Talent v. Equipment?

DC Fan wrote in post #7599006
ISO 1600? Use that all the time with the XTi. Not for football, but for indoor events.


Three different arenas, three different lighting situations. It's a mix of the Canon 70-300mm IS and the Tamron 18-200mm. Set the ISO to 1600 on the XTi and chose a useful shutter speed that would work with the available light and the lens' capabilities. Body and two lenses cost less than one body in the 1d series.

Sorry, but even web ready (where you can hide the details often since the image is smaller) these are not as good as 3200 ISO on the IIn noise wise - and the III is even better. Not to mention the motion blur kills it, I would lose jobs handing in images with that much motion blur. When you do this for a full time job, especially sports, you realize you need the tools to get jobs done to the CLIENT needs. I've gotten jobs because I had the right gear and lost some because I didn't have something in my bag. Still I'm not saying talent doesn't matter (see previous posts), it sure does and you can get good images with lesser gear but the higher end equipment just helps a photog with the tools it offers.

If you really wanna compare results take your image and put it up against a Nikon D3 and prime. I did that friendly challenge in the media room a few weeks ago and my IIn and 400 prime lost to his D3 and 400 prime. The guy was a Canon shooter using the gear on loan from Nikon as they tried to get him to switch - his results won (and yes we used the same settings, same ISO, etc). Now when Canon comes out with the IIIn or IV then maybe they'll win the battle - well hopefully!!

DC Fan wrote in post #7576272
You can't buy talent with money.

Maybe not, but you sure can rent the f#$ out of it, though!

Interesting pattern in this thread. Twice, someone makes a "you can't do that" statement, and when shown that something impossible is possible, the response is "you need a more expensive camera." With this pattern, eventually someone is going to demand that everyone go out and buy a $40,000 Phase One P65 Plus or a Hasselblad H3DII.

I can't buy talent or experience (equally important) so I bought the equipment!

dave

DC Fan wrote in post #7603373
Interesting pattern in this thread. Twice, someone makes a "you can't do that" statement, and when shown that something impossible is possible, the response is "you need a more expensive camera." With this pattern, eventually someone is going to demand that everyone go out and buy a $40,000 Phase One P65 Plus or a Hasselblad H3DII.

I just started reading this thread. There's a difference in quality. Could that basketball picture you posted be taken with your equipment? Obviously yes. But can the equipment you're describing take the picture with sufficient quality for ... (you name it). Maybe, maybe not.

For some purposes the images you posted are fine. For other purposes, they are completely unacceptable. This isn't a case of whether taking a picture in given conditions is "possible" or "impossible" with certain equipment. It's a question of whether it's possible to take a picture of a certain quality in given conditions with certain equipment. Without specifying the subjective "certain quality", the argument is pointless. Everyone can be right.

There are times when I'm shooting a scene in the dark where equipment with higher ISO that my equipment would allow me to take a better picture.

DC Fan wrote in post #7603373
Interesting pattern in this thread. Twice, someone makes a "you can't do that" statement, and when shown that something impossible is possible, the response is "you need a more expensive camera." With this pattern, eventually someone is going to demand that everyone go out and buy a $40,000 Phase One P65 Plus or a Hasselblad H3DII.

Again, where are the images that show what anyone is talking about in this thread when it comes to better gear? Where's the image I asked about and you said I haven't seen the whole series? The one as an editor I would want on the front page as the "perfect shot" to tell the story of that big play? From the ones posted it looks like you got the start and end of it - where's the middle where the best shots are? Where's the b-ball images most sports clients would accept? I haven't seen them and the ones posted are not it because of the before mentioned reasons.

I've repeatedly said you can get good images with lesser gear, maybe good enough, sometimes great, but all the reasons mentioned why more expensive gear is better have not once been addressed. The b-ball images are only showing why and how more expensive gear is better. I know you want to believe it's all the same but it's not and either uneducated to think so or maybe just jealous of those that have it or get to use it? I have no clue how anyone can deny why it's better given the tools it allows a photographer to have over cheaper gear.

snyderman wrote in post #7603417
I can't buy talent or experience (equally important) so I bought the equipment!

dave

Can to, you can hire a talented & experienced photographer for the day

...also, just having the gear alone doesn't help - knowledge and talent are needed. I know a guy with a MKIII and 300 2.8 IS and his images suck as he has no clue about composition, what to look for, proper exposure, WB, nothing. He said his images sucked before because his XTI didn't have 10fps and that's what was needed to take good images even though he had the glass which should have helped some, but now that he has it his images still suck. Strange ain't it? It's why so many photographers get annoyed at the comments like "that camera takes good pictures".

I think it can be said that the technological advances in digital photography has raised the level of quality of photos being taken across a broad spectrum. In other words, the equipment available today has enhanced whatever level of talent an individual may have had.

case & point - Years ago, I would have been terrified to shoot a wedding using film. It was that never really knowing what you got until the pictures came back or you developed them. Now days, when I shoot a wedding, I can make instant adjustments along the way as I'm shooting because of being able to view what I'm capturing.

Another example would be shooting sporting events. With digitial, I'm going to shoot probably 5-10x as many shots as I would have with film. So the percentages of more 'keepers' increases. That in turn might suggest I am more 'talented' with the gear I have today as opposed to what I shot with film?

DC Fan wrote in post #7603373
Interesting pattern in this thread. Twice, someone makes a "you can't do that" statement, and when shown that something impossible is possible, the response is "you need a more expensive camera." With this pattern, eventually someone is going to demand that everyone go out and buy a $40,000 Phase One P65 Plus or a Hasselblad H3DII.

Not once did I say that it was impossible to take quality pics in less than perfect condidions with your xt. I am a novice shooter and the motion blur in your BB shots would get them deleted by my standards. If your standards dictate these images are acceptable then your equipment is satisfactory for you. For my requirements, it is not.If I were generating an income from my images I would want equipment that sets me up for success, not "acceptable".

There's a lot more involved than just talent and equipment.

There's also learning, knowledge, intelligence, experience etc.

If you have a ton of talent, and a ton of awesome equipment but no experience. You'll probably produce horrible photos.

I think for most photographers with some degree of skills and technical understanding, better equipment leads to better images. So as an independent variable, yes, equipment does make a difference. As others have said, in certain genres extra features of equipment can make a huge difference. However, it stands true with current technology, even the entry level dslr's and consumer grade glass provide for very powerful tool in skilled hands.

Just saw this thread and couldn't resist making a comment Joey - obviously you're being sarcastic.... seen your stuff and some of it's pretty good. And besides, you wouldn't keep plugging away at wedding photography if you didn't have some talent.

form wrote in post #7574583
I have no talent for photography, but I find that without the best equipment for the job my ability to do the job is more limited.

A good real-world example of how something that wasn't the most expensive item was the best choice.

Dave Black is an accomplished sports photographer who uses Nikon DSLR's such as the D3 and D700. But when he got assignments to cover The Masters for Golf Digest, he started using Nikon Coolpix 8700 and 8800 point and shoot cameras. Why would someone accomplished with Nikon's most elaborate gear start using a consumer-grade camera for the biggest tournament of the year?

Because the point-and-shoots had an advantage: they were silent. In golf, any sort of noise during a player's backswing, especially the shutter noise from a DSLR, can get you ejected from an event. The Coolpix 8700 and 8800 don't make any noise. So, Black could take shots of golfers during any part of their swing and no one would notice.

No complaints of inferior equipment, just someone who understood a sport's written and unwritten rules and found a way to handle those situations.

As someone who primarily shoots wildlife that is truly wild and unaccustomed to human proximity, I can say from experience that excellent equipment is a must.

I have the 100-400 L series zoom. Guess what? - it's not good enough. Now that I've gotten used to the IQ that my big 400 2.8 provides, I'm simply disappointed with the results form the 100-400. And many folks consider the 100-400 to be a high quality lens. Sure, talent is the first and foremost consideration. But once the talent is developed, it requires equipment to produce what is in the mind's eye.

DC Fan wrote in post #7607784
A good real-world example of how something that wasn't the most expensive item was the best choice.

Dave Black is an accomplished sports photographer who uses Nikon DSLR's such as the D3 and D700. But when he got assignments to cover The Masters for Golf Digest, he started using Nikon Coolpix 8700 and 8800 point and shoot cameras. Why would someone accomplished with Nikon's most elaborate gear start using a consumer-grade camera for the biggest tournament of the year?

Because the point-and-shoots had an advantage: they were silent. In golf, any sort of noise during a player's backswing, especially the shutter noise from a DSLR, can get you ejected from an event. The Coolpix 8700 and 8800 don't make any noise. So, Black could take shots of golfers during any part of their swing and no one would notice.

No complaints of inferior equipment, just someone who understood a sport's written and unwritten rules and found a way to handle those situations.

Once again that shows it's not always the equipment as has been said all alone, and once again the issues at hand people were actually discussing were ignored. Seriously, why won't you address them? The funny thing is you proved a point in the opposite direction for your argument again, he wasn't using the P&S for anything but the back swing shot because he used that cameras TOOL of a silent shutter, all the other shots were with high end gear. That doesn't support your argument at all you realize, right?