Aquisition Sydrome......

Gandhi

Gandhi

Messages
4,666
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, Honesty box time now.....

Who actually believes that having the latest/greatest gear will actually make them produce better photographs?

Who believes in the 'magic bullet' of that lens or that camera that will take their photography to next level?

Only reason I ask is because I've seen an increasing amount of posts on here along the lines of the above.

So c'mon, 'fess up!





Me?


I only went 5x4 because I want to print BIG, 50x40 inches and above and I want the range of tones & added depth that film offers over digital. That, and the fact that I want to see past whats in the viewfinder to the final print and film helps me do that. Oh, and the movements available will help with perspective correction for architecture and DoF for landscape........


I think I've put a stop to my gear head with my move to LF, I dont feel like I need anything more at the moment.

So...thoughts....?
 
Gandhi said:
I think I've put a stop to my gear head with my move to LF, I dont feel like I need anything more at the moment.

So...thoughts....?
Click to expand...

Forgotten the S2 already then? :lol:
 
I have to say I do. If I am totally 100% honest, I think my D3 and £1K lenses are producing better results than my D200 and £300 lenses. I think my £500 tripod and head is sturdier than the £200 model I left on a beach, etc etc. As a result, I do feel spending on the top gear can better your photography.

I still think I'm royally sh*t though, just not as poo as I was with the D200 :)
 
If I'm completely 100% truly honest, no. I know that I may reach a level or point in my photography when I need to buy something to help me up. That right now is the 5dm2 for its high ISO, cleaner ISO performance and full frame features. Its not because its shiny, its because I often shoot at ISO1600 and having ISO6400 and more available will be invaluable to me. I could list lenses I'd like to play with but right now I don't feel limited by any of my lenses so I'm ok. I really don't think about gear a lot. I don't read reviews, buy magazines with the latest tests, or browse store websites for fun. I go out and take photos instead.
 
I'm of both minds to be honest.

Part of me believes that better kit does help, but the other part of me believes that the person matters more than the kit.

I personally operate on a principle that the kit, especially the camera body, should be replaced when the user outgrows it's capabilities; whether that be printing requirements and hence resolution matters, or handling, or on body controls etc etc. Of course, there is always the argument that if a user gets an item of equipment that is beyond their current capability, then they grow into it faster? Perhaps the constant learning curve on the equipment has positive effects on the persons drive to better themselfs? Who knows. All I know is that I tend to buy nice glass before a nice body.
 
Kit helps. Try as you may you can't make a 50mm lens a 10mm lens. It helps, but the danger is in making a shopping list believing that you need all that to be a better photographer.
 
I'm with Ed Gary here - I'm lusting after the kit he's got, pretty sure - well positive, I couldn't get the results he gets, but what the hell, one can dream and dreams are sweeter in full frame mega megapixel vibrant colour n'est-ce pas ?
Never had a Brownie as a kid, those film camera look way too complicated to work.
 
Increase the saturation and use Genuine Fractals to increase your megapixels :p
 
petemc
Sounds easy, but I'd rather have all that shiny new kit to do it for me !
 
Hee Hee
Off to bed now - feel a dream coming on - night all zzz.
 
A D300 has made a massive difference to me - my 'keepers' with my nifty fifty have gone up massively since I got the ability to autofocus :D Whilst I don't think a D300 will 'take my photography to the next level' but I do think it will help, it is a lot easier to use and get the shot I want than it was the with D40 now I have got used to where everything is.

I currentlyuse a 10-20mm, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 55-200mm VR. I am positive I would get better long range results with a 70-200mm f/2.8, but I just don't use that range enough to justify the cost. I want a 24-70mm f/2.8 just because I am missing a wodge of that range, it can wait though, the 50 and 10-20mm cover most of what I want for now.
 
For me the money has been well spent. My pics are still crap, but at least now some of them are in focus :nuts:
 
Foggy said:
A D300 has made a massive difference to me - my 'keepers' with my nifty fifty have gone up massively since I got the ability to autofocus :D Whilst I don't think a D300 will 'take my photography to the next level' but I do think it will help, it is a lot easier to use and get the shot I want than it was the with D40 now I have got used to where everything is.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, i also think it helps if you love your subject, literally my entire flickr account is produced with a 50mm f1.8, apart from a 10-20 i don't think i will ever need another lens, ok maybe a 50mm f1.4 and a tripod, a bag..........oh crap.
 
I think its all down to composition and focus, if you have those then photoshop will sort out the nitty gritty 4 u. I also believe that although you can be trained to take a good shot, some lucky people are just born with the gift of vision and imagination. If you look back through your catalogue from years gone by you will always find a gem, so if that ols Zenith photosniper managed to take one good shot then its capable, the rest is down to you!
 
Yes, I think the kit is the key.

I certainly wouldn't have bought a camera if it wasn't digital, I am still making many mistakes, still getting poor shots, and with the development costs of film, that would have seriously stopped me.

But now it is digital, in an instant I can see how good or bad I think the shot is, and with the technology in cameras today, the flaws in my photography can be hidden in a way that a film camera never could.

My chosen area of photography is military aviation, and I am aiming to get a 100-400 lens, will it make my pics better? The IQ should be better, and there is more reach than I am getting from my 70-300mm.

So the answer is yes, the equipment makes me a better photographer.
 
Technology-wise I'm going backwards (buying film cameras), because I find it fun to work with older equipment. I'm not always after the cleanest, sharpest photos... I like things to look fuzzy and older equipment helps me achieve that. I also love developing my own film - such a satisfying feeling seeing your images appear as a physical thing that you can store away for many generations and will stay intact despite the progression of technology. OK, this relies on companies like Ilford and Fuji to continue making film, but I think they will.

If I do need sharp/good quality, my 24-105 on my 40D is ample quality and even though I do see myself getting an 85mm 1.2 one day, I doubt the acquisition of said lens will make me a better photographer.

As for going for a newer camera with more megapixels - I couldn't care less - I'd only get a new 5dmk2 or 50D if I broke my 40D.
 
ekimeno said:
Technology-wise I'm going backwards (buying film cameras), because I find it fun to work with older equipment. I'm not always after the cleanest, sharpest photos... I like things to look fuzzy and older equipment helps me achieve that. I also love developing my own film - such a satisfying feeling seeing your images appear as a physical thing that you can store away for many generations and will stay intact despite the progression of technology. OK, this relies on companies like Ilford and Fuji to continue making film, but I think they will.

If I do need sharp/good quality, my 24-105 on my 40D is ample quality and even though I do see myself getting an 85mm 1.2 one day, I doubt the acquisition of said lens will make me a better photographer.

As for going for a newer camera with more megapixels - I couldn't care less - I'd only get a new 5dmk2 or 50D if I broke my 40D.
Click to expand...



You definately have nothing to worry about, your photos are fantastic. Your english is really coming on too, bravo :)

Edit:
Erm, confused? I am. Your not russian...who the hell did I mistake you for. Anyway, you still have nothing to worry about, looked at your flickr briefly and its all good :)
 
I don't think its a question of whether equipment makes you a better camera. Obviously sharper, faster focusing, weather proofed lenses and a £4k camera is going to give you a better chance at getting the shot. But I think the question is whether you're the sort of person who feels that you need to buy gear just because of stats. You see something that has whatever fstop and range and you think you need it. Not because you feel limited with your current gear but because the lens is perhaps f/1.2 and the magpie in you wants the shiny shiny.
 
EdinburghGary said:
You definately have nothing to worry about, your photos are fantastic. Your english is really coming on too, bravo :)

Edit:
Erm, confused? I am. Your not russian...who the hell did I mistake you for. Anyway, you still have nothing to worry about, looked at your flickr briefly and its all good :)
Click to expand...

God, you're rubbish :lol: Though I am 'foreign' so I forgive you.

EDIT: You mistook me for elektro :bonk:
 
Checked you pix out too ekimeno - some nice shots there.
Plenty church stuff ...mmm

Anyway, just curious - how foreign are you ?
 
I have to admit to being happy to buy stuff I don't need to try it out, but end up selling it on if I don't use it - I recently bought a canon 300mm f4 IS to try, and I'll be selling it as it isn't getting enough use, plus I need to money for other things (like a monitor..)
I do feel that I learn more about what sort of pictures I enjoy taking by trying different bits of equipment, but can't say that having a new lens has actually made me a better photographer - sadly, nothing has had that much effect - the best money I ever spent apart from buying my first camera was doing a workshop with CJ Nicolai, who sadly doesn't seem to post here any more.
 
Kit can make a difference in so far that £1K lenses will produce clearer and sharper results in camera than £300 lenses. However, if you know what you are doing with photoshop you can produce stunning results with £300 lenses plus the time to post process them.

I would suggest that the majority of people would get better results from spending the £1K on a copy of photoshop and some training in how to use it than in the latest Nikanon 3D5 MKIV body.

Though perhaps the only reason I'm saying this is that I already have more kit than I can carry and am refusing to buy another body until I can upgrade my 35-70 with the 24-70 and the 80-200 with the 70-200 VR.

Hmm... :thinking: perhaps I should heed my own advice ?
 
There is a simple answer to this question...

The most importand thing that makes a good picture in the first place is the person holding the camera... If he can compose a good shot and know how to use the equipment he has to produce the best quality result within its capabilities then this makes him a good photographer... and that is what counts.

Scientifically of course having higher spec equipment gives someone who knows what they are doing with it more control and an ability to produce a higher image quality... but if that person has the gear... but no idea... then his pictures will not be better...

So yes I supose technically having better gear might improve the final image... or give the photographer more control... but if he does not have the vision or the ability to use that gear then ... he should work on that rather than think about buying gear...

If you look at your pictures... and you think I could do better... then its not gear you need its an understanding of how to get the best out your current equipment... because all new gear or higher speced gear will do is make you poorer in wallet and possibly even poorer a photographer because if you couldn't use low spec gear gow do you stand a chance of using higher speced...

But yes I look to buy new gear to... but its always because I feel the need for a lens with a dif focal length range... or yes iv reached a peak with one lens...

At the end of the day too... we all earn our money through working... and after we have paid our dues in life... what is left is for the individual to spend on whatever they like... many people would say a £1000 + camera is a waste of cash... where as allot of the men in here probably think a woman spending £1000 on a handbag is mad... each to your own... as long as you enjoy like and don't break the law you deserve the right to do whatever you fancy!
 
SimonTALM said:
Though perhaps the only reason I'm saying this is that I already have more kit than I can carry...
Click to expand...

My general rule is to only leave the house with 2 lenses. I know what I'm doing before I leave so I know whether I need the 10-20 or 70-200 because its based on what I'm photographing. 8/10 times I leave the 70-200 at home. I feel that having a bag of lenses can lead to confusion and you worrying about what lens to use. So if I don't have the 70-200 and need to zoom in I use my legs, or I look for a different shot because I'm not in that frame of mind. Its only big events that I take a little more just to be safe, like Remembrance Sunday next week. 2x bodies, 3 lenses. No flash.
 
This summer I discovered that a good prime gave me semi decent instead of rubbish birdie pics, same person and camera but just a good prime L lens. Now I cannot afford the long fast primes, but I have sold the lenses I don't use a lot (if ever) and will have bought 3 secondhand zoom L's (still waiting for a 70-200) while I can which will last me and will be keepers. If I win the lottery I may one day be able to get some primes but for what I like doing the zooms are more practical.

No illusions here about them improving me or that I will suddenly discover that I can take good pics though :lol:

Edited to add, I am rubbish with elements and don't like spending hours doing PP that ends up making things worse, so I tend to go with what comes out of the camera being pretty much the end product!!!
 
Is a photo 'good' because of its technical qualities or because of its conception?

Better (aka more expensive) kit can give you better IQ, more control of dof, better focus etc. Fancy software can enhance (or cover up) the image.

And sure there are some shots that would be almost impossible to get (for various technical reasons) with low end kit.

But the concept and idea and visualisation behind a pic comes from the mind (or soul if you're that way inclined).


So do you take very expensive snapshots? Or cheap works of art?

Or some combination?



//restrains temptation to start a divisive poll :)
 
who? said:
And sure there are some shots that would be almost impossible to get (for various technical reasons) with low end kit.

There is my answer.

I started out with a 20D and a 17-85mm. Then I did a studio seminar and fell in love with full frame, the skin tones were just so much better. I took the same pic of the same model with the same lighting setup as our tutor, yet the pics were miles apart. Full frame and L glass was the difference. So I bought a 5D the next week.........

I love the 5D, still have it and I still use it when I want a lightweight body if I'm going out all day. I did find the autofocus slow for some things though. I have a whippet and it would not keep up with her running (I really wanted to get her in full flight). I saved my pennies and bought a 1Ds MKII (I'm going to blame Papa for that!)

The shots I can get with the 1Ds and some decent glass are miles apart from what I could do with the 20D and kit lens.

I'm shooting a few weddings now and that is where I truly appreciate the difference. I'm hiring a 35mm f1.2 for a wedding in December because I know I will need to to get every ounce of light I can find!

Does the kit make the photographer?

No but it sure as heck helps to get the shot sometimes. (You still need to know what you are doing with it, it does not compose, fire at the right time, select the right aperture for you to achieve certain shots, set the ISO or indeed make the tea)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I think you start off and learn in an accelerated fashion (from this site) and are enabled to buy or track down to buy the equipment you need to take the shots, and have fun doing it.


But then anything that is shiny and comes in a box and moves up and down OR in and out which fits snuggly onto the front for your camera is sooooo goooood :D

there are bits i don't use but will in the future i just like collecting which having been advised fron the wife :bat::thumbsdown: must stop:'(


regards mark.
 
It'll take more than the latest kit to make me a good tog. I'm still a beginner, crap, ignorant and I know it!
In my dreams I imagine myself becoming limited by my trusty F801s and D100.
Maybe one day......

Nick
 
I think that you should consider upgrades or additions to your kit when it becomes clear that there is a definite advantage, or extension to the type of photos that you take with your photo topics.

In my case I started with the standard 18-55mm lens, added a 55-200mm, used it and learned much. But then it was obvious with moto sports that a higher zoom lens was needed, so I sold the 55-200 and bought a 70-300mm.

I have used that well this season, but there are a many shots which could either be quality improved with a faster lens, or shots which could be made at a higher magnification. So, now I am considering adding a 400mm/f2.8 lens, with another body next year.

And so it goes....

Edward
 
my philosophy has always been to have the best kit i can afford to do the things i enjoy doing. whether it actually helps me or not is debatable, but it certainly doesn't do any harm.

however, part of the enjoyment for me comes from using nice kit. it allows me to reach my potential rather than the kit's potential.....

each to their own ***.
 
I don't believe in better gear = better results

There are some things which obviously do increase with the upgrade to better technology, say you're able to blow pictures up bigger with more mega pixels, or your photo is sharper because the lens is simply better and so on...

But the main thing about photography is to capture a specific moment which triggers emotions in other people or to document a moment. If you don't see those moments, better gears will not make you able to find them...

I know people who spent thousands of pounds on new gear every year and their photos do not improve.

I think one has to grow (skill wise) to adopt to better gear. Only then will one achieve improvement on the overall result.

I do however think that it is extremely nice to learn and work with high quality gear because genereally and ideally (!), it's more reliable and fun to use because it just works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top