MICHAEL_61
Senior Member
Doesn't have to be film either:
http://www.betterlight.com/
I don't have one, but I wish...
http://lordofthelens.co.nz/
http://www.betterlight.com/
I don't have one, but I wish...
http://lordofthelens.co.nz/
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
If gears don't matter, why do pros use expensive stuff?
- Thread starter KennethKwok
- Start date
KennethKwok
Leading Member
Thanks so much. I have been wondering what view cam are.
Very good explanation.
When I was in primary and secondary school some twenty years+
ago, I went to a photo studio to have 2.5 inch x 2 inch school photos
taken.
I did remember the camera man uses a camera that looks like a
trolley. I believe he has the black cloth as well. He needs to
take a large wooden board (?Film back) back
and forth. Very occasionally he does a polaroid to make sure.
I suppose that's the magnificent view cam then.
Do you think so?
The prints are not expensive at all.
I have to wonder how I could have the "highest quality" photo
for such a low price.
Are these the "large format"
And Hasselblad (which I thought was king of camera) is only "medium
format", and around twice the sensor/film size of a 35mm.
I am very happy to find out about this. Thanks for your help.
Very good explanation.
When I was in primary and secondary school some twenty years+
ago, I went to a photo studio to have 2.5 inch x 2 inch school photos
taken.
I did remember the camera man uses a camera that looks like a
trolley. I believe he has the black cloth as well. He needs to
take a large wooden board (?Film back) back
and forth. Very occasionally he does a polaroid to make sure.
I suppose that's the magnificent view cam then.
Do you think so?
The prints are not expensive at all.
I have to wonder how I could have the "highest quality" photo
for such a low price.
Are these the "large format"
And Hasselblad (which I thought was king of camera) is only "medium
format", and around twice the sensor/film size of a 35mm.
I am very happy to find out about this. Thanks for your help.
Robert999
Leading Member
There are quite a few examples of LF camerawork on the web. I was just looking at these today:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spodzone/sets/72157600014660561/
I am personally going to buy a Shen Hao 4x5 sometime this year. I have been shooting studio and model shots quite a bit since I got my E-3, and realized I just like shooting landscapes and architecture more (which my 7-14mm lens is great for). But the quality that I can get from my Olympus just doesn't compare to what others can get from a 4x5 viewcamera, or lord forbid an 8x10. Ideally, I would use both the Oly and the LF camera - the Olympus to scout locations and shots, and the LF to actually take the end photo. And the Oly makes a good camera for travelling "light" and event/model photography.
In all I figure I will have to budget about £1500 for the LF setup, including camera, wide-angle lens and board, focus loupe, and a flat-bed scanner. If I find a good used lens that can come down a bit. And I have an HP flatbed scanner that might do the job to start with, but I will need to test it to see the quality that I can get. Considering that my E-3's 7-14mm lens costs £1100 itself, the equipment for LF is rather inexpensive - but obviously your real cost will be in film and processing (if you don't do it yourself).
--
Robert
Olympus E-3 & E-500, 7-14mm, 14-54mm, 40-150mm, 30mm
Olympus 1030SW P&S
Yashica Lynx-1000
http://www.flickr.com/photos/spodzone/sets/72157600014660561/
I am personally going to buy a Shen Hao 4x5 sometime this year. I have been shooting studio and model shots quite a bit since I got my E-3, and realized I just like shooting landscapes and architecture more (which my 7-14mm lens is great for). But the quality that I can get from my Olympus just doesn't compare to what others can get from a 4x5 viewcamera, or lord forbid an 8x10. Ideally, I would use both the Oly and the LF camera - the Olympus to scout locations and shots, and the LF to actually take the end photo. And the Oly makes a good camera for travelling "light" and event/model photography.
In all I figure I will have to budget about £1500 for the LF setup, including camera, wide-angle lens and board, focus loupe, and a flat-bed scanner. If I find a good used lens that can come down a bit. And I have an HP flatbed scanner that might do the job to start with, but I will need to test it to see the quality that I can get. Considering that my E-3's 7-14mm lens costs £1100 itself, the equipment for LF is rather inexpensive - but obviously your real cost will be in film and processing (if you don't do it yourself).
--
Robert
Olympus E-3 & E-500, 7-14mm, 14-54mm, 40-150mm, 30mm
Olympus 1030SW P&S
Yashica Lynx-1000
Michael Firstlight
Veteran Member
The basic notion is that you want to have gear that is equal to or somewhat better than your needs and skills (for growth). When you do everything else right and you still don't get te results you want, it can sometimes be the gear (rare for most, but it happens). Want to go print big and get amazing quality - then optics and sensor quality really matter; want to overcome adverse conditions - then features matter.
I agree with an earlier poster - an entry level camera and lens is suitable for the vast majority.
Regards,
Mike
I agree with an earlier poster - an entry level camera and lens is suitable for the vast majority.
Regards,
Mike
It's one of those hot button topics that spark heated arguments cuz everyone has an opinion, but IMO it does matter, otherwise pros gear wouldn't exist. In tech equipment, there's no such thing as pro ipod, but there is pro digital camera. Why?
Here's two sides of the argument form writiers who know more than most of us:
It doesn't matter: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
It does matter: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml
Here's two sides of the argument form writiers who know more than most of us:
It doesn't matter: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
It does matter: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cameras-matter.shtml
I think when people say the gear doesn't matter, it's when people are asking, "XSi or the D60 for my first dSLR?" In that case, it doesn't matter. Both cameras are very capable, and it really depends on the user.
Your question is a little vague too, because the gear does matter when you are comparing a Kodak P&S to the Canon 1Ds MKIII or something. Also, lens makes all the difference, only the body is similar.
At least that's my take on it...
Your question is a little vague too, because the gear does matter when you are comparing a Kodak P&S to the Canon 1Ds MKIII or something. Also, lens makes all the difference, only the body is similar.
At least that's my take on it...
Heck, I've prolly said something like that? If I did, it was an attempt to keep it simple (and perhaps provocative)...
A better and more correct statement would be that regardless of the equipment, a good photographer can take a good pic. Cameras are just tools.
Each camera has SOMETHING it is good at. My Nikon 5700 still takes great macro shots of small flowers. My Sony R1 still takes great landscapes, portraits, and street shots. My new Nikon D300 is a perfect tool for capturing racing (car) shots and low-light candids.
But it's silly to suggest that my 5700 can compete with the D300 when I need to focus on a racing car travelling 150 MPH at night. Each of the various photographic tools we have access to have capabilities...we must learn to use each in the best way possible. Part of that learning process involves grabbing the best tool out of our kit.
--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'
A better and more correct statement would be that regardless of the equipment, a good photographer can take a good pic. Cameras are just tools.
Each camera has SOMETHING it is good at. My Nikon 5700 still takes great macro shots of small flowers. My Sony R1 still takes great landscapes, portraits, and street shots. My new Nikon D300 is a perfect tool for capturing racing (car) shots and low-light candids.
But it's silly to suggest that my 5700 can compete with the D300 when I need to focus on a racing car travelling 150 MPH at night. Each of the various photographic tools we have access to have capabilities...we must learn to use each in the best way possible. Part of that learning process involves grabbing the best tool out of our kit.
--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700, Sony R1, Nikon D300
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
Bridge Blog: http://www.here-ugo.com/BridgeBlog/
'Experience: Discovering that a claw hammer will bend nails.
Epiphany: Discovering that a claw hammer is two tools...'
KennethKwok
Leading Member
Thanks.
Those are nice links.
So, in my hands, with same skill level,
better camera and better glass still would give better photos to some extent.
Yet, probably a great difference is seen if the "class" jumped:
e.g. from cell phone camera TO point and shoot
TO Nikon DX/APS TO Nikon Full frame/FX/35mm
TO medium format TO large format.
But semi professional Nikon D300 should still look better than
consumer Nikon D40 camera body. I asked in another thread, and most
feel that Nikon D300 is not very heavy (!?) and it should look better
than point and shoot.(Sony DSC-H5)
I now own Nikon:
D300 + 18-200mm/3.5-5.6 + 35mm/2 + Flash SB800
I assume that nicer and more expensive glass is not going to make much
of a difference to me, as I mainly shoot family photos, and of my 2 year old
daughter.
And on that topic, would Nikon 12-24mm f/4.0 DX give me better results?
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 would be too expensive and heavy and too good for me,
although every one seem to like it so much.
Professionals have professional needs which mostly do not apply to my
family photo taking. I don't even feel brave enough to be a wedding
photographer for friends.
Many thanks.
Those are nice links.
So, in my hands, with same skill level,
better camera and better glass still would give better photos to some extent.
Yet, probably a great difference is seen if the "class" jumped:
e.g. from cell phone camera TO point and shoot
TO Nikon DX/APS TO Nikon Full frame/FX/35mm
TO medium format TO large format.
But semi professional Nikon D300 should still look better than
consumer Nikon D40 camera body. I asked in another thread, and most
feel that Nikon D300 is not very heavy (!?) and it should look better
than point and shoot.(Sony DSC-H5)
I now own Nikon:
D300 + 18-200mm/3.5-5.6 + 35mm/2 + Flash SB800
I assume that nicer and more expensive glass is not going to make much
of a difference to me, as I mainly shoot family photos, and of my 2 year old
daughter.
And on that topic, would Nikon 12-24mm f/4.0 DX give me better results?
Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 would be too expensive and heavy and too good for me,
although every one seem to like it so much.
Professionals have professional needs which mostly do not apply to my
family photo taking. I don't even feel brave enough to be a wedding
photographer for friends.
Many thanks.
Dejan Malikovski
Senior Member
From all the answers you can see that the camera does matter. If someone has the money for a D60+17-55mm why not recommend it to him? After all it IS the best.
--
How many megapixels you need from a camera:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html
--
How many megapixels you need from a camera:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html
Ikari120378
Active member
I've seen so many people up until now who want to be moderate (but denying) about camera things, or in this brand vs that brand debates, saying "it's the man, not the camera". Trying to standout from the crowd of feud, and saying that they are the best that whatever camera you give them should do the job well, trying to make the "camera-oriented people" feel that the whole debate is rubbish.
"The man, not the camera" is absolutely right, in certain term. In reality, could you shoot a shining full moon above you with a cellphone camera, or a super compact camera? No, you'll end up with a black background with a bright white ellipse, nothing more. Not to mention how severe the blur would also become.
In old real feuds like in canon vs nikon's, with "can you shoot in low light with ISO 3200?". Yes you can with both, but will end up with a very different result. One is better and a lot more usable. You can shoot exactly the same very attractive angle with both, but yield a different result. Today, the feud heated again when things are turning upside down. The other said "I can make images from a cellphone as good as ones taken from SLR, because I'm a great image manipulation artist, I'm good with image editors". It is one the rubbish itself. Imagine shooting a racing car in action from a distant, you'll get every detail from the high megapixels of the SLR, the high shutter speed that freezes time at above 1/1000s, more focused object with long zoom lens, etc., etc. What would you think such image manipulation artist do with his cellphone image of the racing car at exactly the same event..?
The angle, and the result, implying that there are different terms.
In short, "the man" defines the angles taken, composition etc., to make photographs, while "the camera" providing features, and quality in processing the images. The race in camera world is all about image quality, never in photography quality. Photography is an art so that it belongs to the man, while the image merely belongs to the sensor, circuitry, and mechanical things.
So when people are feuding about noise performance, or this and that of particular cameras, don't stand out in between and say such silly things as "the man only". It's a denial. You'd absolutely pick your SLR instead of your pocket P&S when you want higher quality images, right?
"The man, not the camera" is absolutely right, in certain term. In reality, could you shoot a shining full moon above you with a cellphone camera, or a super compact camera? No, you'll end up with a black background with a bright white ellipse, nothing more. Not to mention how severe the blur would also become.
In old real feuds like in canon vs nikon's, with "can you shoot in low light with ISO 3200?". Yes you can with both, but will end up with a very different result. One is better and a lot more usable. You can shoot exactly the same very attractive angle with both, but yield a different result. Today, the feud heated again when things are turning upside down. The other said "I can make images from a cellphone as good as ones taken from SLR, because I'm a great image manipulation artist, I'm good with image editors". It is one the rubbish itself. Imagine shooting a racing car in action from a distant, you'll get every detail from the high megapixels of the SLR, the high shutter speed that freezes time at above 1/1000s, more focused object with long zoom lens, etc., etc. What would you think such image manipulation artist do with his cellphone image of the racing car at exactly the same event..?
The angle, and the result, implying that there are different terms.
In short, "the man" defines the angles taken, composition etc., to make photographs, while "the camera" providing features, and quality in processing the images. The race in camera world is all about image quality, never in photography quality. Photography is an art so that it belongs to the man, while the image merely belongs to the sensor, circuitry, and mechanical things.
So when people are feuding about noise performance, or this and that of particular cameras, don't stand out in between and say such silly things as "the man only". It's a denial. You'd absolutely pick your SLR instead of your pocket P&S when you want higher quality images, right?
udaman
Veteran Member
Pro line lens's resolve higher LPM than Consumer Line Len's, They produce more detail and sharpness in the final image. typically 15%-25% more...The Material used is less plastic and more alloys, and the optical elements are corrected to a tighter CA tolerance and Flair tolerance. Most are also weather sealed for light rain and snow conditions...
They are heaver to use in the longer zooms. The Consumer/Semipro Len's, for the most part are more than acceptable in sharpness and resolution for most of us soccer dads/moms, and some of us amateur hobbyist. A few may need an exotic lens for specialized applications (Birding comes to mind).
The bodies are similar too...Better Build materials, Faster AF, Faster Exposure advance to the next capture, Duel CPU's, larger Buffer, Better High ISO performance, Tighter Build body Tolerances, FP Shutter is built for over 100,000 plus exposures.
For most of us, as mentioned in many other posts, these advantages may not be utilized without proper knowledge of application of them to take full advantage of there possibilities.
PLA54 (Udaman)
--
PLA54
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Hi,
Most pro's and their camera have less features: pro's use their brains not mode and scene menus. And a lot of them were happily using the Pentax K1000 until digital came along. And look at film cameras for pro's. Feature-less by today's digital standards. MF only gave you focusing by hand, TTL metering and that was that. Not even "P" mode, or "A" mode or "S" mode.
Af was the only "feature" people jumped for joy over... Except those with CRF's.
And have a look at a 10" x 8" or the baby %2x4" for cameras without "features".
Regards, David
PS Also a point; customers expect you to have the latest gear. Try turning up to do a wedding with (say) a M2, three rolls of film, flash gun, a meter and a couple of lenses and you'll not get any more work...
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
Hi,
Much as I liked the pictures in the link, I can't see what the point was. View, stand or tech cameras are mainly used because of the lens and film movements possible. Meaning taking pictures with the lens and film nothing like they are in a digital but twisted all over the place for perspective and sharpness control. Look up Scheimpflug and Sinar on Google for enlightenment.
And a word or two about the costs; the last box or two of 5" x 4" sheet film I picked up cost about £15 a box of 10 sheets and about £3 or £4 to develop a sheet. So £45 to £55 for 10 negatives and still no prints from them. It's still un-opened somewhere but several years over its DB date, btw...
FWIW, I think anyone can improve the quality of their pictures by sitting down one evening and RTFMing. That's something pro's do that no one else seems to think important.
Learn that aperture controls DoF and high shutter speeds (say 1/500th) stop movement and, again, you'll be way ahead of the pack.
Then spend a day playing with the camera and trying out shutter speed and aperture combinations and noting and learning from from your mistakes and, again, you'll be some way ahead of the pack.
Buy an elderly book about photography that deals with film and you'll not be distracted by the gear, but can read about composition and so on. That's far more important imo.
And invest in a tripod and cable release before trading up and wasting money. Better still, invest in a secondhand exposure meter and play with it (good ones are about £5 on ebay). You'll be amazed what you see after a while.
OK rant over; I'll take a tablet and lie down...
Regards, David
Much as I liked the pictures in the link, I can't see what the point was. View, stand or tech cameras are mainly used because of the lens and film movements possible. Meaning taking pictures with the lens and film nothing like they are in a digital but twisted all over the place for perspective and sharpness control. Look up Scheimpflug and Sinar on Google for enlightenment.
And a word or two about the costs; the last box or two of 5" x 4" sheet film I picked up cost about £15 a box of 10 sheets and about £3 or £4 to develop a sheet. So £45 to £55 for 10 negatives and still no prints from them. It's still un-opened somewhere but several years over its DB date, btw...
FWIW, I think anyone can improve the quality of their pictures by sitting down one evening and RTFMing. That's something pro's do that no one else seems to think important.
Learn that aperture controls DoF and high shutter speeds (say 1/500th) stop movement and, again, you'll be way ahead of the pack.
Then spend a day playing with the camera and trying out shutter speed and aperture combinations and noting and learning from from your mistakes and, again, you'll be some way ahead of the pack.
Buy an elderly book about photography that deals with film and you'll not be distracted by the gear, but can read about composition and so on. That's far more important imo.
And invest in a tripod and cable release before trading up and wasting money. Better still, invest in a secondhand exposure meter and play with it (good ones are about £5 on ebay). You'll be amazed what you see after a while.
OK rant over; I'll take a tablet and lie down...
Regards, David
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum