that's probably true for people with talent, but after getting my olympus e-p1 last night and taking a few shots in very poor lighting conditions i can say the camera/lens does make a hell of a lot of difference. with my fuji and iphone i can get some great shots, but they're sheer luck and usually rather flat. the amount of detail and depth from the e-p1 is amazing. it's the first "real" camera i've had since my cannon a2e, i was a horrible print photographer and though i really miss the ritual of developing film and creating prints, i need the preview to understand what i'm doing right/wrong.

i've got 7 days to decide whether or not to buy a telephoto lens before i leave.

Before you leave Earth???

Originally posted by: Phantom Before you leave Earth???

holiday. i capitulated and bought a 45-200mm lens on the justification i won't likely be back to at least half of my holiday destinations for many, many years.

Yea!

hey y'all!

yeah, it's the camera. It's only pros with 10k worth of gear in their bag that say the camera doesn't matter.

bah.

I know pros who'll make better images with a $25 junker from a thrift shop than you or I could with the 10k worth of gear.

isn't todays 25 dollar junker in the pro's ten year old camera bag?

Sometimes.

But as a for instance, Persist takes better photos with his camera's phone, despite its not insignificant limitations, than a great many people with bigger more "capable" cameras.

That said my Pentax *ist DS is really breaking down and Pentax K-X's are regularly selling for under $500 on eBay... It would be really nice to independently adjust my f-stop & shutter speed again since that one wheel basically broke on the *ist DS... Did I mention how much I miss the simplicity of the old SLRs from the 70s? I make better compositions now than I used to with my SLR but I was a way better technical photographer when I was shooting film.

You need to start charging yourself for each shot- just like you paid for each film shot. Good college/travel/etc. fund for the Wee Gee.

Originally posted by: rogue_designer bah.

I know pros who'll make better images with a $25 junker from a thrift shop than you or I could with the 10k worth of gear.

Sorry, I just think that's totally false. I wouldn't care except that I feel strongly that this myth is very, very harmful to hard-working beginners who really want to improve.

It's true that a pro can get great pics with any old camera because they understand light. But to be a pro, you can't just wait around until the right light comes along, and that's where better high ISO and faster glass play a huge part.

..and again, I think it's easy to say the camera doesn't matter only AFTER you've had the luxury of decent gear. I know ZERO pros who use $25 cameras, and most buy the best they can afford. You get what you pay for in most areas of life, why would photography be any different?

No. I'm sorry you're wrong.

With the exception of sports photographers, concerts, and nature/birders, 90% of pro work is nowhere near wide aperture fast glass. You want sharp, well performing glass, but most never need f2.8 or faster (though it does help with focusing).

I guarantee you if you start looking around a publication work, you're going to see alot of ISO 100, and f8...

Or ISO 50 and f11

etc.

Especially once you start looking at fashion magazines, or architecture magazines (f45 anyone...).

Sure pro's are are not going to regularly using $25 gear if they have the option (but that said, you can get a Mamiya RB67 and lens+film back for under $400, and many still use that beast). But that's not the same as saying they NEED the uber expensive gear, or that it necessarily makes them better photographers.

I'm neither the best nor worst photographer on the planet but my shots do generally look better when I'm shooting with my entry level dslr than with my point-and-shoot. I certainly have a lot more control over my shot.

...Which is not to say that we all need $5000 cameras to take decent shots, but that having a decent camera and something better than a kit lens does make a big difference.

That said, I've seen lots of guys with way better cameras than me that can't even seem to get all the heads in frame on a group shot.

Well, we're free to disagree right? You're basically saying that better glass is only useful if you plan to shoot 2.8 and I couldn't disagree more.

And mentioning what f-stop and ISO is used in fashion is irrelevant to whether better glass is...better. Most fashion is using artificial light, so of course you're gonna be at f8-f11 at ISO 100, that's not just fashion, that's studio in general.

Better glass gives you better clarity and realism in the photo. Feel free to disagree.

And comparing a used $400 Mimiya MF to any $25 pawn shop camera as a way to say the camera doesn't matter? Well, I disagree there too. I see you use a nice Leica and a prime lens. If the camera doesn't matter, surely you wouldn't like the nice ones so much would you? ;-)

I'm not saying that, necessarily. I'm saying that the incremental performance boost that better glass gives is not always worth the price. Especially to the amateur.

Sharper glass is important. Faster glass is not always so (especially if you photograph in daylight). And a prime will almost always outperform a zoom (on both speed and sharpness) and cost less.

If you are shooting landscapes, or cityscapes, or still life, or portraits, or most of what we take pictures of, you don't need a pro body, or pro zoom lenses.

I agree the used mamiya vs. a $25 pawn shop camera was a bit specious. I was trying to make a point (tho, in fairness, it would depend on the specific $25 camera).

A pro can get a good shot with a cheap camera because he understands the light, and the requirements of the shot, and the limitations of the camera he's using. He may prefer to not have to deal with those limitations, and indeed most Pro equipment is about getting prepared for ANY eventuality, regardless of their utility in any given shot. Because your client is on a timeframe and a budget and won't understand excuses. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily the only or even best way to get a shot.

A pro may choose a 70-200 2.8 because it is convenient. But the much cheaper 85/1.8 will be faster and sharper and for many circumstances will produce a much better shot. It's not pro glass, but will outperform the zoom (until you need 200mm)

Yes I use a Leica and a prime lens. A 30 year old Leica, and a 50 year old lens... Both are outperformed by newer cameras. I use them because I like them, not because they are the best. I like the feel, and the way it looks, and despite its many flaws - the way it shoots. I can show you better pictures I took with a $30 yashica rangefinder from the 60s, or much better shots from a mid-range dslr and 50/1.8... I carry the leica anyway.

For my professional work, I shoot mostly with a 20 year old 4x5 monorail camera and 30 year old lenses.

When I do use a dSLR or medium format back, I rent, not own. And the vast majority of pros do the same. The people who buy that shit are mostly lawyers and dentists who enjoy photography. Pros usually can't afford "pro" equipment (the big Phase One digital back starts at $32k, not including the camera and lenses). Better to have the clients pay for it.

I don't use autofocus, ever. I don't use zooms. I use pro digital bodies because I like the sensor size and resolution (which meet my client needs). It's rare that I am ever over ISO 400... and again, no autofocus or subject tracking, or even automatic exposure... I don't need 90% of what makes a pro body a pro body.

By all means, get good equipment. Get sharp, well performing lenses. But don't make the mistake of assuming that means only the pro-level, expensive ones. Or that any of them will be a magic bullet to better pictures.

Learn your equipment, its limitations, and its strengths, and you'll make better images. Do that first, then look at upgrading or changing equipment - not the other way around.

I think we're almost in agreement Rogue And of course I understand that good gear is useless in the hands of someone that doesn't know how to use it.

I guess the glass thing is important to me (not the body) because I saw such a drastic difference in my own photos, after years of trying to get what I was after using a modern consumer zoom that everyone said was "terrific". For me, better glass made my pictures "real" for the first time. And again, after years of f8 with a tripod, for me it really seemed like the magic bullet - or at least the thing that let me finally enjoy the photos I was taking.

The fact that your Canon 1.8 is 30 years old (really?) makes no difference to me - great glass is great glass! And the 1.8 tells me that light gets through it pretty darn easily no matter what f-stop you use. I still feel like it's easy for you to say these things because you have good gear already, but would you really want to go out with a 3.5-4.5 consumer zoom on your Leica? Do you even remember how limiting that is? And regardless of technical exposure and capture, I just find the images to be dull. I'm often challenged online as to whether I can pick out the photo with better glass, and I mostly win those. To me, the better glass (or in your case, the larger sensor area) provides a higher level of realism that is very noticeable to me. I'd rather have a cheap body with a killer lens, than a killer body with consumer glass.

(Also, I shoot portraits exclusively, so shallow DOF is a thing, and you can't do much with 3.5, but I'm trying to keep it even since I know you shoot landscapes, and great work by the way! I enjoyed your port)

Yes - we're probably mostly in agreement, and just niggling over semantics.

Yeah, the canon is from 1958 - made for their LTM rangefinders (I have the Canon P from the same year, also a great cam - I use a 50/1.2 from 1965 on it).

I'd rather have a cheap body with a killer lens, than a killer body with consumer glass.

Yes. I definitely agree with this. The trick for me is finding that killer glass for cheap. I'm ok with using older, non AF glass rather than spending on the new models unless there is a significant upgrade to the optical formula. And I guess that's why I get hung up on people thinking they need to pay a ton to get the pro gear. I buy a LOT of used gear to get better equipment than I could otherwise afford or convince my clients to pay for (but renting gear is still a big part of my working life).

Thanks for the compliment. I shoot the street stuff to relax and keep my eye in practice. The studio work and architecture is fun, but can quickly turn into a grind if I don't find a release for a less methodical way of shooting (the archi shoots can really take a toll on you, from a technical OCD perspective).

That's one of the things I love about Pentax DSLRs, you can use the old MF lenses and those show up on eBay for next to nothing, or at least makes getting some decent lenses much more affordable than, say, if I was buying brand new. AF ruins my shots as often as it saves them.

Totally with you guys on the cheap primes. Gotta love Ebay.

I probably couldn't live without AF though. The viewfinder on my D200 is like looking through a dark hole. I manual focus when I'm shooting older primes, but it is a struggle on my tiring eyes.

I'd love to try a rangefinder one of these days. I noticed Rogue was hand holding some pretty awesome shots! 1/30 with that clarity is pretty impressive.

I do a bunch of macro stuff with the d200 and a 60mm/2.8 micro - I know what you mean about the manual focus. But it's still better than the AF.