Anyhow You do not need L glass or a DSLR to take great pictures.
Impressive work. It all depends on the person behind the viewfinder
not investments of money in hardware.
First, Daniella is an incredibly skilled photographer. I hope she
puts out a book at some point.
Second, I agree that in many cases, you don't need L lenses. Where
a 50 mm lens will do, none is better than the consumer primes,
f/1.4 and f/2.5 Macro. The 24-70L is slower and softer ... but
with better color in the images. I can't find anything to complain
about, about my non L 100/2.8 Macro.
On the other hand, I very much disagree with the underlying theme
here. A lot of people like to imply that good photographic gear
makes a bad photographer, and that dSLRs and L lenses are crutches
that people with no skill fall on. As if all of Daniella's skill
would disappear if someone put a 1Ds in her hands. And maybe LF
gear would make the situation even worse...?
So, here's a challenge that really shouldn't be very difficult.
Two landscapes, shot by the same photographer -- yours truly. One
is from a $600 camera, very much like the one Daniella uses, and
the other is from a $3,500 dSLR and L lens kit. See if you can
tell which is which:
Last question. Let's say you were about to spend the next six
months camping and backpacking around the Rockies. Would you want
to bring the $600 or the $3,500 kit on your adventure, to capture
your photos on...?
