How much benefit do you get from you kit?...

specialman

specialman

Messages
8,193
Name
Pat MacInnes
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been involved in a few threads this week and have really noticed a high number of shooters who are non-professional who have vast (and expensive) arrays of kit. I'd love to have the amount of gear some of them have*–*but can't afford it –*and even though I shoot five-days-a-week for magazines, there's no way I could yet justify the outlay.

So it got me thinking; looking at the level of kit you own and the amount of gear you have, do you actually get the benefit from it all?

I use a D200, 80-200mm f/2.8, 60mm macro, 18-70mm, 12-24mm f/4 and three Speedlights and I think that I use all of my kit to its maximum –*there's not one bit of kit that doesn't get used at least once a day during a shoot.

But if you've got a EOS 1Ds or a D3X, or a huge selection of fast primes and other such luxuries, do you get the maximum out of them or are there features you'll never use or actually benefit from? How do you justify their purchase? Do you think of them as pieces of kit to future-proof yourself, a simple treat or are they essential to getting the shots you want?

Maybe for me the only feature I don't get benefit from in my kit is CLS on my D200 - I own a SB800, SB28 and SB26, the latter two flashes non-compatible with it.

What would I benefit from in the future? Definitely a better sensor than the D200 for low light stuff*–*shooting outdoors in winter and covering indoor shows are a nightmare once you go beyond ISO 800/1000 on the D200. Also, I do need to look at investing in some new lenses (a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 300mm) but money's tight so that won't happen. That's for next year and for now, what I've got will suffice. Will that new kit allow mw to be a better photographer - possibly. It will allow me to work more comfortably for one thing.

So, what are you thoughts? Do you get everything you need from the kit you have, do you get anything from the money you spent and if you need to, where do you need to upgrade and for what reason?...
 
I'm a pro so a bit off topic perhaps, but what benefit do i get?

Well I started backing up the pics from yesterdays wedding this morning and my laptop corrupted one of the memory cards (God knows how, but it just corrupted half the files so not even the camera can read them)

But I use 1Dmkii's which have two card slots and I keep a 16gb SD card in permanently as backup.

I've never been more grateful than this morning in my decision to buy what could be construed as unnecessary kit
 
Its a hobby so I can justify my expenditure.

Also I tend to stick to "Buy cheap buy twice"
 
I think you are highlighting the difference between Pro and the amateur/enthusiast. Pro's need good return on investment so are more careful with what they buy, amateurs/enthusiasts can justify the money because it's there hobby and fancy the new kit.
 
I'm more of a beginner in digital, i have incidentally got exactly the same kit as Doug posted above me, at the moment the D300 is too much camera for me but it's something to keep for years and to grow into, i'd rather be out more with my gear but unfortunately working gets in the way and miserable weekends.
 
Good thinking, Most of my kit I have owned for Years, some bits were my Fathers, I am just getting back into Photography afte some time and was amazed at the level of kit on the forum, must be that the modern amatuer has a better level of equipment than of old.


Dave.
 
I can afford my kit - but the kit I have now has taken me 7 years to bring together - lots of overtime at work, and lots of compromising on other parts of my life. I don't smoke and I dont drink much so I save money from that, and because photography is a passion I don't see a problem in spending £1000+ on something.

I don't see it as any different to someone who is passionate about fashion and spends the same amount on a handbag.
 
Gordon Scott said:
I think you are highlighting the difference between Pro and the amateur/enthusiast. Pro's need good return on investment so are more careful with what they buy, amateurs/enthusiasts can justify the money because it's there hobby and fancy the new kit.
Click to expand...

Also perhaps a difference in what people shoot.

For your (the OPs) magazine, are you shooting small items a long distance away?

If not, then you probably don't require either a high-resolution sensor as you do not need to crop your images to get an a5 size print? Or a long fast 400mm prime in order to get that small thing 'closer'?

There are possibly more amateur (or maybe more amateurs with time to post) on these forums that take shots of birds, than there are pros (who would be putting their time to more profitable endeavours such as taking their photos and editing them for print)

My definition of a professional, is someone whos main source of income comes from an activity which involves more than 50% of their time performing that activity.

For an amateur photographer, they have another job which can be used to supplement their hobby.

For a professional photographer, their livelyhood is based on their equipment, thus they must ensure that their equipment can perform the job they require. They maybe cannot justify spending some of their profits on a frivolous item such as a long lens. It does seem to me sometimes, that depending on which area of photography the money is being made from, it can be a bit cut-throat, or seriously over-populated.
 
How much benefit?.....Not sure really.

How much enjoyment?...........Loads.

:)
 
Coldpenguin, I shoot for angling magazines so do everything from macro shos of hooks, wide-angle scenics, right through to close cropped portraits and action shots on the 80-200mm. :)

Keirik, that dual card slot idea is something I deffo want in my future body

Your last comment is quite interesting though. I don't know if you're a pro and this is direct experience but I do find it amazing how often professionals are regarded as being expected to have the best equipment (this is no criticism of you or your comments by the way). :)

Obviously IQ is important but as far as photography for press printing goes, you can actually get better quality from a £50 inkjet. The stuff I shoot gets printed on such basic stock that even if you high-end optics you'd struggle to see the benefits of that lens being used optically. Where these high-end lenses do come into their own is with fast and constant maximum apertures that offer the user much more creative freedom than a variable and slower aperture lens.

I use a 18-70mm for some of my stuff, mainly grab shots and portraits because it is an excellent lens optically. However, I placed a shot I'd done for the mag against one shot by another member of staff on his 5Dmk2 and a 24-70mm f/2.8 and although he has very little skill, the results are so alike it's hard to see the benefit of glass that expensive. It's only when you love up to good paper stock (like that used in the glossies) where you can begin to appreciate the expensive gear used and why it works better than anything else. Shooting for something like Autosport or Nuts you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a shot taken on a D90 =wit kits lens, and a D3 with a 24-70 IMO.

The other thing is the return on a pro's investment, as Gordon Scott points out. IF you're say shooting pictures of babies in a shopping centre, are your clientel going to be as aware of the quality as you the photographer? It's always been something I've found hard to quantify, especially when I've tried to use this argument of investing in quality kit to the bosses at my place. For the layman I think it's hard, unless they have some inkling about how good digital quality can be, for them to pick out whether something is of superior quality. That's why when I present to management the issue of upgrading they just don't see it, a fact I suppose is clouded even more by inferior print quality these days.

Show many people a shot taken on a £150 compact (of which there are many very good ones) and they will usually not question whether or not the quality is any good. I'm not for one moment saying that all pros could get along with 450ds etc - the features high end cameras offer are the main attraction I suppose – but the investment isn't everything when it comes to pro shooting in many cases; it's the end resukt that makes the biggest difference.

Which I suppose is why I started this thread. There are many of use with perfectly good gear (like myself) who plod on; those with what they can afford that may or not be what they want ultimately; and those who have the luxury of being able to afford the best. Do we crave for more? Are we able to maximise the potential of our equipment, be it in a professional or amateur manner? Can we see the benefits?...
 
specialman said:
[
Keirik, that dual card slot idea is something I deffo want in my future body

Your last comment is quite interesting though. I don't know if you're a pro and this is direct experience but I do find it amazing how often professionals are regarded as being expected to have the best equipment (this is no criticism of you or your comments by the way). :)
Click to expand...

Well I hardly have the 'best' equipment in terms of bodies as it is probably considered a bit obsolete, but the twin cards gives security, and the pro part in terms of the lenses a least means I have more chance of surviving when I drop them.

As an example I dropped my 28-300 L onto concrete from about 3 feet height. Now it needed repairing since I broke the IS element but the rest of the lens survived, I used it for the rest of the shoot and it only (this is a relative term) cost £300 to fix - which given what could have happened is a bit of a result
 
I'm a happy amateur with a 5D mk II and 4 lenses, including 3 L's, which makes me a wannabe semi-pro at least :D

I think in my case it's the pleasure of being able to indulge a lifelong hobby. It goes back to being aged about 14, on a holiday in the Isle of Wight, and seeing a Fuji STX-2 (clunky manual SLR) in a camera shop window. I was desperate to own a SLR at the time, as I was using an old 50's point'n'shoot camera where you had to guess the focus. My parents didn't get the hint :( and I had to wait a few more years until I could afford to buy my first SLR, a Minolta 5000.

I like the fact that I can achieve professional quality in my pics. Sure I could probably do the same with a basic DSLR and a kit lens, but it's a bit of luxury in a hard world :)

A.
 
specialman said:
I've been involved in a few threads this week and have really noticed a high number of shooters who are non-professional who have vast (and expensive) arrays of kit. I'd love to have the amount of gear some of them have*–*but can't afford it –*and even though I shoot five-days-a-week for magazines, there's no way I could yet justify the outlay.

So it got me thinking; looking at the level of kit you own and the amount of gear you have, do you actually get the benefit from it all?
Click to expand...

I'm struggling to understand the question as it is here mate :thinking:

I've run it over in my mind and so far it generates more questions.

Essentially, I consider all cameras, lenses and lighting as tools, whether your making a living, enjoyment or both. They are all tools.

Do we use our tools to the fullest potential or the best of our ability?

Do we understand the technology of our tools and utilise effectively?

Are we wasting money on tools that we aren't prepared to learn how to use correctly?

Are we envious of others and demand that they justify their ownership and ability?
 
Thomaswhitehouse, basically, with the level of kit you have do you get the benefit from everything the lenses and camera offer you in terms of the performance and techjnological capability... or could you actually do with lesser equipment so to speak?
 
When I was shooting professionally (mostly weddings) I managed quite well with a 50mm prime, a 28-70 zoom and a 24mm 2.8 prime which was used mainly for wide interior shots and larger groups. I never felt a pressing need for anything else.

Nowadays I shoot purely for the love of it and I shoot mainly wildlife where long lenses with a fast maximum aperture are a huge advantage, so I can categorically state that I'm getting the benefit on what is admittedly a substantial investment. On the other hand I have other expensive lenses which although they get used, don't get used as intensively as the longer glass, and which I'd find it difficult to justify on a use/returns basis, but they're stunning lenses when I use them and I don't torture myself with questions about whether they're justified anyway. :D
 
specialman said:
Thomaswhitehouse, basically, with the level of kit you have do you get the benefit from everything the lenses and camera offer you in terms of the performance and techjnological capability... or could you actually do with lesser equipment so to speak?
Click to expand...

If that's the question then I can't give a simple answer, as the answer is totally dependent on circumstances.

I use two camera bodies and I have best lenses and 'not so best lenses'.

For personal stuff I can 'make do' but for work purposes I have bought my tools based on research of technology and balanced this with what is required from me.

I can't shoot figure skating events to a high standard with a 5.6 lens and a lower FPS, but, I can certainly make a half decent portrait with one.

I think as a whole we tend to buy the best tools we can afford.

Whether or not we deserve them is moot, it's the value (internal & external) of our output that seems to have more effect on the opportunity we encounter.
 
im just getting into photography, but its something i really want to get into, and am currently saving to get my first "L" lens and upgrade my body to something like a 40d

thing is , i am the sort of the person who will always spen a lot of money on kit , because i always want the best results, there is nothing that irritates me more than not having good enough kit to do what you want.

however money isn't everything, i just got a canon nifty fifty, becaue i didnt feel my kit lens and 300m tamron were up to standard. which is going to last me till i get a new lens, but i feel that this lens is outstanding for the price, you could probably pay 4 times more and get something that isnt as good.

i always think "in for a penny in for a pound" so if your going to pay 4-5 hundred for a lens you may as well pay 8 for a top lens , and never have to replace it
 
There are elements of my kit that I will never use and I freely admit that, but there are other elements of it that I think are an absolute necessity. The fact that I can't pick and choose the specific elements I want but tend to get more features than I realistically need does not negate the one feature that I do truly need.

In other words, I don't want all the features that I end up with but I do have to purchase a gear that fulfills the one that I need.

Take frames per second, I very rarely use anything other than single shot so I don't need a high fps rate. But I do need the ability to shoot high res images in low light. The fact that one sometimes comes with the other does not mean that I have to suddenly stick my camera on motordrive just because it is there. So, of course there are features on my cameras that I don't use but that's not what I bought them for. So long as I fully utilise the functionality that I bought it for I'm happy to ignore some features I really don't need.
 
in short no I dont, my macro lens hardly gets used but I would never part with it, my 1d and 300 mm lens only gets used if I go birding or motor sport so only been used 5-6 times the 70-200 only gets used when I decide to go walk about ( not often). and the 17-35 I take along with the 70-200 when I go on hols, my most used is the 28-70 when I take pics of koi for websites.

but I would not want to get rid opf any of them .
 
the only time i change any of my kit is because it cant do something that i want/need it to do. Do i earn money from photography - yes, am i a pro, no. I have an L lens, which i wanted because it has charateristics not found on budget lenses.

my kit went from
fuji 6500fd - 400D - 50D
kit lens - 17-70mm sigma - 24-70L/10-22mm
70-300 APO - 70-200 2.8 sigma
nifty fifty - 50mm 1.4

as you can see i have upgraded my lenses all with specific reasons. however i cant use them all the time, it just means that my scope of work is larger than someone the shoots primarily wildlife with a 500mm f/4, who, which can be argued uses their kit to their full potential.
 
I only have basic kit tbh, one lens and it's a nifty... However, I want a lot more kit. Sometimes I do lust over sexy glass, but the main reason for wanting new kit is because my current kit holds me back. My 30D might not be the best, but it's certainly better than me and so I thought it a worthwhile investment, the 50mm was just something half decent to stick on the front. Oh how I wish I had £700 for a couple of nice lenses.
 
i think im a lucky position, in that both me and my partner have stable jobs, and since becoming more involved in wedding photography we upgraded our a kit a great deal. For me the decision would be very difficult, had we not had the funds available. the kit is an investment for me, that I know I could sell almost at cost price if times became desperate. Now that we are doing paid events, the initial cost is being gradually offset. I agree what 33L said, i try to buy the cheapest kit possible, but sometimes it doesnt match up to the pro stuff.

i guess it mostly depends on the individual's economic circumstances
 
specialman said:
I shoot for angling magazines so do everything from macro shos of hooks, wide-angle scenics, right through to close cropped portraits and action shots on the 80-200mm. :)
Click to expand...

Action shots watching Angling? :eek: ;) :lol:

It's OK, no need to reply to that, just having a laugh. :lol:

Back on topic. I think the professional has to justify their kit to be of a quantifiable benefit with regards to the final result. You, and you bosses have come to the conclusion that the kit you have is good enough for the work you do.

The amateur or hobbyist have different justifications for the kit they/we buy. Yes, we want higher image quality (doesn't everyone want the best quality?) Any picture we take may have the potential to be printed at any size, and do not have to only have look good at 'poor' quality magazine resolution.

We also need to enjoy using the gear we have, the professional only needs it to do a job, and I think once someone is professional, the equipment become tools, and especially if the photographer is not paying for equipment themselves, not as precious imho. I've seen a few professional photographers and their gear is never usually in pristine condition. Is this because it is used more, or because the 'tog' is not as careful? Maybe a bit of both?

For the amount of pictures I print (though always the intention to print more) I shouldn't have the gear I have. :( But do I enjoy taking the pics? Yes, I do. Am I willing to pay (and get into debt) to have better equipment to hopefully enjoy it more? Yes, but I have limits. Some people's limits are lower or higher than mine, and as long as they are not making their family eat bread and water to get the equipment ;) then good luck to them.

I'm sure some people buy gear as a status symbol, doesn't mean they can take a good picture, but if they are enjoying actually taking the pics, rather than enjoying the envious looks they may get, the again, good luck to them.

I always say to people, don't be intimidated by someone with top of the range camera and expensive lenses, it doesn't mean they take good pics. :shrug: Just as it can mean someone with a Subaru Imprezza is a good driver.

At least if someone is a professional, someone thinks their pics are good, and are willing to pay them. Even if the may not buy them the best equipment. ;)
 
Do i get the best out of my camera? No because i simply havent got it yet :)

Will i get the best out of my camera when i have it? - Over time, yes i will make the most out of my camera - but its a learning curve, and i would rather have a bit of kit that i can grown into, than a bit of kit that i will want more from in a years time

I would like to be a professional photographer within the next 3 years, i have already recieved paid jobs, been given opportunities to make money from my work and have taken those opportunities as much as possible

But when i turn pro, i dont want to pick up a D700 or a D3 and start my photographic career with new kit, i want to learn it first

so i think its a good idea for me to have the kit i plan to use for the forseeable future, as soon as possible so i can get used to it

Perhaps i wont use it to its fulliest until i am pro, but i will take the time to learn it first :)
 
Short answer is that it makes me feel good, they are my toys and I enjoy playing with them.

I have a 5DMk2 apart from one wedding it has done no commercial work, and I only take images for my HNC projects (which are printed no larger than 6" x 4") or for posting on here, although I don't do that as much as I used to.

I have used my 85L & 135L lenses only a few times each, and I have just bought a 300mm f2.8 to play with which I used for the first time yesterday. My 12-24mm Siggy has not been used on my 5DMk2 yet as I haven't required a wider angle than that supplied by my 24-70L, but it is there for if/when I need it.

I have 6 studio flash heads with a variety of modifiers and have not used more than 4 for years, and I have a selection of different colour lastolite type backgrounds that also get little use. But they are all here if I want to use them. I bought a light table as I thought it was cool.

They are my toys, I use them when I feel the need and I upgrade/change them when the need or compulsion arises.
 
So it got me thinking; looking at the level of kit you own and the amount of gear you have, do you actually get the benefit from it all?
Click to expand...

Do I get benefit from it all?
Yes. I wouldn't be able to take photographs at all without my camera gear.
Does it benefit me? Yes. It makes me happy. It occassionally earns me money.

do you get the maximum out of them or are there features you'll never use or actually benefit from?
Click to expand...

I don't know really. I've used most of the stuff on my 40d and I use it quite a lot. I use the f/2.8 on my 24-60 quite frequently, as do I the IS on my 55-250. I think there are features of my 40d I'll not use much but that's just down to personal preference.

How do you justify their purchase?
Click to expand...

They make me happy. I enjoy photography. I use them to earn pocket money therefore minimizing the cost of them. Etc.

Do you think of them as pieces of kit to future-proof yourself, a simple treat or are they essential to getting the shots you want?
Click to expand...

Future proof? No.
Simple treat? Yes, about 75%.
Essential to getting the shots? Some bits are. My lenses are essential. Some other bits like a timer release, filter kit, off-camera flash etc. They aren't essential, but....


Will that new kit allow mw to be a better photographer - possibly. It will allow me to work more comfortably for one thing.
Click to expand...

They all allow me to get the shots I envision a lot more comfortably.

A pro could probably achieve most of the shots they want with some amount of difficulty with a 450d and basic lenses.
The reason they buy the top quality equipment is because it makes getting the shot a whole lot easier.

Hacker, for example, could probably get the shots he wanted with a 450d and a 70-300.
But it would be very stressful and very difficult.
Hence why he has a camera that can handle low light well, lenses that have top quality optics and a wide maximum aperture. He benefits from this top quality gear as it makes his life easier and ultimately improves his photography.
Obviously he has the skill and the know-how to pull it off, which is a massive part of it, too.

What would I benefit from in the future?
Click to expand...

I'd like full frame. I shoot mostly portraits and landscapes and cityscapes, and some full frame and top quality lens goodness would benefit my image quality a lot.

Do you get everything you need from the kit you have, do you get anything from the money you spent and if you need to, where do you need to upgrade and for what reason?
Click to expand...

Everything I need? Yes, much, much more than I need.

Anything from the money I spent? Well I suppose people say money can't buy you happiness but I get a great amount of pleasure from my kit.

I don't really need to upgrade anything. I want to get a 5d mark 2, a 24-70L, a 17-40 L and a 70-200 L IS (not bothered about f/4 or f/2.8), though.
 
All my kit gets used - maybe not every day but everything gets used enough to justify me having it. I don't (and probably never will) use some of it to its full capabilities but do appreciate those that I do use. Pretty much got all I want now with f/2.8 lenses in 24-200, OS or VR from 70-500 and a fast prime or 3 as well. Got the wide end covered well and that's helped by a FF sensor to make it even wider.
 
I went through having all the lenses and realised that as an amateur I really had to limit it to the shots I was taking. I honed my collection down to two.

I may not have been able to do that if I had not gone through the process of trying them all and seeing what I actually do shoot.

I now have the confidence to say me two choices are the ones for me. I don't pine for others any more. However I didn't lose any money on the venture, so I would encourage anyone to go through the process.

I am hoping to emulate a professionals take on any shot. I would hate the lens to be the weak link. Damn it, I aspire to do it professionally, but realise there is so much more to the business of photography, so maybe I still want the joy of doing it because I want to and don't have to.

There are always some people with better cameras, better lenses and better equipment, but I try to get the most creative shots I can. That's not always possible with a tight remit. A full camera bag does not make a photographer, but neither does an empty one!

Graham
 
specialman said:
Your last comment is quite interesting though. I don't know if you're a pro and this is direct experience but I do find it amazing how often professionals are regarded as being expected to have the best equipment
Click to expand...
I don't know whether that question was to me or to Keirirk, it fits both, and is valid either way.
coldpenguin said:
For a professional photographer, their livelyhood is based on their equipment, thus they must ensure that their equipment can perform the job they require. They maybe cannot justify spending some of their profits on a frivolous item such as a long lens. It does seem to me sometimes, that depending on which area of photography the money is being made from, it can be a bit cut-throat, or seriously over-populated.
Click to expand...
I am an amateur. Through and Through. I would like to be able to shoot a wedding as a second shooter, to see whether I could. Just for the experience. I would love to be able to sell some of my work, however at the moment, none of my shots satisfy me. There is always something I could have done better. For the landscape shots I do, the composition could always have been better, and the focus could have been sharper. This could be just me being too critical.
For the bird shots I take, I know that I am not getting close enough. I have recently bought my first L lens, the 100-400 IS, and an extender, which will remove that excuse. Will I be happy with my shots then. Possibly not, but until I try I won't know. I suspect I am always going to lust after a longer lens (saw an amazing shot from the 600mm this morning...).
But that is just lust. I do not need them.

When I get my good shot, I would want to put it up, A3, or A2 somewhere in the house (there are a couple of 'posters' which could be replaced).

On my statement, about a professional needing good equipment, I think that it is true. I wasn't being snobish in it, I really mean just that the equipment for a professional must be of a standard suitable to gain the results required for the end product. If it is low light, they must have a fast lens, or a camera which deals with the low light. If I were to submit a 1600ISO image from my 400d with noise all over it, it would be laughable.

On the amount of photography being cut-throat [I think this is off topic now], that is purely what I have felt from reading these forums, and seeing things in the high-street. I may be incorrect, but it seems that it would be possible for someone to walk into a camera shop, buy a camera, and start sending out leaflets/flyers advertising for work. In studio work, they need a couple of good shots of friends or family to show to clients, then just click away. In this situation, if a client is not happy with the end result they could retake. This sours the market, but overall may not harm the truly good professionals. They need to guard against the market getting too cheap, but overall there might be little lost revenue to the pool of professionals.
However, I doubt I will ever go to a studio session for pictures of myself. So the only time I would see a professional, is for my wedding. This is something that wouldn't be retaken. Thus if this is ruined, it is lost revenue to the pool of professional photographers. This is where a problem lies.

On your particular situation, then it sounds to me that you have the focal lengths that you require covered. If the lenses are lacking, then you want faster glass, better quality, to allow for more opportunities to be taken advantage of. However, it sounds like your end-purpose for the images wouldn't benefit from extra MP etc. Doesn't mean that you wouldn't use them if they were not there, but they are not a requirement. In your position, it is the skill that is required mainly, you have to know when that 'action shot' is going to appear (I would possibly be looking the other way!).

foodpoison said:
They all allow me to get the shots I envision a lot more comfortably.

A pro could probably achieve most of the shots they want with some amount of difficulty with a 450d and basic lenses.
The reason they buy the top quality equipment is because it makes getting the shot a whole lot easier.
Click to expand...

I think this is very true. However, how many of us would be, concerned, the moment that you saw a pro turn up to a wedding with a 300d + kit lens. I know it shouldn't be, but there would be the expectation from me that the photographer would have a better camera than I. However, when I saw the images, if they are good, then they are good. There is no reason why I should have thought that this fictitious photographer
could not produce the results. I suppose in a way, I forget that photography is an art, and not a technicality. For my work, I would expect my customers to have a much faster computer for their professional work, than I have at home. The same probably goes when I turn up on site with a dodgy broken laptop. There is the expectation that I can make it sing and dance. It does what I need it to do though.

For my wedding (before I got a DSLR), over 3 years ago, our photographer shot film. I didn't really think anything about this at all, I didn't even pay enough attention to the camera to know what he was shooting with. We are extremely happy with our photos. For my two Sister's in laws weddings, their photographers shot with several pro cameras, up-to-date with top of the range lenses. Still didn't mean that they were 100% happy with the results that were obtained.


Hmm, way way off topic there.

I suppose the short answer is, in our work, we make do with what is required to get the results that are required. If we can make do, then we unfortunately don't get the option to upgrade.
In our personal lives, we may not benefit from every option in the kit that we have in our hobbies, but, the options we do get are weighed against what we think we need.
 
I get a lot of benefit from my kit, just not in financial terms.
In fact I actively avoid any suggestions that I make money from photography. I don't need any more stress or hassle or deadlines and I've absolutely no wish or intention to move into pro photography at all. And no... I'm not rich.

But the benefits that I do get are priceless.
Yesterday we spent some time in the garden with my three year old Grandson, he was "painting" Which basically involves sticking both hands in paint and generally getting covered in the stuff. I believe some of the paint does end up on paper eventually, but I don't think it's mandatory.

So... he was playing with paint whilst I played with a 1D mark III, a 17-40L, a 135 L and an 85 L. We both had fun. And to me that's worth far more than the cost of the equipment. I guess that we all look at this in different ways depending on our need.

cheers
 
coldpenguin said:
I think this is very true. However, how many of us would be, concerned, the moment that you saw a pro turn up to a wedding with a 300d + kit lens. I know it shouldn't be, but there would be the expectation from me that the photographer would have a better camera than I. However, when I saw the images, if they are good, then they are good. There is no reason why I should have thought that this fictitious photographer
could not produce the results. I suppose in a way, I forget that photography is an art, and not a technicality. For my work, I would expect my customers to have a much faster computer for their professional work, than I have at home. The same probably goes when I turn up on site with a dodgy broken laptop. There is the expectation that I can make it sing and dance. It does what I need it to do though.

For my wedding (before I got a DSLR), over 3 years ago, our photographer shot film. I didn't really think anything about this at all, I didn't even pay enough attention to the camera to know what he was shooting with. We are extremely happy with our photos. For my two Sister's in laws weddings, their photographers shot with several pro cameras, up-to-date with top of the range lenses. Still didn't mean that they were 100% happy with the results that were obtained.


Hmm, way way off topic there.

I suppose the short answer is, in our work, we make do with what is required to get the results that are required. If we can make do, then we unfortunately don't get the option to upgrade.
In our personal lives, we may not benefit from every option in the kit that we have in our hobbies, but, the options we do get are weighed against what we think we need.
Click to expand...

Not off topic at all!
Spot on, 100%.
 
fracster said:
How much benefit?.....Not sure really.

How much enjoyment?...........Loads.

:)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much the same. I find it one of the most relaxing hobbies I've ever had, and when I've done work for people it's always been for enjoyment rather than money.
 
I get no financial benefit but I enjoy the results I get with my kit, I started out with crappy lenses and just wasn't happy with the results so I got some better lenses and now I'm happy.
 
EdBray said:
Short answer is that it makes me feel good, they are my toys and I enjoy playing with them.

They are my toys, I use them when I feel the need and I upgrade/change them when the need or compulsion arises.
Click to expand...

That's kind of how it is for me - I have over the years accumulated more gear than I need and some of it see a lot less use than it should. A better photographer would be able to get a lot more out of my gear, but what I get out of it is enjoyment. I'll keep taking photos and keep trying to learn more in the hope of getting more out of what I have.
 
I've got a couple of 1 series bodies and a range of weather sealed lenses which all get used when appropriate. Because I'm mainly working outdoors I'd say yes, I do get the benefit from them. I don't however use or need all the features on the bodies.
 
fracster said:
How much benefit?.....Not sure really.

How much enjoyment?...........Loads.

:)
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'm shooting for fun. Maybe one day someone will notice me and ask for a wedding to be done, or some paid portraits or something.
 
specialman said:
Thomaswhitehouse, basically, with the level of kit you have do you get the benefit from everything the lenses and camera offer you in terms of the performance and techjnological capability... or could you actually do with lesser equipment so to speak?
Click to expand...

Could i do it? yes.

Will it look as good? same result? No.

Back in the film days, possibily, but these days the sensor makes up half the difference in the final result of the photo, from iso, colour, DOF (being FF), and that all alluring film like look.

So, in a way, to acheive the shot i have in my mind, i need the gear I own/getting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top