Photography

Are people seeming to be way most interested in the best camera body, (gotta have a FF), the sharpest lens, the newest feature, than knowing what it actually takes to make an interesting photograph, and developing an "eye"?

EDIT: Great Article. http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/notcamera.ht​m

I think it depends on the person.
Among my high school/college aged friends, they think having a nice camera makes an awesome photograph...and its always interesting to see their "photo shoots" with friends. Not that's bad, but...not something they should go pro in. haha.

But so often I believe most people think that if you have the best camera body with the best lens you'll take the best pictures.
Thankfully, I learned a few years back that its not the camera that takes an amazing picture, but the one behind the camera.

I couldn't agree more. I used my Nikons for years & knew exactly where the controls were. I knew which way to turn the focus ring for a subject coming toward me. My film bodies NEVER failed me & THAT'S what counted. And I'd sometimes shoot 60-80 rolls of 36 a day. So I had one less worry on my mind when I was on location 1,000 miles away.

Good glass & the light is what counts with me. Could I get better shots in tough conditions like a dim high school gym with a Mk IV? I expect so. Can I get along without one? Yes, but I'll probably throw more shots away.
Could I do it without a f/1.4 or f/2 lens? Most of the time I don't think so.
At the level of Canon vs Nikon, a cam is just a box used to capture your vision. You make the important difference, so shoot lots, have fun, & don't sweat the small stuff.

I was in a camera store & heard this guy saying he needed the latest & greatest camera. From what he was saying, it would be his first SLR. I poked my nose in & said that he didn't need that camera. He said that his neighbor had one, so that's what he had to have?

My first dSLR camera was a Nikon D300 (dont hate I'm using Canon :P )

I had once had NUMEROUS P&S cameras, more than I can probably even remember. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Kodak, Pentax you name it.

There is a HUGE difference going from 35mm SLR to dSLR. I was one of those that thought I initially had to have THE most expensive camera body there was. Then I got smart and did a little research before dropping that kind of cash or relying on a salesperson who may or may not be working on commission and who may or may not know anything about them.
The camera body will get you where you need to go (even my Rebel xs) provided you have the proper glass and the ability to take those amazing photos...or at least the patience to learn.

I think as with homes and cars, people like to have the most advanced camera they can afford. Maybe they think it gives them credibility at the camera club etc. Just think why so many members like to advertise the fact on these forums that they've just bought a new toy and, presumably, revel in the ensuing congratulations from idiots like me

There are people who will take pleasure in owning the most advanced gear, those who want to develop their art and others who want both, so I say each to his or her own.

David

kjonnnn wrote in post #11809398
Are people seeming to be way most interested in the best camera body, (gotta have a FF), the sharpest lens, the newest feature, than knowing what it actually takes to make an interesting photograph, and developing an "eye"?

EDIT: Great Article. http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/notcamera.ht​m

For a photography enthusiast, it can be both/and rather than either/or. Sure, people can and do get out of balance one way or the other. I just try not to be quick to judge.

kjonnnn wrote in post #11809398
Are people seeming to be way most interested in the best camera body, (gotta have a FF), the sharpest lens, the newest feature, than knowing what it actually takes to make an interesting photograph, and developing an "eye"?

What's really important to me in a DSLR is the ability to make it fully manual with easy-to-use controls while in manual mode. This, of course, knocks all of the Rebel series DSLRs I have ever seen out of the running. My 20D, however, works quite well.

I'd love to have a camera with a better viewfinder for manual focusing, better resolution, and lower noise when using high ISO settings, but I don't need a built-in flash, machine-gun mode, auto this and auto that, video, or many of the other things that the manufacturer's marketing groups feel sell cameras.

Lots of people tend to go for the best they can afford & I have no problem with that. When I upgraded to a 7D, it was not "bells & whistles" that attracted me to it, but it's ability to suit my photography needs. Full frame cameras didn't have the specs that I required, so the 7D won on the day.

SkipD wrote in post #11818000
I'd love to have a camera with a better viewfinder for manual focusing, better resolution, and lower noise when using high ISO settings, but I don't need a built-in flash, machine-gun mode, auto this and auto that, video, or many of the other things that the manufacturer's marketing groups feel sell cameras.

Most of that makes a lot of sense to me Skip. Having started with SLR's in the mid-sixties, my 20D serves me very well indeed although I'd definitely appreciate a better viewfinder for manual focussing.

David

i like high megapixels.

:P

I personally like extra pickles on my hamburgers!

Reading these forums, it's clear that most people here only care about gear. Show me your lenses. Post your camera. T3i vs T2i. What's the best lens?

Lame questions. It's rare do I see a post that's more of getting a certain shot given a certain condition. Instead, the poor guy gets bashed for not having an L lens or a FF or lack of camera body that can shoot 1 bagillion ISO.

All that matters for a photograph is:

1) a clear subject
2) the composition
3) the lighting

I praise guys, like Henri Cartier Bresson for example, that just used 1 camera and 1 lens and took the most striking images. Without L glass.

Razeus, you've been spending too much time in the gear sections! This particular section is oriented toward general photography discussions where, yeah, occasionally gear gets talked about but much of the discussion goes way beyond gear and focuses on many aspects of photography. And, we have sections devoted to sharing images in which subjects like light, subject matter and composition are freely talked about (and critiqued). I'd say you may do best to spend time in the photo sharing threads, post some shots, discuss some shots, and you won't hear much about "show me your lenses" or "show me your cameras". Those threads are, appropriately, found in the Lenses and Cameras sections. Stay away from those if you don't want to talk about gear!

Of course, since this forum by design includes a focu on Canon camera and lens gear, though, it doesn't make sense to protest that there are in fact sections of the forum where discussing gear is entirely appropriate!

I spend most of my time in the wedding and portrait section and I feel like I see the same sort of stuff Razeus pointed out... People ask for advice and someone always comes back with "Get a 50mm 1.2" or something of that sort.

I agree that good gear does make amazing shots easier to get... but I don't think it's 100% necessary that you need L lenses and professional cameras to get amazing shots.

I started doing weddings with an XTi, and a couple non-L lenses. The only thing I would do differently is have back-up equipment. Yes, rebel series aren't super easy to control, but they *are* controllable... and that's what matters to me... That I can control my shots, which means I can make them or break them. Some of the shots I took with that camera are still some of my favorites.

Well, my response to that is that there may always be a "someone" -- well, what can you do? That certainly doesn't characterize the forum as a whole, just the occasional "someones".

Oh, and you should get a 50L for your wedding shots!