshop, that I just don't understand (aside from the lust value) the need for people to have such expensive glass, and should allow people to concentrate more on composition, though so many people seem to think that it's purely about getting tack sharp photos every time.

[etaf]

well if you want to get a small DoF on a shot then a lens with an aperture of F2.8 would give you that - thats why i purchased a 50mm 2.8 - but if i could afford it i would have a 70-200 f2.8L to get nice sharp pictures at low apertures for the effect of the out of focus background etc. And have F2.8 along the full zoom range.
that gives me the creativity in the camera

[blue_max]

I always wanted a Canon A1 when I was young. But I could never afford it! It was the ability to see the exposure details digitally in the viewfinder – very high tech.

Much, much later, I bought a Hasselblad medium format outfit, studio flash and took pack shots! What a baptism of fire! Then a G5 digital, now 10d.

Maybe if I had bought that A1, I would be a much better photographer now.

Some people are talented from the word go, they have the creativity. Some (like myself) have to work very hard. I am not offended by other people's kit choice (I buy second hand so it may be coming my way soon!). I would always like my equipment to be BETTER than I am, or I am always going to be frustrated. No signs of frustration so far!

My distorted view.

Graham

[sadanorakman]

Here's my take...

After learning a little about photography as a teenager with a practika MTL3, and a few second hand primes. Then a few years ago I wanted a cheap autofocus SLR, so bought a Nikon F65... I Hated it! Cheap tack plastic feel, awkward layout of controls etc... I wanted to go digital as soon became cheap enough.
A couple of years later I bought a 4MP Kodak compact with a 10x zoom and some manual control, and loved it... Bought it cos it's all I could afford at the time and needed pictures of my newborn son. outgrew it almost instantaneously, and then a year later when finances permitted I started looking in earnest.

Amongst my research, and that of my friend who wanted to go digital from his EOS 100 we stumbled accross the new 20D. We imported two from Japan, and haven't looked back.

I have learned more about photography in the last six months, than the previous 32 years of my life combined... It's great.

HOWEVER... I didn't realise how poor some lenses were til I made the mistake of buying them. I went through a process of buying second hand on e-bay, then selling them on after I had time to figure them out... Poor sharpness, contrast, flaring... you name it. I even purposely bought one lens to specifically experience it's famously poor results... A 500mm Mirror lens. Boy I sold that one on quickly!

I have learned enough now to tell me that the camera body is the very thin edge of the wedge spending wise... poor lenses juat simply hold you back. You can buy at sensible prices if you buy third party lenses, and if you import through ebay or similar. You don't have to go L glass, but a ballanced investment really does need to be made for best results. For example, I have found out first hand that a an absolutely cracking lens is the Tamron 28-75 XR Di... Value for money by the bucketload. If only it went wide enough for a 1.6 crop camera.
-So I bought the Sigma 18-50 2.8. A good lens I think, but not as good as the Tamron, so now have kept both. Surely a £300 lens is not too much to spend as a starter when you are spending over twice that on a body? (350D for example)

Regards

[ddelallata]

I see what you mean, but the one thing to keep in mind is that we all buy what we can afford. About 6 years ago I started with a Canon SureShot 85 film p&s. In 2001 I bought a Canon film Rebel 2000 SLR that came with a 28-90mm and I later bought a Tamron 70-300. In 2003 I upgraded to an Elan 7e which I replaced about two months ago with my D-Rebel XT. I sold all of my old lenses and now have the gear in my sig. If I could do it all over again.....I would have started with the glass I have now. There is just no comparison to good quality glass IMO. So lets all be happy when beginers buy top of the line equipment, shall we.

[csnudelman]

I don't know. Perhaps those that buy the nice stuff to start with will enjoy their hobby as much as I enjoy mine. My first "real" camera was a Kodak Duaflex IV TLR in the mid 50's. I could adjust the f/ stop (8, 11 & 16) and the focus (zone). Now, while I use a 20D and "L" lenses, I still understand about GN (guide numbers), DOF, lighting ratio for fill, the Kelvin scale and other things that I still, on occation, use. It tickles me pink when I pull out my Luna Pro F to get an incident reading and someone asks "What's that?".

[condyk]

I agree with the principle that Goatee is expounding (but not his choice in facial hair :lol: ) but I also don't see it as an art/creativity v's technology/expense issue. There's an interaction going on behind many great images, between the gear and the technique and compositional understanding of the shooter and, when appropriate, engagement with the subject.

The simplistic dichotomy is maybe the highly technical, super sharp but somewhat uninvolving shots at one end, and we do see a few of those posted here, and the fuzzy in the moment efforts that somehow engage us because of the emotional interpretation we make. Somewhere along the continuum is the perfect balance of emotion, composition and technical excellence. When we see them, we know.

For me, I think I have a good eye but my technical understanding needs to improve if I am to go beyond the luck of P&S. By improving I can increase the number of shots worth keeping from all points of view. The lenses I use are better than I am capable of utilising at this point and so I can only learn easier knowing it is me who needs to improve. If I wasn't bothered about that I could indeed use the kit lens, but I would find that more frustrating. At the moment, I can only look at myself. It's also true that if you really know your gear is good then you have total freedom to be creative with no undue constraints.

[ghocking]

I used my E20 and then 300D just for Landscapes (while fell walking) using the kit lens and then adding 75-300 and 28-105, and at that stage I was happy with my shots. I then started to get a lot more interested and started taking all sorts of shots, from wildlife to buildings to Birds to flowers, and then decided that my shots were not as good (sharp) as I would like. At first I thought it was me (shake) and just using the auto modes, so I invested in IS versions of the lens and went full manual. Things got better but not as good as shots seen using L glass although I have seen some very good shots using my two lenses. I then bought the 100-400 L and was amazed at the quality (sharpness, colour, everything). This got me hooked and have followed up with more L's and now I want to be out all the time taking anything and everything. I have gone back to my 75-300 IS to try and get the same quality in same conditions, but it can not beat the L's.

Glass IMHO is the main thing with bodies coming second, and buying L glass has really moved my hooby up a level. All I need now is more light and less rain in the UK.

[Miika]

If you have ever practiced another skill that requires a long-term learning process and high-quality tools (handcraft, music etc.) to get professional results, I am sure you prefer best possible tools you can afford for a new hobby.

With the experience in another field you already know what advantage you can get from good gear compared to average in order to get the best results from the very beginning.

Everyone should buy equipment that they enjoy most of. There's no point of having a hobby that doesn't give you some sort of satisfaction. Someone gets it with simple point'n'shoot camera, someone else needs the best camera and lens the money can buy.

Whether a professional camera and collection of lenses are an overkill, no one else can make that judgment, except parents for their children!

Miika

[lost]

I just buy them to impress the girls.

[BrandonSi]

I just buy them to impress the girls.

exactly.

[blue_max]

I just buy them to impress the girls.


There are a few girls on this forum that would not be impressed by the 50mm 1.8

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Graham

[ayotnoms]

I just buy them to impress the girls.
I spent my first few minutes at work reading this thread; weighing the arguments, forming an opinion....then I read this post. Too funny. :-) :-)

There is such a thing as over-analyzing an issue. I'm fortunate to be able to buy L-glass. Not being held back by second tier equipment has inspired me to work on the creative side of the equation. I'm sure for others it's the opposite. Bottomline, we work within our means (or highly leveraged means, in my case :-)) to get the maximum satisfaction out of our hobbies, art, what-have-you.

[blue_max]

A moment with my wife, smiling and sipping a good glass of wine, looking out the window is worth a whole lot more than 20 grand of any hardware. Really! When I am on my deathbed that is what I am going to be thinking about, not the next SRL or L series lens.

Your best friend will soon be the UPS man. It's the lenses you didn't buy that you will remember more than the ones you did.

When you get your camera, you will be doing a lot of looking out of the window – for you know who to arrive!

These long term loving relationships are very important in life and your wife comes a very close second :lol:

Graham

[condyk]

LOL,A moment with my wife, smiling and sipping a good glass of wine, looking out the window is worth a whole lot more than 20 grand of any hardware.

You had me worried as I started reading that stuff ... I thought you were about to say TALKING to the wife as well :lol: :lol:

[aliflack]

Sad truth is that sharpness, low noise and color accuracy is more valued than composition or mood of the shot. Technical values are easy to evaluate and discuss. Compositional skills are simplified to obeyance of "rule of thirds" (simplified golden ratio) and that is often considered adequate. Using empty space is likewise considered a fault by many. Vignetting or burning edges is also bad bad bad, even though it can make a big difference to composition. Distribution of mass, color, DoF, bokeh, leading lines, backgrounds, exposure -- all the elements to emphasize subject and compose a shot is not something that many people think about.

I agree wholeheartedly - the most technically perfect shot can still leave me cold if the subject matter is rendered poorly through lack of creativity.

That said, we all recognise that some lens offer better DoF than others (85mm F.18 anyone?) and that the colour saturation seems so much greater on the more expensive gear. If thats true, then doesn't the more expensive gear add to the potential to emphasize the subject?

And if I want to freeze the action shooting sports, then F2.8 will allow me to double the shutter speed - that could make all the difference to the shot...

As others have said, you don't need L to take great photos. I belive that sometimes you can't take the pictures you want, without the features L lens appear to have.

Of course, I don't have any L yet, so I could be talking complete twaddle!

[lost]

There are a few girls on this forum that would not be impressed by the 50mm 1.8

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Graham

Hey, you have to have a little cash to buy'em drinks after you get their attention.

[blue_max]

Hey, you have to have a little cash to buy'em drinks after you get their attention.

But how many would you have to buy before they stopped laughing.

Graham

[BrandonSi]

But how many would you have to buy before they stopped laughing.

Graham

It took 4 last night.

[blue_max]

Quick worker!

Graham

[BrandonSi]

Quick worker!

Graham

Not really, she just couldn't hold her liquor! :D

[blue_max]

Not really, she just couldn't hold her liquor! :D


Or count 'em.

Graham

[BlueTit]

You have good points there, goatee.

Sad truth is that sharpness, low noise and color accuracy is more valued than composition or mood of the shot. Technical values are easy to evaluate and discuss. Compositional skills are simplified to obeyance of "rule of thirds" (simplified golden ratio) and that is often considered adequate. Using empty space is likewise considered a fault by many. Vignetting or burning edges is also bad bad bad, even though it can make a big difference to composition. Distribution of mass, color, DoF, bokeh, leading lines, backgrounds, exposure -- all the elements to emphasize subject and compose a shot is not something that many people think about.

That aside, lenses and cameras help you also to get inspired and try new things by sheer capabilities of the gear. All the "artsy" lenses are L: 85/1.2L, 24 1.4/L and 35 1.4/L, 135/2L, 300/2.8...

I agree 100% with what Pekka has said here, but I personally think that buying the best gear you can afford takes away from creative possibilities. The way I look at it is if you have the best equipment, you can't blame it for poor photos - it is down to your skill as a technical photographer and having a creative eye.

I have spend a fortune on Canon gear this year alone, I had the cash as I was changing my car and when I sold my last car I bought a smaller one while I was waiting on my next purchase, but I found I was happy with the smaller car and I do low mileage anyway, so I have gradually spend the new car fund on Canon. I don't regret it for a moment and if there was more money left I would be picking up some of those lenses Pekka mentioned, particularly the 85/1.2 and 300/2.8.

Also with a wide variety of lenses, sure it would be a pain to haul them all around, but it gives you much more scope in what you shoot. Though I have 11 lenses I rarely carry more than two, because I will concentrate on taking photos within a certain focal length. Another day I will take another two lens which open up a whole new world.

As my ability as a photographer, both the technical and creative elements, have a loooong way to go I even went as far as removing my gear from my signature as my skill is totally disproportional to my equipment!! When I think my skill matches my equipment I will add it back in, so don't expect to see my sig change for quite a while :cry: :cry:

[FScott]

Gone are the days when we learned on a K-1000 and a 50mm lens. We composed with our feet instead of a zoom, processed the film and made the prints ourselves in our basements. Sometimes I miss that. I was particularly fond of my second camera, a pentax MX with a pentax 50 mm 1.4, it had colored LEDs in the viewfinder and the first GaAs photodiode sensor, how cool was that?. Now, 25 years later I have this fancy 8 MP technological masterpiece and I still enjoy shooting with the 50mm (even if it is closer to 80 mm in comparison). You learn a lot composing with your feet.

p.s. Haven't found any girls interested in L lenses. My wife is actually a bit pissed off about the whole thing (expensive photo gear that is). Maybe I hang with the wrong crowd... I have been buying more gear because I love to buy toys. I probably don't need it but it sure is fun.

-- Scott.

[arpi]

I am a 1.5 month crazy newbie of photography and I love L lenses. Afterall, it is my money and my choice but I sympathize with the people here. I just follow my thoughts and they tell me to go L, why settle for less? I saw a NY school of photography that says that all I need to learn photography is a scanner, a SCANNER? phew! I have to say that there are plenty of opinions in this world and many are based in economics and other perspectives, but I just have to follow my own :p

[ttmatsu]

I think that goatee and others miss the point entirely. Today's cameras allow the creative/artsy types with no technical background or capability to express their innate abilities. I started decades ago with my father'd old Mamiya, then went to Nikon SLR bodies and after experiencing problems with their quality (didn't last more than 7 years before breaking), made the switch to Canon. By that time, my eyesight was such that I had to have autofocus. I was taught from a young age about the technical aspects, using a light meter, setting exposure and shutter speed manually, then composition.

So I have all the technical ability of a professional and can set my 20d to do whatever I want (one aspect is that you have to go to M mode to set the shutter and aperature for a flash photo if you don't want to default to wide open and 1/60 or 1/250 and your selected aperature - I wish they made it simpler and this aspect speaks against using anything other than high quality glass because it doesn't produce good flash results otherwise). Anyway, back to the point - having technical proficiency doesn't mean that I will produce a picture of any quality other than it will be exposed properly with the appropriate shuuter speed and be sharp. Why should someone with great creativity need to do anything other than pick up a 20d or 1d, some quality glass and express themselves? With quality glass, they can use the program modes to express themselves outside of the most demanding applications.

Yes, they need to understand in photographing moving objects how to motion blur the background but keep the subject sharp or blur the subject with their motion and keep the background sharp for artistic purposes. But do they really need to understand how aperature impacts DOF other than to use Portrait mode to blur the background and Landscape mode to keep the background in focus? It might help to understand how longer zooms cause compression and increased issues with DOF but just because you understand it doesn't mean your pictures will have the emotional impact or artistic quality that my 14 YO daughter manages in full auto mode. She doesn't care about all the technical junk but her eye and mind tell her what a good picture would be. That is much more valuable than having technical ability in photography.

Too many creative people never got into photography because of the mindset that you start cheap and learn the technical aspects of photography. Most creative types really aren't into the how and why - they just want the ability to express themselves and today's and tomorrow's cameras mated to quality glass gives that to them out of box.

I also disagree that PS gives you the ability to "repair" a picture butchered by low quality glass. USM and levels will never bring back detail that was never captured.

[Wolverine27]

I just buy them to impress the girls.

Yes, of course...because we all know how chicks dig camera lenses...lol

[goatee]

Thanks for all your responses - I guess my opinion has changed somewhat for a number of reasons


When the quality of your equipment is holding you back from taking shots you want, then if you can afford it, it would be foolish not to buy the gear which will allow you to improve
Why not buy the best to start with? (And if it's not for you, then people like blue_max and me will have the opportunity to buy it.
When you're spending hundreds on a body (and I guess at full retail prices, the 20D isn't that much more than the 350D (I bought my 300D secondhand for a fraction of the price, so forget how much most people pay), then it's entirely reasonable to spend a similar amount on glass, otherwise you've just wasted your money.
I wasn't trying to put down any beginners who are in a position to buy top end glass and bodies, more as condyk said, you can end up with people who can take soulless but technically perfect pictures, as opposed to those which may or may not be technically perfect, but which evoke real emotions in the viewers.

Anyway, thanks for making me think :)

[hotled]

Well as a beginner here is my take on it.
After owning 5 to 7 PAS maybe more, and missing many shots of my kids because of the restriction on them, I made the change to buy a better camera and lenses so I will not miss those shots anymore.
I can grow into it and learn good techniques and quit wasting tons of money on things that just will not produce what I want.
Not everyone that spends allot on these cameras wants to be a pro and get a job doing it or even use it as a hobby. Some just want better picture quality for many years to come.
My kids are just that, kids once and never again, I want something that works so I can capture those memories.

[ron chappel]

I don't mind newbies buying hyperexpensive kit - it means that i get great satisfaction in getting better images than them with cheapo gear;) :D

Of course once they get great at photography i'll have to rely on my good looks to impress.....


....er....or not:cry:

:lol: :lol:

[lkorell]

I don't know, I tried to impress a lady by whipping out my 70-200 2.8L and all she said was..."what, no IS...loser."

:cool:

[goatee]

When my wife saw some of the photos I've taken with my lowly 28-80 USM, she said "well, it may not be long, but you certainly know how to get the best out of it!"

[goatee]

I think you raise some interesting points Warren - whilst photography has always relied on technology, it has never been the fastest moving area of technology. With the move to commodity electronics - which is one of the fastest (if not the fastest) areas of technology, the pace of change in cameras has increased massively, which I guess has also helped stimulate innovation, and development in lenses as well. Also, there has been a bit of a revival in photography - with a whole new market only carved out in the last couple of years for disposable cameras - who's not to say in a year or so the same will be true with disposable digitals as well?

[nosquare2003]

Goatee, I suppose that you are not really trying to blame the high end cameras / glasses... (Anyway, you are brave enough for writing this!)

IMHO, it is the "rules" that limit the creativity. Rules are set with some reasons. If we stick with some rules without knowing the reasons behind, our creativity will be limited.

To be fair, taking technically perfect photo is a good start for beginners.

[soupdragon]

I just bought a Canon A1 and am getting rid of my 350D (see marketplace)
It really is little to do with the equipment how good your photographs are (within the obvious limits)
Nice sharp well exposed pictures do without doubt look better than fuzzy dark unrecognisable images but, if the subject matter is mundane and/or the composition is undesireable, the result will be nothing more than a snap shot.
I see on this forum "baby shots a-plenty" and they are technically good but by god are they boring, and warrant nothing more than the accolade they receive ie "nice pic" "lovely shot" "yada yada yada".
This kind of imagery does not require vast capital investment so I am guessing people spending money on high end gear just really love high end gear (and good luck to them).
IMHO for what it's worth (and that's about the square root of bugger all) if people are hacking out 100% cropped, oversharpened & over saturated family snaps they have wasted their money on prosumer kit and would have done just as well to buy a snapper and made contributions to a worthy cause with the money saved.

[Lotto]

While we are at technology advance and photo gear value, unlike any other electronics in the last ten years, photo lens hardly ever drop it retail price. Is it because of the so called 'purists' or high end users willing to folk over the 2-5G year after year, and manufactures gladly collect them?

[soupdragon]

Well said that man.

I somewhat doubt however, that "professionals" alone could support the market for high end gear. I think it is bolstered predominantly by the over enthusiastic amateur who blindly believes top end optics will make him a top end photographer.
I know this to be in the main true, as I myself have owned the best of the best and still can't shoot a fish in a barrel.

[blue_max]

I just bought a Canon A1 and am getting rid of my 350D (see marketplace)
It really is little to do with the equipment how good your photographs are (within the obvious limits)
Nice sharp well exposed pictures do without doubt look better than fuzzy dark unrecognisable images but, if the subject matter is mundane and/or the composition is undesireable, the result will be nothing more than a snap shot.
I see on this forum "baby shots a-plenty" and they are technically good but by god are they boring, and warrant nothing more than the accolade they receive ie "nice pic" "lovely shot" "yada yada yada".
This kind of imagery does not require vast capital investment so I am guessing people spending money on high end gear just really love high end gear (and good luck to them).
IMHO for what it's worth (and that's about the square root of bugger all) if people are hacking out 100% cropped, oversharpened & over saturated family snaps they have wasted their money on prosumer kit and would have done just as well to buy a snapper and made contributions to a worthy cause with the money saved.

This answer has played on my mind (always better than being ignored!).

I post my share of kids pics and am pleased with them. No, of course they don't bring anything to the creative table, but my lens and aperture choice, certainly does bring something that woud be harder with a p&s. I try to post the pics to show the quality of a lens or style, rather than for the picture to be judged on it's merits (or otherwise!).

Seeing what can be achieved by the best glass whets our appetite and encourages us to strive to take better pictures and buy more lenses too. We shoot what is around us, but I would like to be paid to take a creative picture of, say, a tap and spend all day on it. The result would be lovely and profitable, but I haven't had the opportunity yet.

We are obsessed in trying to make the best images in our ability. That includes getting the hardware that will help make it possible. If it doesn't hurt anyone...

Graham

[hotled]

I just bought a Canon A1 and am getting rid of my 350D (see marketplace)
It really is little to do with the equipment how good your photographs are (within the obvious limits)
Nice sharp well exposed pictures do without doubt look better than fuzzy dark unrecognisable images but, if the subject matter is mundane and/or the composition is undesireable, the result will be nothing more than a snap shot.
I see on this forum "baby shots a-plenty" and they are technically good but by god are they boring, and warrant nothing more than the accolade they receive ie "nice pic" "lovely shot" "yada yada yada".
This kind of imagery does not require vast capital investment so I am guessing people spending money on high end gear just really love high end gear (and good luck to them).
IMHO for what it's worth (and that's about the square root of bugger all) if people are hacking out 100% cropped, oversharpened & over saturated family snaps they have wasted their money on prosumer kit and would have done just as well to buy a snapper and made contributions to a worthy cause with the money saved.

Hmm..interesting reading, but you might also have missed something. In my post I said I have owned several PAS and none offered the quality, like taking a shot from the 10th row or farther back, and the kids are on a stage 100 feet away.
So I take what you said about kids images and family shots a bit personal and find it very offensive. Don't throw everyone in one category, and if posting shots of your kids, however mundane for you, may be a very proud parent posting something, that could not have been taken with a PAS because of the typical poor lighting-distance etc...
Some PAS are 300-450.00, and for that you can buy a 300d body or kit used, so why not by the equipment that is capable of taking a better shot?
End of rant.......

[soupdragon]

Hotled:

No need to take offence, the comment is not directional, however, you appeared to wander off thread when you mentioned second hand 300's being economical.
If you go back to the start, the gist of the thread was people spending vast amounts of cash on high end glass.

[Steve Parr]

I used to sell guitars for a living.

I had this couple come into the store one night, saying they wanted to buy themselves "His & Her" guitars for their 20th anniversary. Neither of them could play a lick.

I showed them some guitars in the $300-$500 range, but they were unimpressed. I then showed them some in the $500-$750 range. Again, they didn't care for them. At this point, and despite being a commissioned salesman, I actually tried to talk them out of spending too much money on their first guitars.

They asked what kind of guitar I would buy if I were buying one. I showed them some nice Taylor and Martin guitars that I, as someone who's played for 25 years, would buy. Their response? "We'll take two". They dropped over three grand on guitars, and neither of them knew how to play.

That was a few years ago. Both have been taking lessons steadily, and have progressed nicely.

My point is that the only person who knows what they need is the person buying it. Buying a piece of gear; any gear, that is sub-par is only going to produce negative results if the person wants to do more than the gear will allow.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it...

Steve