What kind of camera is that?

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

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).

.... 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!"

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

 

[John Davis]

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

 

[Arthur Li]

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).

.... 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!"

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

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

 

[Paul V54639]

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

"It's not about the bike."

Paul

 

[BillCat]

After having my D-30 for a few months I showed some images to a friend. She said that my camera was a good one. I have to agree. I've have never gotten these with my budget Olympus.

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

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).

 

[Ian S]

Michael

I don't dissagree with anything you have said, and I'm sure a photographer of your experience and competence can produce great results with "sufficient" equipment.

However in my own case I'm sure the use of the D30 has made me a better photographer.

Note: the D30 does not necessarily produce better results in itself, but it has helped make me better.

The ability get instant feedback, to see the exposure histogram straight away, "decent" autofocus (versus my bleary eyes with my old manual focus camera), the ability to do a post-mortem on the EXIF data versus the image when I get home, ability to look at images on a laptop while on a trip, the ability to tweak in the digital darkroom, all have made a contribution.

I've made more progress in the last 6 months of D30 use than in umpteen years of on and off film photography. (Still a considerable distance to go of course).

So to me, the camera does make a difference.

Best Rgds
--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com

 

[Spencer Walker]

I have had a D60 for a week and a half now. I have been doing 35mm photography for quite a few years now, mostly slides. I have struggled with exposures, depth of field, camera shake, etc. But, I am lazy and don't rigourously write down what I do. As a result, the long delay between hitting the button and seeing the result has generally left me more confused than enlightened by what did or did not work out well.

For lazy people like me, digital cameras are great for improving photography skills. I can more-or-less instantly see the result of anything I try. The histogram and the blinking overexposures on the LCD are great things. And when perusing through shots on my computer, I can see the camera settings that were used so I can get a better sense of when camera shake or depth of field become problems.

I remember once being confronted with a couple wearing black clothing and with a background that I knew my flash wasn't going to reach. Not knowing what else to do (with 35mm, again), I pointed the camera at their faces and preset a flash exposure (on my EOS-3). I didn't know for two more weeks that I was dramatically underexposing the shot. Yes, if I did that kind of shot a lot, I could have worked out what to do, but that was my first time confronted with that situation. With the D60, after two or three shots, I would have figured out what to expose for, or figured out whether or not to just trust the flash to do the right thing.

There have been lots of complaints in this forum about the D60 flash underexposing. I notice the same thing, but then I also noticed that with my EOS-3, so I always set my flash for +2/3 stops. But, sometimes that is too much, and it is difficult to know exactly when or why unless I carefully examine the bright and dark parts of the scene and exactly account for the (typically offwhite) walls some random distance behind the main subject.

So, the D60 certainly can't make me point the lens in the right direction at the right time, but it can help quite a bit with everything else.

Now, if I can just figure out how to project my D60's 6MP images onto an 8-foot diagonal screen.

I've made more progress in the last 6 months of D30 use than in
umpteen years of on and off film photography. (Still a
considerable distance to go of course).

So to me, the camera does make a difference.

 

[Ian S]

Laptop and LCD projector! I use them at work all the time. I just wish I could afford one for home!

Cheers

Now, if I can just figure out how to project my D60's 6MP images
onto an 8-foot diagonal screen.

--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com

 

[Shanghai]

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?

 

[Marcel D.]

After reading this quote a couple of times, I suggest we give him a mountain bike next year in the Tour de France. I won't bet my money on him then.

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

"It's not about the bike."

Marcel D.
The Netherlands
GC-S5 - 990 - G2 - D60 ( BG-ED3 - 28-135 - 550EX )
http://www.fotoexpo.tk

 

[murphy]

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.

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

But where is your sample image? )

Murph

 

[Spencer Walker]

A friend of mine has been looking for ways of getting high resolution

images projected. LCD projectors typically don't go beyond 1024x768. If the screen was 60 inches wide (five feet), then the resolution on screen would end up being about 20dpi. Is that good enough? I don't know, I haven't tried it. My friend thinks not, but he really hasn't tried it either.

Cheers

Now, if I can just figure out how to project my D60's 6MP images
onto an 8-foot diagonal screen.

--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com

 

[Ian S]

Well, it depends on how far away you are going to be from the screen. A typical audience will be far enough away that the dots won't show.

I use 1024*768 because that's what my laptop supports. Higher resolution is available, but at a cost.

1024*768 is already much better than a TV, and in my experience, text is much more critical than photographic images at that resolution.

Cheers
Ian

A friend of mine has been looking for ways of getting high resolution
images projected. LCD projectors typically don't go beyond
1024x768. If the screen was 60 inches wide (five feet), then the
resolution on screen would end up being about 20dpi. Is that good
enough? I don't know, I haven't tried it. My friend thinks not,
but he really hasn't tried it either.

--
Ian S
http://www.rainpalm.com

 

[Lee Rothman]

while I can greatly understand a person being impressed with a D60 portrait, portraits are (other than composition and lighting) the easiest things at a wedding to shoot. When it comes to low light combined with moving subjects (something all of us wedding photographers run into on a daily basis) the D60 tends to fall short of ideal. I agree with you that the D60 is probably perfect for the portrait use, but I still maintain that a 1D is considberably better suited toward MOST of a wedding event. I am in no way complaining or bashing here, just trying to be realistic for those that might interpret your comments as a complete and total "green light" to shoot weddings with total abandanment of concern for issues that will almost definetly creep up on them. I worked a wedding with BOTH before I decided that the 1D was all I needed. YMMV I guess, but the portraits I've done also illicited similar comments to yours. I personally don't print beyond 13x19's as that is what my printer does. The client has complete control and can have larger prints done at will. Just thought I'd add a comment to what you said, I hope it isn't taken in an inflamitory manner. ;-)

 

[Chuck A]

Hi All,

I understand what is being said here. But, don't confuse quality of image with quality of output. Good images are made irregardless of the camera used. But the type, and sometimes the make, of camera used can have a significant effect on the quality of the output. I can make images with a disposeable camera or a 1mp digital and they may be nice in composition and subject but the quality of the image printed beyond postage stamp size is dubious. Also some cameras give you a much higher percentage of good shots in certain situations.

I think when people are argueing the merits of all of the new technology, they are argueing the quality of the output not the image itself.

.... when someone sees a photo of yours and says "Great shot! You must have a nice camera!"... Very often the are reacting to the quality of the output as well as the quality of the image. Let's face it a better camera can make the same image look better. Especially in the digital world.

I have a digital PS right now. Can I take good images with it? Well, maybe. I have decided recently to spend the extra money and get a D30 or D60. Mainly because I am not getting the quality of output that I want. The larger CMOS chips and their low noise certainly make for a better quality photograph. The smooth gradations and wonderful colors make the images look better. Will my images be better. They might. Every little bit helps.

Thanks for the discussion.

--
Thanks & God Bless,
Chuck

 

[Doug Baird]

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.

Doug Baird
D60
16-35L
28-135 IS
70-200L IS
No mega zoom yet.
1D one day

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

 

[Leo Reinhard]

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. Others who have been taking photos for years and not achieving results that satisfy them are too quick to blame their equipment, rather than studying their results to see what they could have done differently.

Their answer to their failings is to get the next super duper camera, filter, flash, lens, software etc while ignoring the maybe not so obvious.

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

But, I bet Lance Armstrong doesn't shoot pictures with a disposable camera from Wal-Mart, either.

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.

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

"It's not about the bike."

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

 

[DavidP #28649]

Neither would I bet my money on him in a mountain bike contest with that mountain bike . . . unless he's trained in that type of bicycling.

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

After reading this quote a couple of times, I suggest we give him a
mountain bike next year in the Tour de France. I won't bet my money
on him then.

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