What kind of camera is that?

Michael Lucas said:

Isn't it wonderful that we are all becoming better photographers,
if only for the instant feedback that we are getting.

I suppose it's like any thing you practise at, if you get to see
your result straight away, you will quickly learn to improve.

Can you imagine hitting golf balls into a black night, then going
out the next morning to see how you did. Without writing down a
number for each golf ball and recording how you did with each shot,
the field of balls would mean exactly nothing to you.

However, practise will only make you a better player, as I am sure
all people hitting balls on a driving range want to be a Tiger
Woods, but we know that we won't be that goos, yet we still pay
enormous amounts of money to buy the best clubs/balls/equipment to
see a small improvement in out game.

I guess in a way, photography is so very similar, with only the few
who will ever master the art, while the majority just play
putt-putt (mini) golf?

Click to expand...

Doug Baird said:

I like your post.

I am new to this forum and I am new to photography. My love for
photography is not new. I have spent the last two weeks going through
all of the archives of this site, sometimes until 2:00AM. What fun!!!
You guys are great the way you support each other.

I am 33 and for the last 14 years I have been working my butt off
getting
my education and building a company. It is finally paying off and I am
starting to come up for air.

I am the person that you are speaking of that buys the best equipment
and then try’s to figure it out. I approached golf the same way. I
understood that what I really needed was a swing. You cannot buy a
swing. So, I found the best teachers I could find, I purchased the
best equipment money could buy and I went to work. Key being, I
went to work.

Why buy the best equipment if one does not know how to use it???

Anytime you start something new ninety percent of it is in the head.
If you purchase the best equipment the mind can never say, " you know,
if you had a better lens that might not have happened ".

So, with the exception of not having the 1D. Thanks to this forum,
I think
I at least have the best equipment. Now my journey begins.

Life is allot of fun.

Click to expand...

murphy said:

That was a very good and well said rant.....

But where is your sample image? )

Murph

Click to expand...

Leo Reinhard said:

Before anyone flames me ( and it may be justified) I certainly am
aware that the improvements made in digital cameras have are a big
help in producing technically better pictures if the equipent is
mastered but I think we ( yes I'm included) often don't put in the
effort to achieve the best the camera can offer before jumping on
the next " complaint wagon"

I was about to apologize for this long rant, but I will not do so
because the above applies to me as well and I just had to get it
off my chest.
--
Leo R
D60: 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 28-135mm IS USM

Click to expand...

Michael Lucas said:

Can you imagine hitting golf balls into a black night, then going
out the next morning to see how you did. Without writing down a
number for each golf ball and recording how you did with each shot,
the field of balls would mean exactly nothing to you.

However, practise will only make you a better player, as I am sure
all people hitting balls on a driving range want to be a Tiger
Woods, but we know that we won't be that goos, yet we still pay
enormous amounts of money to buy the best clubs/balls/equipment to
see a small improvement in out game.

I guess in a way, photography is so very similar, with only the few
who will ever master the art, while the majority just play
putt-putt (mini) golf?

Click to expand...

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

Hey Murph,

Thanks. Sample image? I wasn't comparing this camera or that, so I
felt it wasn't an appropriate time. However, I posted lots of them
before.

Click to expand...

Member said:

It's funny... for a long time, whenever someone complained that the
AF system on the D60 made that camera completely inappopriate for
wedding use, I'd post some wedding shots taken in utter darkness,
nice and sharp. Whenever someone complained about ETTL, I'd do the
same, promising my examples were quite representative of all the
shots I made. Whenever anyone posted that you really had to have L
glass to get things right, I'd post shots made with my wedding
standard, the 24-85. Not once did the naysayers return with a
comment that the example I posted was poor photography. Just being
polite? In THIS forum? I don't think so.

Click to expand...

Member said:

I'm not a great photographer, but I learned to use the equipment I
have. In some ways, I selected the D60 for econoic reasons; I could
afford two of them for less than the cost of a singe 1D, and still
have lots of cash left over. And I viewed the 1D as sort of a
transition camera, knowing that an inevitably higher resolution
model would come along that I would want instead. As it turns out,
the D60s have been wonderful, and I have no need for anything more
at this time. There's nothing in the camera holding me back.
However, I don't think it would have made much difference if I had
been shooting with a 1D, D1x (which I own), D100, or S2 all summer.
My shots would probably be about the same. (Now, the Kodak 760
would be another story, as I frequently shoot single-handed!)

Click to expand...

BillCat said:

In theory my 35mm camera should be able to take good pictures, but
digital makes things so easy that I get photos that I'd never have
taken before.

Bill

DavidP said:

I generally think "I couldn't have done it without the excellent
fast glass and great camera".

And "if they only knew how much better they'd do with this camera,
and how much poorer with that camera I'd do".

Why? Simply because of the type of photography I'm doing.

I'd like to think I'm a lot better than those others out there with
their point/n/shoots trying to capture concert stuff. But I know
that with my camera, and 1/10 the pratice I've had, many of them
would probably be teaching me a lesson or two (or three).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

Maybe it's just me, and I'm not a great photographer, but I don't
think my photography would change hardly a diddly if I used Fuji,
Canon or Nikon. A great piece of equipment merely facilitates the
mind of the photographer. When I am asked "What kind of camera is
that?", I would love to be able to reply "It doesn't really
matter." To hear the arguments about D100 vs D60 vs 1D vs CCD vs
CMOS vs ETTL vs L and so forth, it really really really DOES matter.

... what a shame.

Click to expand...

Murphy said:

Now if I could just find the perfect wide angle lens, I will be
happy for the next few months while I learn how to use it

Click to expand...

Leo Reinhard said:

I may be wrong but I think many who responded here are missing the
point. Michael please correct me if I am wrong . The " wow you must
have a great camera" comments are coming from people who have never
taken the time or made an effort to learn how to take " great
pictures" and so do not realize that photography is an art form
learned by sometimes years of effort.

Click to expand...

DavidP said:

It takes BOTH the photographer AND the camera to be excellent to
give excellent results in many cases. For some types of shots,
the camera is less important, to be sure.

Paul V said:

I've quoted Lance several times this past week in these forums:

"It's not about the bike."

Click to expand...

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Click to expand...

Eamon Hickey said:

A decent camera is sometimes (though far from always) a necessary
condition for a good photograph. It's never a sufficient condition.
For the vast majority of subjects, the photographer's eye and skill
is 98% of the equation and the camera and lens are 2%. (Okay, I
have not actually verified those percentages.)

Click to expand...

Paul V said:

You guys are missing the spirit of the quote...

Man...some people just want to brush any reality away when it comes
to people's accomplishments and comparing themselves to greatness...

Do your homework, learn your craft, practice your art...THEN come
back and put yourself on the line.

Sorry for the rant...

Click to expand...

John Mason said:

Here is a sample of what I mean:

http://www.fototime.com/2494279A7A1D75A/orig.jpg

In this shot it was dim. I only had my little PS S20. We were on
a group trip and the group is out of site rushing to get on the
train. I told my son to hold real still as I visuallized that the
business people will be blurred and rushing to the train whilst -
if my son held still enough - he would be clearly a non-business
person and be clear. I then shot the pano hand held at a low
shutter speed. I got what was in my minds eye. In fact, if I had
my pano head, good minolta 700si (at that time), I would have
missed the shot and the train.

Click to expand...

John Mason said:

I know what you mean - there is a big jump from a point and shoot
to the DSLR. But, I challenge you to look at film based shots lots
of restruants have on their walls at the national chains. Walk up
to them and I think you'll be shocked at how grainny and unsharp
they are. I some cases I've seen shots where the Olympus Point and
Shoot would have done a better enlargement than what I saw.

I went on an England trip 3 years ago with just a Canon S20 and I
brought back all sorts of shots, some of which are on the walls of
the art department at a college in Indiana because they look so
good.

In landscape its the framing/timing/perspective.

In portraits its capturing the moment/lighting/distance.

It's always lighting/DOF/angle etc. These major photographic
variables really don't care what tool you use. There will be a
difference in the quality of final output as one moves up the
photographic tool ladder, but these main photographic variables
that are the photographers choice really are tool independent.

Here is a sample of what I mean:

http://www.fototime.com/2494279A7A1D75A/orig.jpg

In this shot it was dim. I only had my little PS S20. We were on
a group trip and the group is out of site rushing to get on the
train. I told my son to hold real still as I visuallized that the
business people will be blurred and rushing to the train whilst -
if my son held still enough - he would be clearly a non-business
person and be clear. I then shot the pano hand held at a low
shutter speed. I got what was in my minds eye. In fact, if I had
my pano head, good minolta 700si (at that time), I would have
missed the shot and the train.

I look at photography as drawing with light. Yes the tool will
increase the ultimate quality one can get, but especially now, the
tools are getting so good they really just aren't that much of a
factor anymore. And the tools were never a factor at all in
learning to see and learning to draw with light.

I know you are doing portraits and clearly you have made a huge
jump from your Olympus to the D30 in the clarity of the portraits.
Perhaps in a portrait setting having a "real camera" is important
to have the subject take the session seriously. So I know where
you are coming from. I just wanted to help others reading this
post to understand where the original poster was coming from.

Hope your having fun!

Click to expand...

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

This past weekend, I was shooting a wedding where the bride had
displayed a collection of portraits we had done of her earlier. As
I was standing near it during the reception, someone joined me by
the framed prints and remarked how much they admired them.

"Did you make those?"

"Yes, I did. About a month ago."

"Really? Wow, they're really nice. You must have a really nice
camera. [pointing to the D60 in my hand...] Did you use that one?
What kind of camera is that?"

This is a question that many of us have heard, and we all inwardly
groan when we hear it again.

But I could not help but find a touch of irony, reflecting about
all the recent posts about this camera vs that one, and this
feature vs that, what with the flurry of new releases, beginning
with the D60.

And so, as I reflect, I must ask those who complain about the D60
AF, who brag that only "L" will do, who post that the D100 blows
away the D60, who complain about the "silver dial", who exchanged
their camera body because their was a fingerprint on the LCD, who
get into arguments over 24-85 vs 28-70 vs 28-135, or Metz vs Sunpak
vs Canon Speedlite, who say that "only a 1D will do"....

.... when someone sees a photo of yours and says "Great shot! You
must have a nice camera!"... are you STILL "humble" enough to think
that all those things are what is really important?

Or, when the question arises, do you silently think "Idiot! It's
not the camera that matters, it's the PHOTOGRAPHER!"

I work hard just trying to be competent at what I do. If I thought
for a minute that there was a magic lens, special flash,
certain-colored dial, or even brand name on the camera body that
would make a me better photographer, I stop wasting time trying to
learn all I can and just fork over the money for whatever would do
the job.

I remember when I was a music student (my degrees are in music).
Alot of fellow musicians in school got into a "gadget fad" for a
while. They started buying every little sound enhancer, vibration
reducer, harmonic thinga-ma-doo-hicky possible that could go on
their instruments, trying to achive that ideal sound. And, to an
extent, these things did work. However, shortly after adopting
their latest discovery, they began sounding just like their old
self again. They had changed the instrument, but not THEMSELVES.
Slowly but surely, they began to adapt to the changes in the
instrument so that they continued to sound the same as they always
had.

I wonder, in a way, if we are not the same in photography. Would
YOUR photos be that much different if you had a D100 instead of a
D60? I would suspect the difference would be ultimately be
negligable, and certainly FAR less than any difference that might
evolve when one patiently and diligently tries to learn and improve
one's self.

I was really disappointed to see that there were 50-60, 70 or
whatever the obscene number of responses there were to the Nikon
guy who dropped by to bash the D60. I opened the thread only to see
if the author bothered to post a sample image. He had not. Fifty or
more replies to his trolling and we don't even know if he is a
competent photographer, much less if he proved that shooting with a
D100 would provide better images.

I'm sorry if this seems like nothing more than a rant. It may be,
but it's one I've been reflecting on a bit.

Regards to all

M

Click to expand...

DavidP #28649 said:

It's a combo of the photographer, the camera, and experience.

Click to expand...