Scott Brady
Founder
DaveInDenver said:
For this crowd I think he is. Just my opinion of course.
Three days in the Sahara and he would be a "pro" gear convert...
Camera or Photographer?
- Thread starter mountainpete
- Start date
For this crowd I think he is. Just my opinion of course.
Three days in the Sahara and he would be a "pro" gear convert...
bigreen505
Expedition Leader
Hopefully I won't come across as too arrogant here, so apologies in advance if I do. There is a lot being tossed around here, and a lot of it unintentionally paints a picture that is not totally true.
What do I think? I think Ken Rockwell is an idiot and I can't believe I am actually responding to a thread about one of his rants. Read between the lines, much of the gear that he "tests" he has never even seen in person, let alone used for any period of time. Consider yourself warned, but life is too short to listen to his drivel.
I'm not going to read the article, but I have a pretty good idea what it says. Bottom line, the equipment does not make the photographer, but expensive gear is expensive for a reason. Admittedly, sometimes the reason is only that people will pay for it because it is rare.
I learned how true this was shooting a ski race in 2000 or 2001. When one racer went through the gate it exploded and I happened to get the shot with the racer and the pieces of the exploding slalom pole in the frame. Three photographers all in about the same place, shooting the same turn with roughly the same gear (i.e. equipment wasn't really the deciding factor), yet for whatever reason, I was the only one who got the shot. Speaking in milliseconds, we all hit the button at different times and my camera/drive happened to have the shutter open at the right time. No skill, just luck.
Yeah, I agree with the first point, but you sir are no slouch.
Canon L glass, for the most part is good, but with a couple notable exceptions it is far from exceptional, but that is only my opinion. Each lens has a particular "fingerprint," the way it draws the image, the way it sees the world. While I will never say Canon is bad, I think a lot of other lenses draw the world much nicer.
It is also important to understand why pro-level gear is so expensive and what you gain from it over consumer level gear. First and most obvious, as Scott pointed out, is build quality and lens quality control. I'm sure several of you have heard my tornado story, but let's just say Canon L gear is pretty durable. I can elaborate if anyone cares.
Next, pro photographers often like to use selective focus, which means wide apertures. Lenses handle light like a hose handles water. The difference in the quantity of light going through a f1.4 lens and f4 lens is akin to comparing the amount of water flowing through a fire hose and a garden hose. And just like with the hose, it is much harder and more expensive to design, engineer and manufacturer than a f4 lens because there is 3x more light flowing through it. Also, pro zoom lenses tend to be constant aperture for many reasons, but again, that is much harder and more expensive to design, engineer and manufacture than a variable aperture lens.
Does that make the pro lens better? To the pro it does, but to the amateur who wants everything in focus and always shoots at f8, it is a waste of money. As a point of note, with the exception of Zeiss lenses that are optimized for smaller apertures (f8 and smaller) most pro lenses are optimized for close to wide open use. Most pro lenses are sharpest stopped down only one-half to one stop from wide open. Most consumer lenses are best around f8. When you buy a Leica 80/1.4 or 200/2, Canon 85/1.2 or 200/1.8, Nikon 80/1.4 or 200/2 for one purpose only and that is because of the way it "draws" wide open. Not because of any other quality.
Inferior is relative. Granted there are some lenses that have no reason for existing beyond looking good in marketing materials, but many lenses have positive attributes beyond the obvious, whether it is light weight, low diffraction, etc. Quite often I would take a 10D with a few consumer level primes over a pro-body and L-zooms because of the lower weight of the consumer gear, and the difference in image quality stopped down to f8-f16 was pretty minimal and I could cover it with slight curves and local contrast enhancement. The difference in weight was around 15 lb. and I could move a lot faster.
While true, that may be a slightly misleading statement taken out of context. To clarify, Galen was an absolute gear fanatic, but he was fanatic about finding very lightweight equipment that was reasonably durable when not exposed to harsh conditions and performed well stopped down to f11 or f16. Low weight was generally a higher priority than high image quality, but when he had an advertising shoot, he took cases upon cases of pro-level Nikon gear. 35 mm gear defined his style, and his images would be very different shot with 4x5, and in many instances non-existent.
I don't think you are fully qualified to make that statement until you have used the 20-35/2.8 on a D2x. Let's just say it is truly spectacular and not in a good way. I consider myself pretty skilled in basic post processing and that was a mess far beyond my ability to clean up without spending hours on each image. Really, you have to try it. Aperture is irrelevant.
< end rant >
mountainpete said:
What do I think? I think Ken Rockwell is an idiot and I can't believe I am actually responding to a thread about one of his rants. Read between the lines, much of the gear that he "tests" he has never even seen in person, let alone used for any period of time. Consider yourself warned, but life is too short to listen to his drivel.
I'm not going to read the article, but I have a pretty good idea what it says. Bottom line, the equipment does not make the photographer, but expensive gear is expensive for a reason. Admittedly, sometimes the reason is only that people will pay for it because it is rare.
haven said:
kcowyo said:
I learned how true this was shooting a ski race in 2000 or 2001. When one racer went through the gate it exploded and I happened to get the shot with the racer and the pieces of the exploding slalom pole in the frame. Three photographers all in about the same place, shooting the same turn with roughly the same gear (i.e. equipment wasn't really the deciding factor), yet for whatever reason, I was the only one who got the shot. Speaking in milliseconds, we all hit the button at different times and my camera/drive happened to have the shutter open at the right time. No skill, just luck.
expeditionswest said:
Yeah, I agree with the first point, but you sir are no slouch.
Canon L glass, for the most part is good, but with a couple notable exceptions it is far from exceptional, but that is only my opinion. Each lens has a particular "fingerprint," the way it draws the image, the way it sees the world. While I will never say Canon is bad, I think a lot of other lenses draw the world much nicer.
It is also important to understand why pro-level gear is so expensive and what you gain from it over consumer level gear. First and most obvious, as Scott pointed out, is build quality and lens quality control. I'm sure several of you have heard my tornado story, but let's just say Canon L gear is pretty durable. I can elaborate if anyone cares.
Next, pro photographers often like to use selective focus, which means wide apertures. Lenses handle light like a hose handles water. The difference in the quantity of light going through a f1.4 lens and f4 lens is akin to comparing the amount of water flowing through a fire hose and a garden hose. And just like with the hose, it is much harder and more expensive to design, engineer and manufacturer than a f4 lens because there is 3x more light flowing through it. Also, pro zoom lenses tend to be constant aperture for many reasons, but again, that is much harder and more expensive to design, engineer and manufacture than a variable aperture lens.
Does that make the pro lens better? To the pro it does, but to the amateur who wants everything in focus and always shoots at f8, it is a waste of money. As a point of note, with the exception of Zeiss lenses that are optimized for smaller apertures (f8 and smaller) most pro lenses are optimized for close to wide open use. Most pro lenses are sharpest stopped down only one-half to one stop from wide open. Most consumer lenses are best around f8. When you buy a Leica 80/1.4 or 200/2, Canon 85/1.2 or 200/1.8, Nikon 80/1.4 or 200/2 for one purpose only and that is because of the way it "draws" wide open. Not because of any other quality.
expeditionswest said:
Inferior is relative. Granted there are some lenses that have no reason for existing beyond looking good in marketing materials, but many lenses have positive attributes beyond the obvious, whether it is light weight, low diffraction, etc. Quite often I would take a 10D with a few consumer level primes over a pro-body and L-zooms because of the lower weight of the consumer gear, and the difference in image quality stopped down to f8-f16 was pretty minimal and I could cover it with slight curves and local contrast enhancement. The difference in weight was around 15 lb. and I could move a lot faster.
DaveInDenver said:
While true, that may be a slightly misleading statement taken out of context. To clarify, Galen was an absolute gear fanatic, but he was fanatic about finding very lightweight equipment that was reasonably durable when not exposed to harsh conditions and performed well stopped down to f11 or f16. Low weight was generally a higher priority than high image quality, but when he had an advertising shoot, he took cases upon cases of pro-level Nikon gear. 35 mm gear defined his style, and his images would be very different shot with 4x5, and in many instances non-existent.
I don't think you are fully qualified to make that statement until you have used the 20-35/2.8 on a D2x. Let's just say it is truly spectacular and not in a good way. I consider myself pretty skilled in basic post processing and that was a mess far beyond my ability to clean up without spending hours on each image. Really, you have to try it. Aperture is irrelevant.
< end rant >
Last edited:
\\'anderer
Adventurer
"An artist is only as good as his tools; but good tools will not make an artist."
:REOutArchery02:
:REOutArchery02:
Dirty Harry
Adventurer
In my experience pro gear doesn't make better photos, but it allows you to take better photos. When I first got my 1DS, the photos were not as good as my point-and-shoot G5! I was very disappointed and wondered if I had made an expensive mistake. Now, however, I only use the point-and-shoot for tech photos and even then I cannot always get the effect that I want. The controls you have with pro gear allow a whole lot more creativity. I guess a 4WD analogy would be that a point-and-shoot is like a new FJ Cruiser with A-Trac and stability control that does a good job of getting you through the trail. Pro gear is like a rock buggy with cutting brakes, selectable lockers, twin sticks, and winches to the suspension front and rear. If you know what you are doing you can go a lot further, but if you don't you can end up in trouble or looking silly.
Last edited:
Michael Slade
Untitled
Harry, I'm going to add you and Ben to my links on my blog.
Nice pages both of you. Interesting that there are a lot of pro shooters in this forum.
FWIW I'll take a POS cell-phone camera that I have in my pocket over a Canon Mark 17xz4 sitting at home any day.
IOW it is the brain inside the head of the photographer that is your most important asset. Anything else is just technology that helps you execute your vision.
I'll shuddup now...
Nice pages both of you. Interesting that there are a lot of pro shooters in this forum.
FWIW I'll take a POS cell-phone camera that I have in my pocket over a Canon Mark 17xz4 sitting at home any day.
IOW it is the brain inside the head of the photographer that is your most important asset. Anything else is just technology that helps you execute your vision.
I'll shuddup now...
bigreen505
Expedition Leader
Michael Slade said:
Ben's books and seminars are worth checking out. His teachings have been helping me since PS 5.
Desertdude
Expedition Leader
Michael Slade
Untitled
Desertdude
Expedition Leader
Michael Slade said:Nope, that's pen and ink on a masonite backing board covered with gouache.
Dirty Harry
Adventurer
Michael Slade said:
Thanks for the compliments! Other photographers are usually the hardest people to please so I certainly appreciate it.
And to echo what has already been said, your photos are great! I particularly liked the long exposure at the airport entrace with the tail lights.
Michael Slade
Untitled
Dirty Harry said:
'Tis true.
I like the idea of the 'off-road-adventure-vehicle-modification-do-crazy-stuff-in-the-wilderness-photographers' knowing who each other are.
In the 'commercial realm' of photography we're actually not that common.
In the 'having-fun-making-sweet-pics-out-in-the-sticks-where-others-normally-don't-think-of-going' realm of photography we tend to blend right in with everyone else out there making images.
It's all good.
sinuhexavier
Explorer
Coming in a little late, but I firmly believe it's the eye behind the camera. Here are some links to guys shooting stuff on sub $50 cameras...
http://flickr.com/photos/eyetwist/sets/1193062/
http://flickr.com/photos/lomokev/sets/72394/
Terry has shot entire shoots with disposable cameras...
http://terryrichardson.com/Start.html
Brantley shoots with nothing but vintage cameras and old expired film...
http://rootedphoto.com/flash_home.htm
http://flickr.com/photos/eyetwist/sets/1193062/
http://flickr.com/photos/lomokev/sets/72394/
Terry has shot entire shoots with disposable cameras...
http://terryrichardson.com/Start.html
Brantley shoots with nothing but vintage cameras and old expired film...
http://rootedphoto.com/flash_home.htm
bigreen505
Expedition Leader
Not to take the thread in a different direction, but I think in many cases the level of equipment defines the picture. Three examples that come to mind are the Holga, Mark Tucker's (?) plunger cam, and William Corey's 8x20. Yes it is all about the vision, I know, but those three cameras each force a style.
I expect most people are familiar with the Holga, an odd plastic Russian 120 with a fixed aperture and shutter speed of f8 and 1/100. The Plungercam was a Hasselblad with a toilet plunger glued between the lens and mount -- basically the original Lens Baby. William Corey's camera is a mostly home kluged 8" x 20" large format camera shooting through an old copy lens permanently set at f128 and he usually uses a shutter speed of around 30 min. Corey doesn't have any people in his photos because he simply closes the shutter, waits for the people to leave, and opens it again. He uses scotch tape to connect two sheets of 8x10 film and only takes one exposure of a particular scene -- often after spending weeks studying and sketching the scene.
When I first met Corey I was still shooting primarily sports and I found my 8 fps camera unacceptably slow. I'm still shooting 35 mm format as much as I drool over the 4x5 chromes that many of my colleagues shoot, but I think my Leica DMR is about as slow as I can stomach at the moment.
Thoughts?
I expect most people are familiar with the Holga, an odd plastic Russian 120 with a fixed aperture and shutter speed of f8 and 1/100. The Plungercam was a Hasselblad with a toilet plunger glued between the lens and mount -- basically the original Lens Baby. William Corey's camera is a mostly home kluged 8" x 20" large format camera shooting through an old copy lens permanently set at f128 and he usually uses a shutter speed of around 30 min. Corey doesn't have any people in his photos because he simply closes the shutter, waits for the people to leave, and opens it again. He uses scotch tape to connect two sheets of 8x10 film and only takes one exposure of a particular scene -- often after spending weeks studying and sketching the scene.
When I first met Corey I was still shooting primarily sports and I found my 8 fps camera unacceptably slow. I'm still shooting 35 mm format as much as I drool over the 4x5 chromes that many of my colleagues shoot, but I think my Leica DMR is about as slow as I can stomach at the moment.
Thoughts?
goodtimes
Expedition Poseur
bigreen505 said:
I really don't think it is one of the other (camera or photographer). I think the truely great photos we see are the result of a uncommon mix of the right vision, the right gear to capture that vision, and the technical knowledge of how to use that gear to get the result you envision.
Your vision might be best demonstrated with the use of a pinhole camera made from a oatmeal canister and a piece of tin foil....or it might be best demonstrated with the ungodly Hasselblad 39 mp beast that costs more than most peoples cars....but I think they (vision and gear) gotta match for the magic to happen. In many cases, I think having gear better suited for the situation would indeed provide better results. It could be a simple matter of having a longer (or shorter) focal length, a different filter, a lens that was sealed properly to keep that bull dust out (because that caused focusing problems for the rest of the trip, making you miss shots you would have otherwise gotton), etc.
So, yea. I agree to a point...the right gear is certainly can be major factor in the final result.