Reading mode: Light Dark

What kind of camera is that?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Michael Thomas Mitchell
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Its an interesting point of conversation. Buying a better camera won't increase your skills as a photographer. Does it enable you to capture better images - yes, the potential is there - you just have to be capable of taking advantage of it.

I just bought a D60 a few weeks ago and am moving away from shooting film. The D60 is a better body than my Elan 2E and as such, provides me with a better tool for shooting. I'm an amateur and want to keep it that way, however, each time I go out I try to push my abilities and to gather a greater understanding of the techniques and technology. Only through understanding these elements will I be able to take advantage of better equpment. (And perhaps realize the disadvantages of less advanced gear.)

I will say that the D60 has freed up my shooting and I have learned more in the last couple of weeks than I have in a while. Primarily because there's freedom to take many exposures and to see what effect minute changes to the camera's controls have on the final image.

I'm enthralled with my D60.

http://www.themirrorpool.com

m.
 
David,

Just substitute "playing music" for "trying concert photrography" in your statement below...

It turns it into a ridiculous statement...photography is an art no different than music in this respect. No person is better IN ANY WAY because of having better equipment than "most amateurs"...

Paul
DavidP said:
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...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
D30, 50mm 1.4, 20mm 2.8
 
Is this kind of conversation happening more than it used to? Probably. A lot of people are experimenting with digital photography and are probably not getting the results they expect. When they put their shots on the web, they probably look okay, but when they print they probably don't. Getting good prints takes skill, taking good pictures takes skill.

Photo technology is definitely in transition and a lot of people are curious about how some people are managing to get great prints when they can't, or about what camera to buy if they haven't purchased one yet. Many probably don't yet realize that the printer and software and how you touched up in photoshop make more difference than the camera much of the time.

The technology (camera, printer, software) makes much more of a difference in digital photography than it did in 35mm film. As long as you didn't exceed the capabilities of the camera (or blow up the photo well past the sharpness delivered by the lens), it really didn't matter which 35mm camera you used. A disposable or an EOS-1V pointed at a medium-sized tree in overcast skies and then printed at 5x7 will probably be about the same (presuming that the disposable does at least get close to the right exposure, which it probably won't). Technique and choice of photo lab were everything in film.

I guess we will know that the transition is over when people stop asking these kinds of questions and just say whether or not they like the picture.
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?"
Click to expand...
 
Hmmmm, Michael. I think there is yet another angle to the clouded perception behind the typical comment, ""Really? Wow, they're really nice. You must have a great camera."

It seems to me, my experience also points to:
1) the lack of ART education in the viewer (aka The Arts),

2) our oh so shallow, quick-fix society based on grab-n-go throw-some-money-at-it aesthetics.

3a) The lack of master craftsmen.

3b) The idea 'Just do it and it'll be there/ok/fine/acceptable (fudging it). (I wonder how much of this was fostered by returning GI's from WWII who had a smattering of some real photo experience and of knowing how to work the system). [No flames please: I proudly fly our USA flag here].

3c)The idea: ‘Damn! That looks good, must be the ‘tool'"...b/c there is no concept of the time and persistence that went into the craft -ing of the artist that created the image, and with digital, we can definitely say, ‘the final image'.

Hence, what are good answers to the age-old question, "Wow, you must have a great camera"? Here are mine:
a) Yeah.
b) Uh huh
c) (Blank stares are still free)
d)

Best Regards,
--Moe Onesandzeroes
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
Thank you, thank you for reading my post and taking the time to
understand what I was really saying. I believe in the idea that you
don't really understand someone's viewpoint until you are able to
say it back to them with their total agreement. You definately
understand where I'm coming from.

Even great photographers can blame their equipment. And certainly,
the equipment must have the fundamental capability to do the job.
(For example, to be waterproof for underwater photography.)
But I
certainly admire the individual for whom the little things don't
really matter that much.
. . .
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."
. . .
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.
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
"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?"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I agree with this aspect, Michael...

The instant feedback of digital photography is invaluable as a learning tool.

So if you want to say that having an expensive digi-camera is making you a better photographer BECAUSE it's a better learning tool...then OK, I'll go along with that.

What do you think, DavidP?

Paul
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...
--
D30, 50mm 1.4, 20mm 2.8
 
My D60 is making me a better photographer... not because it is better than my A2e (actually it has less functions). I'm getting better because I'm more willing to try things out without worrying about the cost of developing a roll of film (and then buying a replacement). I'm happy to go out and shoot 200-300 shots and try to figure out why the bad ones are bad and why the good are good.

I'm having a blast!

And you are right... I cringe thinking about the next time I go to an event and take a few pictures... "wow, those shots were great! It must be the camera." :-~ If they think the inspiration comes from Canon (or Nikon) that's fine. I know it comes from somewhere else.
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...
--
Regards,

Bill

Canon A2e, D60
Canon 24-85mm, 28mm f/1.8, 50 f/1.4
Sigma 15-30mm, Sigma 50-500mm
Nikon Coolpix 995

http://o2bnme.fotki.com/
http://o2bnme.fotki.com/portfolio/miscellaneous/d60_test_shots/
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=20514
 
Yes, but he was using a Hasselblad which is still considered to produce some of the best quality images available. He was using the correct tool for the job.

Most good photographers use good equipment. The quality of the output enhances their photographic eye.

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck
Eamon Hickey said:
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...
Yes. And one more time: Yes.

This lesson -- Michael's main point -- was brought home to me many
years ago when I worked in a camera store. I had a customer, a very
successful local dentist, who got hooked on photography. He bought
all the best Nikon gear -- F4 cameras (this was 1990-ish), ED
lenses etc. etc. -- and went on long trips to exotic locations and
invariably came back with thousands of really mediocre photographs.
One day he spent two hours at the counter with me going over slide
after boring, mediocre slide of Thailand, asking me what was wrong
with each one. He was at his wit's end because he knew they were
boring pictures.

He said, "Look, haven't I bought the right equipment? The guys at
National Geographic are using this same stuff, right? We're going
to the same places. My pictures don't look anything like theirs."

I'd been though this with him before, but finally thought of a way
to make him think about what he was saying. I said, Neil, those
guys spend a lifetime perfecting their profession. You spent a
lifetime learning dentistry. Could a National Geographic
photographer go out and buy the same dentist's chair, surgical
light, tools, and dental drill that you have? Yeah, he said. Would
you let him work on your teeth?

And one more thing, since I'm up on my soapbox, for everyone on
this thread arguing the merits of their particular favorite digital
SLR for wedding work. Almost all the most beautiful wedding and
portrait work I've ever seen -- and I've seen lots of it from the
best, nationally renowned portrait and wedding shooters -- was shot
with Hasselblads (or some other manual medium format camera
designed, for all practical purposes, in the 1950s or 1960s) with
Vivitar or Metz flashes (designed, basically, in the 1970s). No
autofocus, no TTL flash, often no motor drive, almost always no
autoexposure of any kind, usually not even a zoom lens. Watching a
top wedding photographer -- the kind of guy who gets $5000-$10000 a
wedding -- work with a Hasselblad, a 50mm lens, and a couple of
Vivitars is a lesson in what professional skill is all about.

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.)

Sorry for the pontificating.
Click to expand...
 
Eamon,

You said it all in a much more elegant way than I could ever hope to.

Thank you...

Paul

------------------------------
Eamon Hickey said:
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...
Yes. And one more time: Yes.

This lesson -- Michael's main point -- was brought home to me many
years ago when I worked in a camera store. I had a customer, a very
successful local dentist, who got hooked on photography. He bought
all the best Nikon gear -- F4 cameras (this was 1990-ish), ED
lenses etc. etc. -- and went on long trips to exotic locations and
invariably came back with thousands of really mediocre photographs.
One day he spent two hours at the counter with me going over slide
after boring, mediocre slide of Thailand, asking me what was wrong
with each one. He was at his wit's end because he knew they were
boring pictures.

He said, "Look, haven't I bought the right equipment? The guys at
National Geographic are using this same stuff, right? We're going
to the same places. My pictures don't look anything like theirs."

I'd been though this with him before, but finally thought of a way
to make him think about what he was saying. I said, Neil, those
guys spend a lifetime perfecting their profession. You spent a
lifetime learning dentistry. Could a National Geographic
photographer go out and buy the same dentist's chair, surgical
light, tools, and dental drill that you have? Yeah, he said. Would
you let him work on your teeth?

And one more thing, since I'm up on my soapbox, for everyone on
this thread arguing the merits of their particular favorite digital
SLR for wedding work. Almost all the most beautiful wedding and
portrait work I've ever seen -- and I've seen lots of it from the
best, nationally renowned portrait and wedding shooters -- was shot
with Hasselblads (or some other manual medium format camera
designed, for all practical purposes, in the 1950s or 1960s) with
Vivitar or Metz flashes (designed, basically, in the 1970s). No
autofocus, no TTL flash, often no motor drive, almost always no
autoexposure of any kind, usually not even a zoom lens. Watching a
top wedding photographer -- the kind of guy who gets $5000-$10000 a
wedding -- work with a Hasselblad, a 50mm lens, and a couple of
Vivitars is a lesson in what professional skill is all about.

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.)

Sorry for the pontificating.
Click to expand...
--
D30, 50mm 1.4, 20mm 2.8
 
I think (in some cases, depending on the type of photgraphy) it's MORE than just the digital aspect.

I think I'm taking better pictures now with my 1D than I was with my D30 (concert shots) simply because of the better capabilities of the camera.

I think those who shoot sports would also agree with that.

Does having the 1D (vs the D30) actually make me a better photographer? Hmmmm, probably not. But I think it does result in better images. Definitely better technically. And I think better in other ways (composition, getting "the moment") because the camera allows me to focus more on those things.

So, just like digital helps me learn faster/better with its quick feedback, the 1D's better capabilities help me concentrate more on the things that make good photos.

So, no, the 1D doesn't make me a better photographer. But it HELPS me become better than I would without it.
Paul V said:
The instant feedback of digital photography is invaluable as a
learning tool.

So if you want to say that having an expensive digi-camera is
making you a better photographer BECAUSE it's a better learning
tool...then OK, I'll go along with that.

What do you think, DavidP?
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
I happen to be a "musician" (loosely defined), too. The musical instrument CAN and DOES make a difference. Certain guitars/pianos/whatever are just easier to play than others. It makes it easier to play and learn to play. And it's always more fun to learn when you like the way your instrument sounds.

It IS possible to "buy TOO cheap" of a beginner instrument, IMO.

You'll note in my first statement I said I was was "better" ( in quotes ) than most amateur concert photographers because of my equipment. The quotes were there for a reason. Mainly, because the IMAGES that I get are superior than the images of those confined to shoot with f/11 consumer point/n/shoot zooms.

It gets confusing, because "better" can be applied to the photographer, to the camera, and to the resulting images. Being "better" in either of the first two should result in better images. To a point.
Paul V said:
It turns it into a ridiculous statement...photography is an art no
different than music in this respect. No person is better IN ANY
WAY because of having better equipment than "most amateurs"...

Paul
DavidP said:
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...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
--
D30, 50mm 1.4, 20mm 2.8
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
 
Personally I feel the camera has everything to do with it. You can only take a picture as good as the camera or the film. Put a super great camera like a D60 in the hands of an average Joe, and you should get consitantly great shots.

Some people under buy when they make their camera purchases. If they would just spend a little more money and buy the better equipment to begin with, it would make all the difference in the world.

They usually step up . They buy a little cheap digital like a G2, then they realize they wanted something better. So they sell the G2 and buy another camera, but this time a little better than the G2 like the E20. Surprise, slowly their pictures get better! So they had a G2 for a year, then they have an E-20 for another year then they get a D30 or D60. Now when they take pictures they come out so much better than when they had the G2.

So the equipment is everything. If you have good equipment, you shouldautomatically be taking great shots.

Pete
 
Well, another way to look at this is that a great camera won't make you a great photographer.

A great photographer may be able to take some great photos with a crappy camera, but other photos may suffer from shortcomings of the equipment.

Neither is Lance Armstrong going to race the mountain stages on a 40lb beach cruiser. He may be great, but he will not be able to overcome the shortcomings of his equipment against close competition.

Andy
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...
 
Well, I would claim to have become a better photographer after getting my D30. But not really because it is the D30, more because it is the camera of choice for me now, and as a digital camera it gives me a lot of instant feedback - especially with tricky stuff - such as getting correct exposures using flash, etc...

-Inge
Arthur Li said:
DavidP said:
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).
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
.... 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!"
Click to expand...
--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly with what David and Michael said, I have
often reflected about the same things. I have had the same film
camera for 11 years but invested in lenses to improve the quality
of the images. Yes I have upgraded to the D60 but that hasn't made
me a better photographer at all, just someone with another
convenient tool to (hopefully) achieve the same end - ie a good
photograph. I have seen plenty of people produce better photos
than mine with nothing more than a P&S and a very good "eye" and
technique.
--
Arthur Li
http://www.pbase.com/akl
D60 + EOS 5
Click to expand...
 
I thought this forum is for technical issues of the Canon SLR. Is this
forum not dominated by it the camera or lens debates and not
the about the photographer or photography.

If someone make a lens comparison, those discussion are the
"hot" topics. It is the same lens comparison done by someone else a
month ago. I have lost track this year how many 70-200mm L 2.8 IS
and none IS lens people do here. I could be fifty or more and it will
go on. Guess what nothing new is learned.

Any discussions concerning the "photographer" and not the cameras
lens, ordering a D60, should I buy a D60 or D100,
get pushed to page two or three within one or two hours.

While I enjoy reading what you write and the photos that you post.
I really think you are swimming up stream on this one. It is a very
strong current and this discussion will soon be forgotten and things
will be back they way they have always been.

We have no moderator or FAQ here so things will not change.

Bill
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...
 
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...
--
billtoo

http://www.pbase.com/billtoo
 
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
Some have pointed out that shooting digitally has helped them
become better photographers. I agree. That has nothing to do,
however, with "Great image... you must have a nice camera!" I
don't see arguments about the advantages of digital around here
much. What I do see are arguments about silver buttons, ETTL, 1D vs
D60, D60 vs D100, L vs non-L, and other such things that matter
comparatively little.

For 99% of the shots I see posted around here, the specific camera
makes little difference. It's the photographer who has made the
difference.
Click to expand...
I, for one, have learned a great deal shooting digital. The freedom I have, knowing that I'm not "wasting film" when I take too many shots, has helped me not become a better photographer, but to be a more confident photographer. In shooting digital, I can learn from my mistakes with little expense. And having learned what I've learned so far, I've been able to move from the "I shot 400 shots in a row and hope to have one keeper" mentality to the "I'm going to try to take one shot and see if I can get a keeper with that one shot" mentality.

And I think I've finally reached the point where I can admit to myself and others that it's not the camera that messed up, it's me. Especially seeing the kind of photography Michael does, I feel that instead of criticising the AF mechanism on the D30, I should rise to the occasion and learn how it works and what shortcomings it has, and learn to work around/with it. This, I hope, is the next step I can take to becoming a better photographer, to adapt to my equipment and make it become a part of me, and using my skills to make up for what the equipment cannot do.

I posted a thread a few days ago, it was sort of a philosophical semi-rant about where my hobbies end up going.. but in that message I compared my current photography hobby to my previous music hobby. And in hindsight, I realized that the better a guitarist/bassist I became, the less it mattered to me what instruments/equipment I used. It took me around 7 years to get to the point where I could buy a cheaper instrument, and not feel like I had something inferior, but rather, make the instrument do more than I expected it to. In other words, instead of getting a nicer instrument to fill the gap, I stretched myself out to fill the gap (figuratively, of course). And I hope that's a trend that I can follow in photography.

--
jason: http://www.jcwphoto.net
 
Peter Gregg said:
Personally I feel the camera has everything to do with it. You can
only take a picture as good as the camera or the film. Put a super
great camera like a D60 in the hands of an average Joe, and you
should get consitantly great shots.
Click to expand...
You should, but you don't. I could put a D60 into the hands of my mother, and all I would get would be well-exposed 6MP snapshots.

That's assuming she didn't immediately hand it back because it had too many buttons.

Yes, I have a DSLR and L glass, because I want as few limitations on my photography as possible. Bad equipment can limit you, but to paraphrase a quote that's been running around, "Most equipment is better than most photographers."

I might miss a few features here and there, but I could get pretty much the same images if I were to use a Nikon system (I've owned both Nikon and Canon).

I could even get 70-80% with a G2--discounting ultra-wide, telephoto, limited DOF shots.

Photography is a lot more about knowing where to point the camera than it is about having the right camera to point.
 
Peter,

Once again, I refer you to a music analogy...

Putting a great instrument in the hands of a mediocre musician does not make him a better musician...sure, this guitar or that guitar may be a little easier to keep in tune or get closer to the sound you have in your head, but it definitely does not make him a better player.

And putting down the G2 is pretty pathetic...have you seen Pekka's G1 gallery? I'm hard pressed to find any of the D60/1D owners in this forum that come close to matching his G1 shots...

Paul
Peter Gregg said:
Personally I feel the camera has everything to do with it. You can
only take a picture as good as the camera or the film. Put a super
great camera like a D60 in the hands of an average Joe, and you
should get consitantly great shots.

Some people under buy when they make their camera purchases. If
they would just spend a little more money and buy the better
equipment to begin with, it would make all the difference in the
world.

They usually step up . They buy a little cheap digital like a G2,
then they realize they wanted something better. So they sell the G2
and buy another camera, but this time a little better than the G2
like the E20. Surprise, slowly their pictures get better! So they
had a G2 for a year, then they have an E-20 for another year then
they get a D30 or D60. Now when they take pictures they come out so
much better than when they had the G2.

So the equipment is everything. If you have good equipment, you
shouldautomatically be taking great shots.

Pete
Click to expand...
--
D30, 50mm 1.4, 20mm 2.8
 
my little old S20 is a noise filled 3mp camera especially compared to my old d30 or my d60

I know what you mean, of course. So how is my old D30 doing?

I'm loving my D60. I'm heading up to Traverse city for some work and bringing the kit along for some pano work. I'm leaving the S20 home.

Look at the discussion this way... there are people who say the D30 is obsolete and the only way to go is a D60 or 1D or whatever. You are proving this is not true.

To much emphasis on the tools and not the technique. The technique is most of the battle.

This is especially true one your tool is a competent one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top