From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Started Jul 22, 2014 | Discussions
Pepe-Lepue Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)
8

I was processing some old 2011 photos from Maui. I had JUST switched from my professional Canon line to the new (at the time) mirrorless system NEX-5. There were no lens options at that time outside of the SEL1628, SEL1855, and SEL18200.

But I made this new system work for me. And felt FREE of the heavy DSLR gear I lugged around for years past. And got more 'keepers' as a result.

So if you are on the fence, think no more! These mirrorless systems are lightweight, small, and with the A6000 almost as fast as most DSLR systems out there.

I pulled this from my 2011 Maui trip with my newly discovered NEX-5 + SEL1855. Don't get too caught up in the gear oriented pixel peeping. I made this happen with what little I hgad at the time.

-- hide signature --

'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Sony Alpha NEX-5
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
darkdirtydwarf
darkdirtydwarf Senior Member • Posts: 1,132
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

At the time I only had the NEX5 and the SEL16F28. Still, I can't remember a time where I had more fun taking photos!

Now it's all pixel peeping and complaining about the JPEG engines (but hey, the A7 does really suck at that :P)

Thanks for sharing!

 darkdirtydwarf's gear list:darkdirtydwarf's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha a7 Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +8 more
OP Pepe-Lepue Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

At the time I only had the NEX5 and the SEL16F28. Still, I can't remember a time where I had more fun taking photos!

Now it's all pixel peeping and complaining about the JPEG engines (but hey, the A7 does really suck at that :P)

Thanks for sharing!

I looked at your galleries. Good work! Nice creative 'out of the box' thinking.
Every now and then I'll pixel peep. But I NEVER confuse the camera's mechanical ability with the photographer's ability.
In a real photographers hands, the difference between a 'point and shoot' and an A7 matters not.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
darkdirtydwarf
darkdirtydwarf Senior Member • Posts: 1,132
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

I looked at your galleries. Good work! Nice creative 'out of the box' thinking.

thanks!I appreciate your compliment, though I'm still just an advanced beginner

I wish I had more time to upload my more recent stuff (or to actually work on new real projects), on flickr I mostly have pictures from or before 2011. I'm still sorting/editing old works cause since 2011 I have very little free time.

Every now and then I'll pixel peep. But I NEVER confuse the camera's mechanical ability with the photographer's ability.
In a real photographers hands, the difference between a 'point and shoot' and an A7 matters not.

yes, I agree. My photography actually got worse getting better equipment (too much thinking about technical details and too little thinking about framing and such).

 darkdirtydwarf's gear list:darkdirtydwarf's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha a7 Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +8 more
piticoto Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

... But I NEVER confuse the camera's mechanical ability with the photographer's ability.
In a real photographers hands, the difference between a 'point and shoot' and an A7 matters not.

So, are you saying that a real photographer is only someone with higher level of photographic abilities? How would you call a photographer with average abilities, or lower than average?

For a race car driver the equivalent of point and shoot would be a street car. If the difference between a point and shoot equivalent car and A7 equivalent race car doesn't matter for a "real" driver, then lets put him to compete with a street car on the race track!

It was a joke, maybe it was real story about Michael Schumacher and his family getting to the airport with a taxi, and  being late he asked the taxi driver to let him drive...:-)

darkdirtydwarf
darkdirtydwarf Senior Member • Posts: 1,132
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)
1

piticoto wrote:

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

... But I NEVER confuse the camera's mechanical ability with the photographer's ability.
In a real photographers hands, the difference between a 'point and shoot' and an A7 matters not.

So, are you saying that a real photographer is only someone with higher level of photographic abilities? How would you call a photographer with average abilities, or lower than average?

A fraud?

I mean, how many "photographers" are out there ruining the market? They come with big cameras and a couple of light stands they have no idea how to use and just fire away with no skills nor passion (real story in my company; in the end I did the product shots myself...).

Not to mention the thief that asked me 10 bucks per film to scan them in such a crappy quality I ended up buying my own scanner, but that's another story...

A real photographer can push the equipment to the limit, uses a piece of scrap paper as a makeshift bounce and makes the model move the right way or catches the moment, the mood, the atmosphere. All this has nothing to do with equipment. I know it cause I have the best equipment out there for a prosumer, but this doesn't mean I take amazing shots. Just very detailed, with a high dynamic range, a good contrast and clarity. That doesn't mean these shot are good. Just technically correct, at best.

Of course a FF camera has less limitations of a point and shoot and you'll hardly ever be able to publish on a fashion magazine with an image with a resolution lower than 36MP, but let's not nit-pick. A good photographer is a good photographer, no matter what camera he/she holds in the hands.

For a race car driver the equivalent of point and shoot would be a street car. If the difference between a point and shoot equivalent car and A7 equivalent race car doesn't matter for a "real" driver, then lets put him to compete with a street car on the race track!

In a fair competition where the other pilots drive all a street car, the pilot makes the difference, not the car.

Or do you think you could beat a F1 pilot that drives a Fiat Panda while you drive his F1 car right here, right now? Personally I wouldn't know how to shift gear in one of those, let alone use all the right buttons...

 darkdirtydwarf's gear list:darkdirtydwarf's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-5N Sony Alpha a7 Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake +8 more
chris948 Forum Member • Posts: 61
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

piticoto wrote:

So, are you saying that a real photographer is only someone with higher level of photographic abilities? How would you call a photographer with average abilities, or lower than average?

a forum regular...

OP Pepe-Lepue Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

piticoto wrote:

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

... But I NEVER confuse the camera's mechanical ability with the photographer's ability.
In a real photographers hands, the difference between a 'point and shoot' and an A7 matters not.

So, are you saying that a real photographer is only someone with higher level of photographic abilities? How would you call a photographer with average abilities, or lower than average?

Perhaps I should have used the words "adept photographer".

For a race car driver the equivalent of point and shoot would be a street car. If the difference between a point and shoot equivalent car and A7 equivalent race car doesn't matter for a "real" driver, then lets put him to compete with a street car on the race track!

A professional driver with a street car verses a novice driver in a Ferrari on a track - My money is on the pro.

It was a joke, maybe it was real story about Michael Schumacher and his family getting to the airport with a taxi, and being late he asked the taxi driver to let him drive...:-)

-- hide signature --

'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Rich Regular Member • Posts: 120
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Love this picture.  Takes me back to one of my favorite places!

-- hide signature --

Rich in SLC

piticoto Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

piticoto wrote:

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

... But I NEVER confuse the camera's mechanical ability with the photographer's ability.
In a real photographers hands, the difference between a 'point and shoot' and an A7 matters not.

So, are you saying that a real photographer is only someone with higher level of photographic abilities? How would you call a photographer with average abilities, or lower than average?

Perhaps I should have used the words "adept photographer".

For a race car driver the equivalent of point and shoot would be a street car. If the difference between a point and shoot equivalent car and A7 equivalent race car doesn't matter for a "real" driver, then lets put him to compete with a street car on the race track!

A professional driver with a street car verses a novice driver in a Ferrari on a track - My money is on the pro.

It was a joke, maybe it was real story about Michael Schumacher and his family getting to the airport with a taxi, and being late he asked the taxi driver to let him drive...:-)

Probably "real" choice is not appropriate, anyone with a camera wanting to capture some pictures is a photographer, at least compared to the other people with no camera. He may be a good one or not so good one. If we use the same word for other categories, imagine real doctor, so what are the other doctors, or real teacher, real policeman, maybe real politician :-). So what are the others that are not real?

I would consider two types of better photographers, the ones knowing well their equipment and the technical aspects, and the ones having the artistic talent, and these don't exclude each other.

The same driver, professional or an ordinary driver, on a street car verses a race car on the track I bet on the race car to get better lap time.

piticoto Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

chris948 wrote:

piticoto wrote:

So, are you saying that a real photographer is only someone with higher level of photographic abilities? How would you call a photographer with average abilities, or lower than average?

a forum regular...

Nah, a real photographer as described by the original poster may be a forum regular too.

OP Pepe-Lepue Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

piticoto wrote:

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

... But I NEVER confuse the camera's mechanical ability with the photographer's ability.
In a real photographers hands, the difference between a 'point and shoot' and an A7 matters not.

So, are you saying that a real photographer is only someone with higher level of photographic abilities? How would you call a photographer with average abilities, or lower than average?

Perhaps I should have used the words "adept photographer".

For a race car driver the equivalent of point and shoot would be a street car. If the difference between a point and shoot equivalent car and A7 equivalent race car doesn't matter for a "real" driver, then lets put him to compete with a street car on the race track!

A professional driver with a street car verses a novice driver in a Ferrari on a track - My money is on the pro.

It was a joke, maybe it was real story about Michael Schumacher and his family getting to the airport with a taxi, and being late he asked the taxi driver to let him drive...:-)

Probably "real" choice is not appropriate, anyone with a camera wanting to capture some pictures is a photographer, at least compared to the other people with no camera. He may be a good one or not so good one. If we use the same word for other categories, imagine real doctor, so what are the other doctors, or real teacher, real policeman, maybe real politician :-). So what are the others that are not real?

I would consider two types of better photographers, the ones knowing well their equipment and the technical aspects, and the ones having the artistic talent, and these don't exclude each other.

The same driver, professional or an ordinary driver, on a street car verses a race car on the track I bet on the race car to get better lap time.

I disagree on your race car assertion. The novice will probably end up in the gutter or weeds and be considered DNF.
But I like much what you say. I must add though that I've seen far better photography from adept photographers with a cell phone than most novice shooters with high end gear.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
OP Pepe-Lepue Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

piticoto wrote:

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

... But I NEVER confuse the camera's mechanical ability with the photographer's ability.
In a real photographers hands, the difference between a 'point and shoot' and an A7 matters not.

So, are you saying that a real photographer is only someone with higher level of photographic abilities? How would you call a photographer with average abilities, or lower than average?

Perhaps I should have used the words "adept photographer".

For a race car driver the equivalent of point and shoot would be a street car. If the difference between a point and shoot equivalent car and A7 equivalent race car doesn't matter for a "real" driver, then lets put him to compete with a street car on the race track!

A professional driver with a street car verses a novice driver in a Ferrari on a track - My money is on the pro.

It was a joke, maybe it was real story about Michael Schumacher and his family getting to the airport with a taxi, and being late he asked the taxi driver to let him drive...:-)

Probably "real" choice is not appropriate, anyone with a camera wanting to capture some pictures is a photographer, at least compared to the other people with no camera. He may be a good one or not so good one. If we use the same word for other categories, imagine real doctor, so what are the other doctors, or real teacher, real policeman, maybe real politician :-). So what are the others that are not real?

I would consider two types of better photographers, the ones knowing well their equipment and the technical aspects, and the ones having the artistic talent, and these don't exclude each other.

The same driver, professional or an ordinary driver, on a street car verses a race car on the track I bet on the race car to get better lap time.

And I agree with my misuse of the word 'real'. I should have used the word 'adept photographer'.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
piticoto Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

Probably "real" choice is not appropriate, anyone with a camera wanting to capture some pictures is a photographer, at least compared to the other people with no camera. He may be a good one or not so good one. If we use the same word for other categories, imagine real doctor, so what are the other doctors, or real teacher, real policeman, maybe real politician :-). So what are the others that are not real?

I would consider two types of better photographers, the ones knowing well their equipment and the technical aspects, and the ones having the artistic talent, and these don't exclude each other.

The same driver, professional or an ordinary driver, on a street car verses a race car on the track I bet on the race car to get better lap time.

I disagree on your race car assertion. The novice will probably end up in the gutter or weeds and be considered DNF.
But I like much what you say. I must add though that I've seen far better photography from adept photographers with a cell phone than most novice shooters with high end gear.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

I'm not thinking about a novice that just got his driver license, but a driver with few years experience, like the average driver, and with minimum instruction for about 30 minutes before getting in the race car, like they do sometimes for advertising.

The cell phone camera is limited in how much detail you can get, depending how far the subject is. I have the Galaxy S4 with 13 Mp and I use it for when I don't have a camera handy, including for work, producing acceptable images. And yes a photographer with good abilities can capture the moment better than a novice in photography with high end gear. I don't expect the good photographer to use the cell phone camera for artistic purposes.

OP Pepe-Lepue Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

piticoto wrote:

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

Probably "real" choice is not appropriate, anyone with a camera wanting to capture some pictures is a photographer, at least compared to the other people with no camera. He may be a good one or not so good one. If we use the same word for other categories, imagine real doctor, so what are the other doctors, or real teacher, real policeman, maybe real politician :-). So what are the others that are not real?

I would consider two types of better photographers, the ones knowing well their equipment and the technical aspects, and the ones having the artistic talent, and these don't exclude each other.

The same driver, professional or an ordinary driver, on a street car verses a race car on the track I bet on the race car to get better lap time.

I disagree on your race car assertion. The novice will probably end up in the gutter or weeds and be considered DNF.
But I like much what you say. I must add though that I've seen far better photography from adept photographers with a cell phone than most novice shooters with high end gear.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

I'm not thinking about a novice that just got his driver license, but a driver with few years experience, like the average driver, and with minimum instruction for about 30 minutes before getting in the race car, like they do sometimes for advertising.

The cell phone camera is limited in how much detail you can get, depending how far the subject is. I have the Galaxy S4 with 13 Mp and I use it for when I don't have a camera handy, including for work, producing acceptable images. And yes a photographer with good abilities can capture the moment better than a novice in photography with high end gear. I don't expect the good photographer to use the cell phone camera for artistic purposes.

I consider myself pretty good at artistic photography. And I don't mind the use of a cell phone on occasion. And in the end, I'm not too concerned. I factor the limitations I'm working within and go with it. Sure great gear is nice. But my money is still on the photographer. The following where hot with a 4mp HTC One;

-- hide signature --

'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 8,658
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

I'm reminded of a Top Gear episode where a pro driver said she would race the Nurburgring in a van and attempt to beat Jeremy's time (where he drove some fancy Aston Martin or something). It's impressive what pro drivers can do with normal cars.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 +8 more
piticoto Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

GaryW wrote:

I'm reminded of a Top Gear episode where a pro driver said she would race the Nurburgring in a van and attempt to beat Jeremy's time (where he drove some fancy Aston Martin or something). It's impressive what pro drivers can do with normal cars.

In one of the Top Gear episodes they had a Nex 5 camera!

Until about two months ago my 8 years old son was going on rookie karts, on a plain small oval, and he finally switched to the next level, being at the minimum height requirement, but he was concerned about older kids running at the same time, more carts and track a little more complicated. He could barely reach the throttle. After couple runs, staying in line for him I asked him to get in the car that runs faster. What a difference, it seemed easy for him to pass all the other carts, but still a novice for that level.

OP Pepe-Lepue Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

GaryW wrote:

I'm reminded of a Top Gear episode where a pro driver said she would race the Nurburgring in a van and attempt to beat Jeremy's time (where he drove some fancy Aston Martin or something). It's impressive what pro drivers can do with normal cars.

In one of the Top Gear episodes they had a Nex 5 camera!

Until about two months ago my 8 years old son was going on rookie karts, on a plain small oval, and he finally switched to the next level, being at the minimum height requirement, but he was concerned about older kids running at the same time, more carts and track a little more complicated. He could barely reach the throttle. After couple runs, staying in line for him I asked him to get in the car that runs faster. What a difference, it seemed easy for him to pass all the other carts, but still a novice for that level.

Cool story! However are you suggesting the equipment is such a differentiator? Because I look around here at the many photos posted by novices with top-of-the-line pro gear - And I find it hard to be impressed. I find much of the photos taken to be sterile and, well, 'novice'.
And here's where I have to bring up Ansel Adams; Who used a slow 8x10 box camera which required him lugging a large tripod in hardly accessible areas. His gear would be considered a hindrance by any standard today.
But I understand that this is mostly a gear forum where many, if not most, people spent lots of money and are thinking more about what their gear can do more-so than refining their technique and exercising their creative potential. But if this makes them happy, then what more could we ask for? Perhaps that's what it's all about. Being happy!
This reminds me of a story as a caddy at a prestigious country club during my college days; Many members would buy the most outrageously expensive golf gear. And they still sucked at the sport. Their golf instructor was the well-known Dick Harman - who had the expertise to make even the cheapest of gear do competitively wonderful things.
Just my opinion of course. I just know that when I see a photographic opportunity, the last thing that is on my mind at that time is my gear.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
piticoto Regular Member • Posts: 289
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

GaryW wrote:

I'm reminded of a Top Gear episode where a pro driver said she would race the Nurburgring in a van and attempt to beat Jeremy's time (where he drove some fancy Aston Martin or something). It's impressive what pro drivers can do with normal cars.

In one of the Top Gear episodes they had a Nex 5 camera!

Until about two months ago my 8 years old son was going on rookie karts, on a plain small oval, and he finally switched to the next level, being at the minimum height requirement, but he was concerned about older kids running at the same time, more carts and track a little more complicated. He could barely reach the throttle. After couple runs, staying in line for him I asked him to get in the car that runs faster. What a difference, it seemed easy for him to pass all the other carts, but still a novice for that level.

Cool story! However are you suggesting the equipment is such a differentiator? Because I look around here at the many photos posted by novices with top-of-the-line pro gear - And I find it hard to be impressed. I find much of the photos taken to be sterile and, well, 'novice'.
And here's where I have to bring up Ansel Adams; Who used a slow 8x10 box camera which required him lugging a large tripod in hardly accessible areas. His gear would be considered a hindrance by any standard today.
But I understand that this is mostly a gear forum where many, if not most, people spent lots of money and are thinking more about what their gear can do more-so than refining their technique and exercising their creative potential. But if this makes them happy, then what more could we ask for? Perhaps that's what it's all about. Being happy!
This reminds me of a story as a caddy at a prestigious country club during my college days; Many members would buy the most outrageously expensive golf gear. And they still sucked at the sport. Their golf instructor was the well-known Dick Harman - who had the expertise to make even the cheapest of gear do competitively wonderful things.
Just my opinion of course. I just know that when I see a photographic opportunity, the last thing that is on my mind at that time is my gear.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

We should differentiate these examples, because on some of them the outcome depends more on the equipment and on others more on the abilities of the user. With the same hammer some people need only couple hits to put the nail through, others may bend the nail. Or a good engineer (experienced) may not do much with a slow CAD system, verses a just graduated engineer (inexperienced) with a fast computer.

Look at the fishing contest with Louis De Funes as a comic example for abilities verses equipment.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmhcr_ni-vu-ni-connu-louis-de-funes_shortfilms

OP Pepe-Lepue Senior Member • Posts: 1,942
Re: From my original NEX-5 and 'substandard' 18-55 lens (image)

Pepe-Lepue wrote:

GaryW wrote:

I'm reminded of a Top Gear episode where a pro driver said she would race the Nurburgring in a van and attempt to beat Jeremy's time (where he drove some fancy Aston Martin or something). It's impressive what pro drivers can do with normal cars.

In one of the Top Gear episodes they had a Nex 5 camera!

Until about two months ago my 8 years old son was going on rookie karts, on a plain small oval, and he finally switched to the next level, being at the minimum height requirement, but he was concerned about older kids running at the same time, more carts and track a little more complicated. He could barely reach the throttle. After couple runs, staying in line for him I asked him to get in the car that runs faster. What a difference, it seemed easy for him to pass all the other carts, but still a novice for that level.

Cool story! However are you suggesting the equipment is such a differentiator? Because I look around here at the many photos posted by novices with top-of-the-line pro gear - And I find it hard to be impressed. I find much of the photos taken to be sterile and, well, 'novice'.
And here's where I have to bring up Ansel Adams; Who used a slow 8x10 box camera which required him lugging a large tripod in hardly accessible areas. His gear would be considered a hindrance by any standard today.
But I understand that this is mostly a gear forum where many, if not most, people spent lots of money and are thinking more about what their gear can do more-so than refining their technique and exercising their creative potential. But if this makes them happy, then what more could we ask for? Perhaps that's what it's all about. Being happy!
This reminds me of a story as a caddy at a prestigious country club during my college days; Many members would buy the most outrageously expensive golf gear. And they still sucked at the sport. Their golf instructor was the well-known Dick Harman - who had the expertise to make even the cheapest of gear do competitively wonderful things.
Just my opinion of course. I just know that when I see a photographic opportunity, the last thing that is on my mind at that time is my gear.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

We should differentiate these examples, because on some of them the outcome depends more on the equipment and on others more on the abilities of the user. With the same hammer some people need only couple hits to put the nail through, others may bend the nail. Or a good engineer (experienced) may not do much with a slow CAD system, verses a just graduated engineer (inexperienced) with a fast computer.

Look at the fishing contest with Louis De Funes as a comic example for abilities verses equipment.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmhcr_ni-vu-ni-connu-louis-de-funes_shortfilms

I can go with that. Can't shoot sports with a field camera.
But my message is an important one. Lots of money spent on high end gear that wasn't even remotely necessary given the resulting shots I see posted. And my shots don't really require high end gear either.
--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

 Pepe-Lepue's gear list:Pepe-Lepue's gear list
Sony RX100 III Sony a6000 Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads