carpediem291 wrote in post #9404031
It goes both ways positive or negative. But I think it's more misleading or intimidating for a lot of the new photographers because they might think buying expensive equipments such as camera bodies and lenses are necessary to take great photos. Though some specialized lenses or camera bodies are required to do certain things, expensive equipments does not replace technique, composition, style, etc. The best camera or lenses are the ones that we got. People sometimes compliment me for my photos. "wow that's a great picture, you must have a very expensive or really good camera!" This statement is like giving compliment to a chef after eating a delicious meal, "Wow, you must have expensive or really good pots and pans!"If someone is really unsure about the performance of a camera or a lens, they can check out reviews on dpreview or fredmiranda.
In terms of using your list of equipments for credential or proving one's validity, why not have a your website listed on the bottom so anyone who feels you're bull****ting could see your work and experience. Personally, you can have all L lenses on your sig and all 1 body series and it doesn't mean anything but you spend way too much money on your camera gear. Look at some of the best photographers in history, Henry Cartier Bresson, Robert Cappa, Lewis Hine, Ansel Adams, etc they were able to make amazing photographs with equipments that now we would think outdated by our standard.
As for professional photographers talking shop, I attended Look3 festival of the photograph last year in Virginia and met some of the best photographers in the world from Magnum, VII, Noor, etc Surprisingly, they talk about their equipments very little, well at least from my experience.
A great photograph is still a great photograph with cheap or expensive equipments
A bad photograph is still bad with cheap equipments and even worst with expensive ones.
Just my 2 cent
Andri
nicksan wrote in post #9404307Yeah they are, if they complain about something mundane as a gear list.
Well, you'd have to define mundane, because most people's definition of that word will differ.
Is criticizing people using "L" mundane? Other than being annoying, it exacerbates people's want for lenses they don't "need" (it's your money: use it as you want, but more later). Better equipment doesn't make better photographers; it may facilitate photographs with lesser gear, but to think that just because one has a ludicrously expensive lenses means they are the end all of photographers, doesn't mean squat. I have see amazing work from people with the cheapest rebel and the cheapest zoom; I have seen abominable work from people sporting equipment which could buy be a new car.
Do you fit into this category, of people who can't shoot but have very expensive gear? No, I don't think so. But if I got a dollar for every time someone brags about L for the sake of having L, I could pay off my student loans.
(If you look at my gear list, you will take notice of the lack of "L". However, I've taken 20,625 pictures with "L" while working for a college paper. So, one can not only say my argument is philosophical, but also practical in the fact that I have experience with "L" and know what it's like as a tool.)
