Talent v. Equipment?

ONE HUNDRED percent true. If that winning pass comes straight at you and the receiver just manages to catch the football with two defense players behind him, all racing towards you at a hell of a speed in low light..............let​s just say good luck getting it right with a 300D plus a 70-300 zoom lens.

There's certain areas where you have to have top equipment to show your talent!

Having the equipment is often a substitute for having the talent. As long as the shots are reasonable, I don't see an issue - the advantage of better equipment is either the pro look, or the repeatability in your shots (where cheaper / inferior equipment would suffer)

Floriantrojer.com wrote in post #7583488
If that winning pass comes straight at you and the receiver just manages to catch the football with two defense players behind him, all racing towards you at a hell of a speed in low light..............let​s just say good luck getting it right with a 300D plus a 70-300 zoom lens.

Here's the exact situation and the exact equipment you mentioned. A football game, a cloudy day, a Digital Rebel 300d, a 70-300mm lens and a touchdown pass coming at the camera position.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

SurplusCorn wrote in post #7574518
This is more of a philosophical thread than anything...

I'm just wondering about other peoples experience in this case. Has anyone found that even though they have a talent and ability for photography, that said talent can be held back by not having the correct equipment?

Is it possible for someone to be a successful photographer whilst only having a minimum of equipment? I don't mean having the entire L series of lens's, but certainly there comes a point where a 70-300 needs to be replaced with a 70-200, or a 18-55 with even a 17-85?

Just interested in opinions...

Yes, 100% without a doubt the equipment can hold you back from expressing the talent and knowledge you have. I only upgrade my equipment when what I have is holding me back from doing what I want to do. Right now I am held back in certain aspects and working on not having that problem.

Is it possible for someone to have talent and not the equipment and do well - yes, depending on what you're shooting. A sports photographer for bigger companies must have certain equipment and be able to use it as a tool of there knowledge, that's all. You can get by in many aspects on lesser gear where your knowledge/skill will be the leader but there will always be a point you're held back.

DC Fan wrote in post #7592841
Here's the exact situation and the exact equipment you mentioned. A football game, a cloudy day, a Digital Rebel 300d, a 70-300mm lens and a touchdown pass coming at the camera position.

Somehow, everything worked. Maybe you don't need thousands of dollars in equipment.

I agree and disagree with you - this shows the moment well, but in my mind I have a little bit different shot that I'd want on the front page as an editor. I picture the runner with his left arm up (flexing) and ball tucked (as happens when you run with it) and head up more in the running away from defenders than he is - which looks to be in the caught the ball and about to turn up the speed. The image in my mind is probably a little after you took this particular image after he turned it up. With the fps used as a tool in this instance you could have got the "perfect" shot, instead you got the good shot. This is all in my mind and not a must obviously, overall they're both good shots showing the series of events and shows the user is important behind the gear.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #7592955
...in my mind I have a little bit different shot that I'd want on the front page as an editor.

You haven't seen the other images in this sequence.

Besides, the point was to show that, despite what others have expressed in this thread, that you don't need the most expensive equipment available to get an image, even under conditions that are less than ideal.

This thread also shows there's a misconception that working pros use expensive equipment because it's somehow "better." The real reason is because it's durable. Deadline shooters are extremely rough with their equipment, and they prefer something that can be thrown around and still work. Where a user in this forum might carefully pack their equipment before taking it to an event, a working pro might just throw it in a car trunk. A salesman at a camera store once noted that lenses and bodies from newspaper shooters tend to look like junk when they're traded in.

DC Fan wrote in post #7593776
You haven't seen the other images in this sequence.

I assumed, since it was from the one turning up field to in the end zone those were the only two since I have no clue how far he actually went and the 300D only gets 2.5fps and a player can move a pretty good amount there. If you got "the shot" I'm describing throw it up on here.

"An image" - no, but sometimes "THE image" - yes. my point was yea you got an image of the big play but did you get the best one possible, who knows. In my mind I see something a little different and fps used as a tool (i.e. not a spray and pray shooter all through the game) could have helped. Rarely use the 8.5 fps but in a big play of course it becomes a tool you're glad to have. Many spreads you see are chosen from a sequence, not the only choice they had.

I'm going to totally disagree here on pretty much everything you've said. Working pros do use the gear they have because it is better. The II/IIn/III all have better ISO capabilities, better speed, better focus, better MP, pretty much better across the board when you compare specs and results in many instances depending on what you're shooting. Does it mean you can't get an image with lesser gear, nope not at all. You may get lucky and get that perfect image, it happened back in the film days it can happen with lesser digital gear. Can you take acceptable shots with good timing in sports, of course - but still there's times when the gear matters. The more expensive gear has better tools for you to take advantage of and up your chances of getting the shot instead along with just better overall quality. I started with lesser gear and have grown to shoot with better and can tell you from experience what you're saying is dead wrong. Especially as I go through my old archives and get to see the quality back then compared to now.

As for deadline shooters, which I am one and shoot with many of them throwing there gear around is assinine. You have a very wrong misconception of how working pros treat there gear. Now I've seen some idiots who do treat it like crap, there was three college kids in a media room once talking about how bad they treat there professors gear as they loaned it from him for the paper - he was the director of it. Those type idiots are RARE!! Most working pros treat there gear good, they don't throw it in the trunk unprotected that's for sure. Every photo room I've been in each photog has a roller case or bags to store there gear after an event and are taking care of what they have.

Now for the newspaper comment, of course they look like junk! All you have to do is think about it with common sense. The photogs use that gear every single day of the year all day long. That gear is going from when the first photog reports to the last one leaves and sometimes more. By the time they trade it in it's a few years old of constant use, of course there's going to be some dings and it's foolish to think there wouldn't be. when you use ANYTHING as much as they use the gear at a newspaper it's going to wear down a little quicker. As a newspaper photog you have to have your gear constantly ready, so it may be sitting in the front seat of your car more than a bag - it's news and the story is important to get. Wear a pair of shoes for 16 or so hours a day, every day for three years and see how they look when done.

Let's not forget and be honest with ourselves, oftentimes, there is a whole lot of 'luck' involved as well. :- )

I've heard carpenters say, as well as auto mechanics, that there is no substitute for good equipment. And that if you want to do a job well, invest in good tools. I think the same can be applied to our trade as well.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

DC Fan wrote in post #7593776
You haven't seen the other images in this sequence.

Besides, the point was to show that, despite what others have expressed in this thread, that you don't need the most expensive equipment available to get an image, even under conditions that are less than ideal.

to be fair, the original post you replied to specified low-light (ie, night games). which this isn't.

DC Fan wrote in post #7593776
This thread also shows there's a misconception that working pros use expensive equipment because it's somehow "better." The real reason is because it's durable. Deadline shooters are extremely rough with their equipment, and they prefer something that can be thrown around and still work. Where a user in this forum might carefully pack their equipment before taking it to an event, a working pro might just throw it in a car trunk. A salesman at a camera store once noted that lenses and bodies from newspaper shooters tend to look like junk when they're traded in.

sportshooters routinely use 300 and 400 f/2.8 lenses, and not because they are durable.

CatchingUp wrote in post #7596269
I've heard carpenters say, as well as auto mechanics, that there is no substitute for good equipment. And that if you want to do a job well, invest in good tools. I think the same can be applied to our trade as well.

I think that this statement goes a long way. I'm a closet mechanic as well. I have the tools I need to get the job done. People think that modern cars are difficult to work on. I have a custom OBD II cable made for Audi cars and the software is written for the platform as well. Factory repair manual, buy the tools or rent them for the job. I undertook what is an almost $2k dealer preventative maintenance item a couple months ago at a cost to me of $300 and two days.

Now to relate to photography... Take a picture with a Drebel, pop-up flash and kit lens. Take the exact same photo with a 5dmkII (or insert other here), 580exII and a Prime lens. The better gear is going to have a lot more pop to the image.

You still need to have the talent to see the picture mentally. Your mind needs to be trained to see the shot. I find myself doing this commonly walking down the street I'll frame shots in my head. Reading people to anticipate what they are going to do next, as if I were capturing an image for a wedding.

Bottom line is that it is a bit of both. Your credit limit can certainly hold you back, but if you don't have the natural gift take classes and read LOTS!

narlus wrote in post #7596378
to be fair, the original post you replied to specified low-light (ie, night games). which this isn't.


sportshooters routinely use 300 and 400 f/2.8 lenses, and not because they are durable.

Agreed...I don't think you have posted an image that supports your claim. Push the ISO to 1600 and then get back to us on whether or not the 1d, or even a 40d for that matter, is better. If you are happy with your equipment, then more power to ya', but to suggest that pros use more expensive equipment simply because it is more durable is not accurate. Look at MJ's post to see the list of reasons more expensive equipment is indeed "better". IMHO.

wayovrpar wrote in post #7596510
Agreed...I don't think you have posted an image that supports your claim. Push the ISO to 1600 and then get back to us on whether or not the 1d, or even a 40d for that matter, is better. If you are happy with your equipment, then more power to ya', but to suggest that pros use more expensive equipment simply because it is more durable is not accurate. Look at MJ's post to see the list of reasons more expensive equipment is indeed "better". IMHO.

I agree with this also. that picture looks like it was taken quite a distance from the photographer. none of the linemen are even in the picture anymore, just DB's , a LB?, and maybe a RB. It wasn't a bang, bang play right at you, taken under the lights of football, where good glass and camera would have been a must. JUST MO.

wayovrpar wrote in post #7596510
Push the ISO to 1600 and then get back to us on whether or not the 1d, or even a 40d for that matter, is better.

ISO 1600? Use that all the time with the XTi. Not for football, but for indoor events.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I think talent can grow with equipment. I started out because we lost our wedding photographer last minute and desperately needed a solution, which was an XTi and 28-105 and some very nice, willing family members. LOVED the results. For me, they are perfect. Now I am a wedding photographer myself (yes, that's how I got into it) and I wouldn't DREAM of showing up at someone else's wedding with just an XTi and a 28-105. I wouldn't have the reach, the speed, the light, etc. So in that sense, equipment would hold me back. But I learned everything I know on my XTi, so that's where I built my skills/talent (though I won't claim to have much, but I do have enthusiasm and a crazy work ethic which makes up for it, I think!).

I really think that you can be talented no matter what equipment that you have. If you are shooting a landscape and only have a 50mm, look for other creative ways to photograph it. Get close to a subject that you can fit in the foreground. I have gone through my whole professional career with two lenses. A 28-135mm and a Tamron 28-70mm. I do rent lenses on every once in a while, I generally know and have a shoot planned out when I rent one. Its not about the equipment but what is six inches behind the camera.