I Have To Know

Red Dot wrote in post #5668996
A good photo comes from opportunity, not from better gear.

Red Dot,,,you hit the nail right on the head!! Add realising the opportunity and skill level to that equation..IMHO gear only plays a small part but an important part..

Red Dot wrote in post #5668996
A good photo comes from opportunity, not from better gear.

C'mon, you know it is both -- You get there, it is dawn, there's the wolf......... In that place, you need the speed.

When I went from the XT to the 30D my learning / experimentation improved because the camera was faster and more intuitive to change settings. The actual image quality looked about the same. 30D also had less AF misses.

I have to admit, the 5D does actually look different when pixel peeping. The same lenses I've used before on XT, 30D and 40D show more detail at 100% crops or large prints. OTOH, that improvement isn't a big deal for anything you plan to view on the web or make into medium - small prints.

I went from the xti to the 40d...There were really only a few reasons.

1...Improved auto focus, Close don't count at 200mm f2.8 when your DOF is so shallow.

2...Improved ISO & ISO preformance, I once read the average american home is 1/60 f4 ISO 400...Mines closer to 1/60 F2.8 ISO 3200 (my kids are why I got into this...Why limit myself to good light )

3 ...Shutter life, With the currant pricing and improved life I figured might as well sell the XTi while it could still help pay for the 40D

4...Body size, viewfinder, & ease of use...Fits my hands far more comfertably.

5...Live view, I had not considered this in my purchase but what a pleasant surprise!

Does it improve my photo's...80% of the time no! But 20% of the time yes. Does it improve them 50%...NO! Is it funner and easier to shoot...YES!

Will I jump on the next improvment, No I'll pry shoot this one for at least two generations.

But for me the move from 400 to 40 has been a pleasant transition...Definatly worth the cost.

When I worked for a newspaper 17 years I was issued with a 1Ds Mk11 and 20D as backup plus a bag full of L glass..I have since resigned to move to Laos..I now use a 350D which I have owned since '05 and not an L glass lens in sight..The lenses I use are Sigma and Tamron..

Do you think my photography has suffered?? Doubt it!!

^^ I saw your advice on another thread and have seen your work. You're right, as a professional with that much experience and opportunity, but I still maintain that one of the biggest advances since I was a kid is high ISO performance --- In that regard, since I can 'buy' more speed........... I recc. it entirely.

BTW, please, stop taking pictures of food like that. Now, I'm hungry.

This is a valid discussion, but I feel if anyone has the money and wants to get the newer camera, it's okay. I know my old Kodak 4800 takes great pictures from 7 years ago, but do I use it now? Not much. I prefer the newer cameras because they are faster and have more MP.

I have upgraded 3 times in 2 1/2 years since joining this forum, mainly because I've seen the newer gear first hand and see what more it can do compared to what I had. So, if I feel the need to upgrade, I do. I don't if it doesn't make sense or cost too much. If everyone was upgrading without discretion, we'd all own 1DsMkIII's and never look back. But really, I've seen in this forum people who buy the newest thing for their needs. That's what I like about it.

I suspect that the gear helps amateurs more than professionals in photography.

It's my guess that many of today's photographers are hooked on camera automation and that new automation bells and whistles are what make them go for a new model.

I usually use even my latest camera (a Canon 20D) in fully manual mode just like the way I would use my old Nikon F film cameras. Thus, the automation and "machine-gun mode" mean little to nothing to me. I suspect this is probably the way most old-timers like myself who were serious about photography with manual cameras of yesteryear (before auto-this and auto-that were even invented) feel as well.

My experience and I think most pros are like this they make large purchases ever once in a while. They research and find gear that wont become outdated quickly and usually don't follow consumer trends.

I had my F-1s for 30 years and my 500C/Ms for 20. A new lens or another film back if needed but no need because there really wasn't anything better to buy. Newer maybe more AUTOMATED but nothing better.

Calumet just closed their location in Bensenville and started catering more towards the consumer because pros make one time large purchases and usually don't follow the newest trends like consumers do. They find gear that fits their photographic needs.

To a pro they are tools. Most can't afford to keep up with all the trends and most learn to get what they need out of the gear they have. If not they change gear but they don't do it as rapidly or as often as most consumers that always crave the latest and the greatest. There are some pros out there that do it but most I would say are like I am.

I have two 5Ds and I'm getting results that I really like and doubt I will be upgrading anythime soon.

SkipD wrote in post #5678726
It's my guess that many of today's photographers are hooked on camera automation and that new automation bells and whistles are what make them go for a new model.

I usually use even my latest camera (a Canon 20D) in fully manual mode just like the way I would use my old Nikon F film cameras. Thus, the automation and "machine-gun mode" mean little to nothing to me. I suspect this is probably the way most old-timers like myself who were serious about photography with manual cameras of yesteryear (before auto-this and auto-that were even invented) feel as well.

Agreed - another long-time film shooter here. I used to have a bag full of L lenses (and two 20D's) but not anymore. I shoot with a 30D, mostly in manual but sometimes Av, along with having just one lens - the Sigma 30mm. I'd say today I'm a better photographer with my current set-up than I was with all those L zooms. I think a LOT more about composition, lighting, and what I'm trying to convey with my shots.

In the end, for the most part, it's not about the gear or latest gee-whiz technology. It's about photography and how to create your vision.

hortonsl62 wrote in post #5678649
I suspect that the gear helps amateurs more than professionals in photography.

I wonder if it's not the other way around.

I strongly suspect that rank amateurs don't know enough to know that it isn't the camera that makes the difference.

Look at sites that feature photography (rather than gear), you wll see excellent work being done with Canon 10D's - I can direct you to one image that was taken with a Canon S3.

The question of importance of gear will never be answered as there are many answers. For a knowledgeable and skilled photographer, the best gear will definitely be an advantage - for the beginner, it's simply a waste of money, and may even be a hindrance because of the complexity of the camera which over-taxes his/her abilities.

Glenn NK wrote in post #5679087
I wonder if it's not the other way around.

I strongly suspect that rank amateurs don't know enough to know that it isn't the camera that makes the difference.

The question of importance of gear will never be answered as there are many answers. For a knowledgeable and skilled photographer, the best gear will definitely be an advantage - for the beginner, it's simply a waste of money, and may even be a hindrance because of the complexity of the camera which over-taxes his/her abilities.

I tend to agree with you Glenn. I was shooting my daughter's softball game the other night (5D, 300/4 + 1.4X TC) and stuck up a short conversation with a mom next to me shooting a Nikon D60 and some f/5.6 telezoom. I mentioned that it seems like it only takes a few innings and I'm right up to ISO1600 as the sun sets and f/5.6 and all. She said "I dunno - I shoot in auto".

So, this is a woman that certainly doesn't need a Nikon D3 and 200-400/4 VR just now.

But we all start somewhere and I at least can say that I'm still learning. Once you do start to figure it all out better gear can make a clear difference. Until then it won't help.

SkipD wrote in post #5678726
It's my guess that many of today's photographers are hooked on camera automation and that new automation bells and whistles are what make them go for a new model.

I usually use even my latest camera (a Canon 20D) in fully manual mode just like the way I would use my old Nikon F film cameras. Thus, the automation and "machine-gun mode" mean little to nothing to me. I suspect this is probably the way most old-timers like myself who were serious about photography with manual cameras of yesteryear (before auto-this and auto-that were even invented) feel as well.

Good call Skip...I still shoot mainly on manual exposure and manual focus,,,I always have from my Nikon film days through my Canon 1D days into my now 350D days unless things around me are moving very fast I'll flick into one shot auto focus..Call me a Luddite if you must but I find I get the control I need..

Many years ago my boss was also my mentor..When I first started in the department for a kick he would remove the battery out of my Nikon (batteries would only operate the exposure meter) load a roll of 36 exp TriX 400 and gave me an hour to shoot the roll..I had to rely on the "Sweet 16 Rule" or guestimate the exposure..He would process the roll and check each exposure under a 25X loupe..He would look for shadow/highlight detail..If I didn't have atleast 75% keepers I would have to make the coffee for a week and buy a Lottery ticket..Call this tough,,but I learned real fast..

I shoot only manual and have for YEARS. I own 2 5Ds and 3 lenses.
24L
35L
85L
I've learned over the years these are the F/L I shoot with most of the time.

I make my living with photography and have for more than 20 years full time and another 9 or so part time before that..

The longer you do it the more you seem to narrow what you do and your equipment will usually reflect that.