The fallacy of the Magic Lens (...or how the wow doesn't come from glass)

cdifoto wrote in post #5609524
I misread that. I can spot a photo of the 5D a mile away too.

Thought so:p

Just sayin, sometimes I'll challenge myself to see if I can recognize the quality of a aps-c vs a full frame...and of course use the exif (on flickr) to validate my guess. Not bragging in the least...but you can't undermine the power of good gear, as I feel like a lot of people are doing on this thread.

drummerblake777 wrote in post #5609512
Agree and disagree.

No, there is no kind of equipment that is going to make you a "better" photographer. I've seen people on this site with a gear signature as long as a five year old's christmas list, and when I check their site...well, I see images that my five year old nephew could take with a camera phone.

But I do feel that some of my images could have more pop and appeal if taken with the full frame quality of the 5d. You can spot a photo of the 5d from a mile away...at least I can. The crispness of that camera is unbelievable, and the more images I look at, the more recognizable its images become. In this case, yes, the equipment is to hold responsibility of the breathtaking quality. I'm a "gear luster", big deal. But it's because I'm confident in my skill and believe I can take full advantage of the features of better equipment, not because I want to become a "better photographer".

Agreed

drummerblake777 wrote in post #5609531
Just sayin, sometimes I'll challenge myself to see if I can recognize the quality of a aps-c vs a full frame...and of course use the exif (on flickr) to validate my guess. Not bragging in the least...but you can't undermine the power of good gear, as I feel like a lot of people are doing on this thread.

Nothing wrong with owning good gear. Heck I have two zooms that are arguably among Canon's best. They were expensive. I have a body that SI photogs rely/relied on daily for several years.

But I also have cheap crap that works wonderfully within its specifications.

cdifoto wrote in post #5609561
Nothing wrong with owning good gear. Heck I have two zooms that are arguably among Canon's best. They were expensive. I have a body that SI photogs rely/relied on daily for several years.

But I also have cheap crap that works wonderfully within its specifications.

Like a video on how to fold a reflector?:p

How about we all agree to disagree.

I will not post on this tread anymore as it is very hard to change people's opinions and you guys will also have trouble changing mine. There is really no right answer and it will vary person to person but I will give my final output on things. Gear does make you a better photographer because you can freeze action better producing better images without blur. Bodies also have higher ISOs, better IQ and more FPS. It doesn't make you better in all aspects of photography but in that aspect it does improve it. I do agree that it is a mix of all three aspects. Composition, gear, and PP but gear DOES matter. Take a picture with a point and shoot and take the same picture with an dSLR with L lens and i will guarantee 99% of the time that the dSLR will be better. That's my final word, thanks for an interesting read.

rc13k wrote in post #5609581
Gear does make you a better photographer because you can freeze action better producing better images without blur. Bodies also have higher ISOs, better IQ and more FPS.

But you're already a good photographer because you know you need certain specifications do to those things.

A bad photographer would buy those fast lenses and still use Sport mode and wonder wtf is happening.

cdifoto wrote in post #5609586
A bad photographer would buy those fast lenses and still use Sport mode and wonder wtf is happening.

The thought of actually seeing that happen makes me smile.

I just like fast primes, fast primes makes me able to do great concert photography, just as a great tele make birders able to do birds... :P

But the ability to take concert photos, doesen't make my concert photos great I'm afraid..

cdifoto wrote in post #5609586
But you're already a good photographer because you know you need certain specifications do to those things.

A bad photographer would buy those fast lenses and still use Sport mode and wonder wtf is happening.

Perfectly put. Save that Don and any similar debate pops up repost this.

Still takes the skill to know what settings to use.

TheHoff wrote in post #5607035
Bresson said "your first 10,000 photographs are your worst" ... so get shooting, right? I've shot more frames and learned from more mistakes in six months of having digital than I did in 6 or 8 years of working with film cameras.

To sum up: have sufficient gear for the shooting conditions and practice, practice, practice

Me too. I've said before I shot with my A1 and a 50 prime for 25 years and in all honesty never needed more then that. Now that I've gone digital I have learned so much more because I can afford to take TONS more shots. And because of this I have a wider range of what I shoot, hence the need for more then one lens. But does that mean I couldn't just have one lens again? No. I still could make do. I'd just have to try that much harder.

Quad wrote in post #5608425
Way back in this thread gardengirl said there were two lenses she would want if she were a canon sponsored gardengirl, not twenty lenses two. That realization comes from experience and knowing what kit will do and what it will not do and knowing what you want to accomplish as a photographer. That is harder to achieve than kit.

Wow someone listened to me??

nicksan wrote in post #5609201
When I encounter an instrument that is effortless to play and the sound coming out of it is soooooo sweet, it actually DOES inspire me artistically.

Yes I have to admit a great lens that I really know how to use well really inspires me to go out and shoot more. But when something is fun it also allows me to be more artistic as well. A nice light p&s that is fun will inspire me to take shots I may not have taken with larger, heavier gear.

cdifoto wrote in post #5609276
Does anyone else feel the way I do in that sometimes having "perfect" gear can be absolutely boring? I find it rather rewarding when I can create a beautiful image with a lens everyone else says is worthless and should be avoided because it'll give you fungus infection.

I dunno...if I was a musician I think I'd want to use that $2000 guitar for the paid concerts but tinker around on my own time with a beat up acoustic POS that I got from a pawn shop.

As I said above, it is a huge joy for me to take a wonderful shot with the 28-105 I feel like I really accomplished something, when I take a great shot with my 200 I feel like, yeah OK, I know how to work this lens, it's fine.

As for the guitar, my husband plays and gets nervous taking the expensive guitars out to gigs. He worries about something happening to them. But takes them anyway. The second guitar he bought he still has, for personal reasons, and he still loves the sound of it. But he never takes it on gigs because of this. It's neck is fragile and he worries about it snapping, or getting banged around. His Les Paul has scratches and dings all over it and even though it costs 2x's as much he doesn't care half as much.

drummerblake777 wrote in post #5609512
I'm a "gear luster", big deal. But it's because I'm confident in my skill and believe I can take full advantage of the features of better equipment, not because I want to become a "better photographer".

I do agree to a point. I'll only buy a lens if I know I can take full advantage of it. I'd never buy the 85L because I know I don't need it. I could use it for my husbands gigs, but it would be to slow in the AF department and I'd worry about something happening to it in a bar. I'd rather buy the cheaper 135L even though it's an expensive lens, it's more of what I would need. But still I can't see spending the money on a lens I'd only use a little. If I had tons of money maybe, but until then no. But i could see the advantage of using it over my macro.

Buy because you want to make use of a great lens (or a great lens for you) not because you think it'll make you better.

cdifoto wrote in post #5609586
But you're already a good photographer because you know you need certain specifications do to those things.

A bad photographer would buy those fast lenses and still use Sport mode and wonder wtf is happening.

exactly!

cdifoto wrote in post #5609586
A bad photographer would buy those fast lenses and still use Sport mode and wonder wtf is happening.

Are there really that many photographers out there that would seek out the fast lenses and still use Sport mode? If they are only interested in Sport mode, will they even take the time to find out about fast and slow lenses? After all fast and slow lenses are slightly more complicated in concept i.e. smaller f stops actually faster the lens.....etc

a 'bad' photographer will prob not even venture further than acquiring a zoom lens, and they would probably acquire a zoom with a large no. (bigger the number the more impressive) regardless of what they r shooting.

Anyway i think we are just presupposing how people think/act, at least i am

This time last year I was in the process of buying a Fuji 'bridge' camera and it was here that I began to understand more about what the camera was actually doing, whereas before I'd just chosen an auto mode and hoped for the best.

Once I realised I'd outgrown the bridge and needed an SLR I had another headache... I didn't understand focal lengths or f/numbers properly and spent hours and hours reading and learning and experimenting. I had come from a world where you judge a camera on how many times zoom it has or how many megapixels it has and I found the whole SLR thing bewildering for a while.

I think the 18-55 kit lens and the nifty fifty are good lenses to learn with, however. The prime taught me to think about where I was standing and to get used to wide apertures, whereas the kit lens helped me learn the strengths and weaknesses of the lens - was I shooting wider or longer? Was low-light a problem, did I need a new lens or was it my technique which needed improving?

Technique is obviously the most important asset in photography, but there comes a time that no matter how good your technique is you can't get closeups of birds or bees without the right tool for the job.

gardengirl13 wrote in post #5610571
I've said before I shot with my A1 and a 50 prime for 25 years and in all honesty never needed more then that.

Me too! Still have it, though the 50mm f/1.8 eventually made its way to a 50mm f/1.2L and I picked up other FD classics... Just in time to go digital. *sigh*

drummerblake777 wrote in post #5609512
You can spot a photo of the 5d from a mile away...at least I can.

I think I'll go vomit.