Interesting adage
Discussion
I came across this:
'A little bit of cheap gear will produce a lot a great pictures if you're willing to stick with film & paper...Otherwise you need a fortune's worth of expensive gear to produce the same great pictures.'
How very true (as our battered wallets will testify). But what it doesn't mention is the unbounded extra flexibility of digital which you don't appreciate until you get there and start experimenting with it.
'A little bit of cheap gear will produce a lot a great pictures if you're willing to stick with film & paper...Otherwise you need a fortune's worth of expensive gear to produce the same great pictures.'
How very true (as our battered wallets will testify). But what it doesn't mention is the unbounded extra flexibility of digital which you don't appreciate until you get there and start experimenting with it.
I disagree. Even the most expensive and technically advanced camera won't make a bad picture look good.
Ansel Adams said: "There is nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea."
I think that rather than throwing money and technology at it, what really pays dividends is taking your time to work out what you want to take a photo of, and thinking about it. I find using a tripod really useful for this as it forces you to slow down and consider what you're doing more.
Some interesting and useful articles here
Ansel Adams said: "There is nothing worse than a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea."
I think that rather than throwing money and technology at it, what really pays dividends is taking your time to work out what you want to take a photo of, and thinking about it. I find using a tripod really useful for this as it forces you to slow down and consider what you're doing more.
Some interesting and useful articles here
Technology and additional cost helps you take that great picture, but is not a prerequisite.
What are the chances of taking a snap of a bird in flight if you didn't have your 8fps, super-fast AF computer, AFS/USM and VR/IS? Very small.
And as for digital, I think there are far more benefits than simply having the ability to be trigger-happy without pain on the bank balance. I found that digital expotentially accelerated my learning and appreciation of some of the finer points of taking pictures, whereas before I was just bumbling around on film. Being able to see the results of what you've just taken immediately is *THE* biggest single benefit IMO.
Make no mistake - good gear is nothing if you don't learn or care for taking good photographs. But good gear certainly makes taking good photographs a lot easier, and allows you to produce what you creatively picture with minimal fuss.
I think good gear is worth every penny, and when asked for advice, I always say buy the best you can afford.
D
What are the chances of taking a snap of a bird in flight if you didn't have your 8fps, super-fast AF computer, AFS/USM and VR/IS? Very small.
And as for digital, I think there are far more benefits than simply having the ability to be trigger-happy without pain on the bank balance. I found that digital expotentially accelerated my learning and appreciation of some of the finer points of taking pictures, whereas before I was just bumbling around on film. Being able to see the results of what you've just taken immediately is *THE* biggest single benefit IMO.
Make no mistake - good gear is nothing if you don't learn or care for taking good photographs. But good gear certainly makes taking good photographs a lot easier, and allows you to produce what you creatively picture with minimal fuss.
I think good gear is worth every penny, and when asked for advice, I always say buy the best you can afford.
D
But you see, that's the beauty of photography - there's never a rutted track. Light is everywhere and it's all we need to take good pictures.
Ok, so if you don't do sports/action shots then you don't need 8fps, but generally being able to focus better, meter better and get sharper shots is NEVER a bad thind.
Edited to say: one other thing where the car analogy fails is to do with backwards compatibility. An F1 car, though the fastest, is hardly the most practical or the most economical. This doesn't apply to camera kit - generally speaking a £5000 dSLR can do anything a £1000 dSLR does, and then some. Whenever you buy higher-end kit, the only thing you compromise on is cost/value and physical mass. Apart from that you always gain and never lose. So an F1 car may be useless on a rutted track when compared to an RS6, but in the camera world an F1-grade Nikon dSLR will do any track better than an RS6-grade one would.
D
>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Friday 31st December 17:25
Ok, so if you don't do sports/action shots then you don't need 8fps, but generally being able to focus better, meter better and get sharper shots is NEVER a bad thind.
Edited to say: one other thing where the car analogy fails is to do with backwards compatibility. An F1 car, though the fastest, is hardly the most practical or the most economical. This doesn't apply to camera kit - generally speaking a £5000 dSLR can do anything a £1000 dSLR does, and then some. Whenever you buy higher-end kit, the only thing you compromise on is cost/value and physical mass. Apart from that you always gain and never lose. So an F1 car may be useless on a rutted track when compared to an RS6, but in the camera world an F1-grade Nikon dSLR will do any track better than an RS6-grade one would.
D
>> Edited by -DeaDLocK- on Friday 31st December 17:25
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff