whats the best you can do?

Lunaticsamurai

Lunaticsamurai

Messages
1,228
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
I have been thinking for a while about togs and thier shots, not only that but the serious amounts of money you guys spend.

Being somone who has never spent more than £1500 on camera gear i have never had the pleasure of using top level equipment, so what i want to see is this fantastic detail that you high end shooters get with your 10k lens, but there is a twist to this...

I also want to see everyones shots, even if your lens cost £30..


So please can you post up your images and specify what lens, including price and camera you used.
 
Last edited:
Good call. Often wondered you Q myself.

So here's mine. D40 18 - 55mm kit. This I believe is the most tack sharp image I've ever taken with it. I've never ever replicated it. This shot keeps me going. Always refer back to it for ability.

5168049095_650dbf346a_b.jpg
[/url] Asian Commercial Film, Ho Chi Minh City by RTL:), on Flickr[/IMG]
 
This is my Tamron 70-300 got it for £99 in sale from jessops

was taken at 300mm focal length on my canon eos 500d


Penguin by Martin.Robertson, on Flickr

and this one was taken with the 18-55 canon kit lens that came with the 500d


Jam Doughnut by Martin.Robertson, on Flickr

i know there not lenses that cost loads of ££ i just couldnt afford it.

i am looking at getting a nice 14mm prime by canon though when i can find one cheap enough. lol
 
Last edited:
I think what i've found more soul destroying are the comments like...'Fantastic shot...considering your gear'..
This kind of says to me, unless you're going to go out and spend mega bucks, you may as well give up now, because this is as good as you're going to get :crying:
I'm pretty confident that I'm nowhere near the capabilities of my gear, and there is still more to come!

Sorry if I meander from the topic a bit...;-)
 
Tori said:
I think what i've found more soul destroying are the comments like...'Fantastic shot...considering your gear'..
This kind of says to me, unless you're going to go out and spend mega bucks, you may as well give up now, because this is as good as you're going to get :crying:
I'm pretty confident that I'm nowhere near the capabilities of my gear, and there is still more to come!

Sorry if I meander from the topic a bit...;-)
Click to expand...

Well, we don't listen to comments like that, lol..

So whats the best you have got then? (y)
 
lol ;-) i like that idea. But saying that, I value alot of the comments I've had on here.

My best? Hmm...I've not been taking pics that long, but I'll add one as soon as I can work out why I can't post one here at the moment..(Hosting probs lol)
 
Last edited:
Having to resort to photobucket to load up pics :(

IMG_1983.jpg


Canon 500D with 70-300mm IS lens
 
That is great Chris, really confuses the eye!

How did you set it up?
 
lawrie29 said:
That is great Chris, really confuses the eye!

How did you set it up?
Click to expand...

plank of wood covered in white paper, set it up with the angle that was needed for the water then filled it whilst they were stuck to the wood with sticky tape, put coloured cake icing dye in the water...

2 flashes were used, one for the back drop and one for the glasses...
 
Cropped shot from Canon 350D with the original el cheapo non IS kit lens, you can even see the hairs under the chin, do butterflys have chins :D

Img_3049c.jpg
 
Vantage said:
Good call. Often wondered you Q myself.

So here's mine. D40 18 - 55mm kit. This I believe is the most tack sharp image I've ever taken with it. I've never ever replicated it. This shot keeps me going. Always refer back to it for ability.

5168049095_650dbf346a_b.jpg
[/url] Asian Commercial Film, Ho Chi Minh City by RTL:), on Flickr[/IMG]
Click to expand...
lol, the camera in the photo is about £30k's worth.... :D

it really isn't the camera or the photographer...lol. Many of my best shots were shot at iso 400, f8, so could have been shot SHARP with any modern dslr...
 
5339878156_d58bfa439c_z.jpg


This one is a shot of the space centre tower in Leicester. Taken with a Nikon D3 and a Nikkor 16-35 f4 lens. The total cost in the thousands

4000535837_08f7c37a98_z.jpg


In contrast this on was taken with a Nikon D50 using a Nikkor 70-300mm lens. The lens cost me £89 second hand and the camera nothing. It was given to me by a friend when he upgraded.
I don,t think the first shot is three thousand pounds better.
 
On my iPhone so not easy to share pics at the moment.

There are lots of issues with price vs IQ arguments - often higher priced items do not hugely improve the maximum possible IQ but

-they may be nicer to use
-you might be able to get shots in darker situations
-they may be suitable for harsh conditions
-they may allow better dof control
-they may allow higher quality crops
-they won't make a better photographer of you per-se!

Phil
 

Snowy by Gaz C, on Flickr

Nikon N90 (Purchased in the USA) & Nikon 70-300 f4-5.6G ( Purchased in Japan)
I think the film was Fuji Velvia:thinking:





Gaz
 
010_10s43.jpg

(Again)

Olympus OM2 SP (£33) + Tokina 25-50mm F4 (£17.50) + Ilford XP2 film (£4) + Development (£8) = £62.50
 
philthejuggler said:
On my iPhone so not easy to share pics at the moment.

There are lots of issues with price vs IQ arguments - often higher priced items do not hugely improve the maximum possible IQ but

-they may be nicer to use
-you might be able to get shots in darker situations
-they may be suitable for harsh conditions
-they may allow better dof control
-they may allow higher quality crops
-they won't make a better photographer of you per-se!

Phil
Click to expand...

Yup, which is why this thread is a bit pointless imho....:thinking: People with all levels of equipment have the capability to take fantastic shots, but certain situations will show the limits of certain pieces of equipment.

I buy expensive gear just as much for the build quality than the IQ, but things like improved AF speed won't necessarily improve an image, but it could (and has numerous times) mean the difference between getting a shot and not getting it.....(y)

I seen some stunning photos that have been taken with entry level equipment, but try and take a sharp, noise free photo of a moving object in a dark room with a NEX-5 and the kit lens and it will be a lot harder than it would be using a 5Dmk2 with an 85mm f1.2 on the front! It may be possible with both set ups, but I bet pretty much anyone who knew how to use both cameras properly would find it a lot easier with the ££££'s worth of gear than the £££'s worth!

It's not snobbishness or people showing off, it's just fact.....and this isn't meant as a rant in any way at all, it's genuinely meant with the best intentions ;) I'm just not sure there's any point to the thread! tbh! :shrug:
 
Slimbert said:
Yup, which is why this thread is a bit pointless imho....:thinking: People with all levels of equipment have the capability to take fantastic shots, but certain situations will show the limits of certain pieces of equipment.

I buy expensive gear just as much for the build quality than the IQ, but things like improved AF speed won't necessarily improve an image, but it could (and has numerous times) mean the difference between getting a shot and not getting it.....(y)

I seen some stunning photos that have been taken with entry level equipment, but try and take a sharp, noise free photo of a moving object in a dark room with a NEX-5 and the kit lens and it will be a lot harder than it would be using a 5Dmk2 with an 85mm f1.2 on the front! It may be possible with both set ups, but I bet pretty much anyone who knew how to use both cameras properly would find it a lot easier with the ££££'s worth of gear than the £££'s worth!

It's not snobbishness or people showing off, it's just fact.....and this isn't meant as a rant in any way at all, it's genuinely meant with the best intentions ;) I'm just not sure there's any point to the thread! tbh! :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't think this thread is pointless at all to be honest.

Ok your comparison of a NEX-5 kit lens Vs a 5DII with a f1.2 is a bit of a daft one to be honest, its not that the NEX is'nt capable but the lens is certainly not. With the same lens or equivelent maybe the NEX would outperform the 5D at 7 frames a second but until someone does a comparison who knows.

Your also comparing a full frame sensor to a crop, so again the comparison is not fair.

ok so you buy build quality aswell as IQ and AF speed to get the shot that someone else might miss, but back in the good old days before AF plenty of togs "got the shot" It about knowing your gear and being able to use it to its full potential, just because your lens cost £3000 doesn't mean you'll "get the shot" and that is a fact.

I appreciate your comments and value them, that is the point of this thread. :)
 
Lunaticsamurai said:
Your also comparing a full frame sensor to a crop, so again the comparison is not fair.
Click to expand...

Technically yes, but I'm actually comparing an expensive camera to a cheaper one....but if it makes it fairer, compare the Canon 7D to the NEX-5. Noise handling, AF speed, build quality, better viewfinder....infact most things that matter to a serious photographer to make the job in hand easier, quicker with a higher success rate, are better on the 7D and that's what you're paying the extra for! The only things I can see that might be better on the NEX cameras are the price and to some people, the size.

Now, if your talking purely about end product image quality, then there are way more factors involved than the price tag of a lens or camera body.....user talent, post processing and subject are far more important imo than edge sharpness at f4 etc.....which is why I think this thread is a bit daft!

It seems like you're wanting to see the achievable quality of photographs taken with various levels of equipment by photographers of widely different levels of ability in unknown and different situations and compare them for end image quality.....that's way too many variables to get even a vaguely accurate conclusion! Zack Arias would wipe the floor with me if I had 10 times the value of equipment at my disposal.....he's simply a lot better than me and equipment can't bridge that bigger a gap!!

Lunaticsamurai said:
but back in the good old days before AF plenty of togs "got the shot"
Click to expand...

They did, but I bet they didn't get it as often or as easily at a consistantly high level and that's my point.....expensive equipment makes what used to be very difficult/impossible shots not only possible, but sometimes quite easy! Sharp handheld shots at 1/20 were impossible for me with my previous set-up, but with my current camera and lens it's a doddle! (y)

Lunaticsamurai said:
just because your lens cost £3000 doesn't mean you'll "get the shot" and that is a fact.
Click to expand...

It won't guarantee that I get the shot....but it'll definitely make it more likely!! The extra stop of light you get with an f2.8 lens over an f4 one might make the difference between getting noticeable subject movement rendering the shot unuseable....or it might just make it sharp enough to supply to a customer. If you're making a living from your photography then I'd say it's worth the extra investment!! The same goes for low noise levels at high ISO's....for wedding photographers that often shoot in low light where flash isn't allowed....it's a must! If you're supplying noisey or blurred images to your customers because your gear isn't up to the job then you're selling them short and should give it up!
 
Slimbert said:
Technically yes, but I'm actually comparing an expensive camera to a cheaper one....but if it makes it fairer, compare the Canon 7D to the NEX-5. Noise handling, AF speed, build quality, better viewfinder....infact most things that matter to a serious photographer to make the job in hand easier, quicker with a higher success rate, are better on the 7D and that's what you're paying the extra for! The only things I can see that might be better on the NEX cameras are the price and to some people, the size.
This is not a "my camera is better than your camera thread", i think your misreading it.Now, if your talking purely about end product image quality, then there are way more factors involved than the price tag of a lens or camera body.....user talent, post processing and subject are far more important imo than edge sharpness at f4 etc.....which is why I think this thread is a bit daft!

You are right, something which i have already stated but again ultimately it still only comes down to image quality, so again this is not a daft thread, if anything its an informative one to those who don't know the differnce between cheap and expensive, far too many people think that if they buy expensive it automatically makes them a better tog

It seems like you're wanting to see the achievable quality of photographs taken with various levels of equipment by photographers of widely different levels of ability in unknown and different situations and compare them for end image quality.....that's way too many variables to get even a vaguely accurate conclusion! Zack Arias would wipe the floor with me if I had 10 times the value of equipment at my disposal.....he's simply a lot better than me and equipment can't bridge that bigger a gap!!

Thats the thing, i'm not looking for a conclusion, what i am looking for is member interaction, get people posting up thier pictures. The one thing i am sure of is that everyone's opinion of a good photo is completely different.

They did, but I bet they didn't get it as often or as easily at a consistantly high level and that's my point.....expensive equipment makes what used to be very difficult/impossible shots not only possible, but sometimes quite easy! Sharp handheld shots at 1/20 were impossible for me with my previous set-up, but with my current camera and lens it's a doddle! (y)

I agree with you on this, but again if they get the shot then they get the shot, maybe the 5DII user wastes 50 out of 60 shots and the old guy only take 15 total with 10 usable.

It won't guarantee that I get the shot....but it'll definitely make it more likely!! The extra stop of light you get with an f2.8 lens over an f4 one might make the difference between getting noticeable subject movement rendering the shot unuseable....or it might just make it sharp enough to supply to a customer. If you're making a living from your photography then I'd say it's worth the extra investment!! The same goes for low noise levels at high ISO's....for wedding photographers that often shoot in low light where flash isn't allowed....it's a must! If you're supplying noisey or blurred images to your customers because your gear isn't up to the job then you're selling them short and should give it up!
Click to expand...

Again your saying that the expensive gear will get the shot, forgetting what you have already said about user talent, i'd bet that you don't know how to use your gear to its full extent, not many people do.

The thing is, this is not an argument thread, or a "your dick is bigger than mine" I wanted to see people posting up thier shots and see a variety of cheap gear and expensive. If i am honest i do believe that in certain situations cheap gear can outperform expensive, if you know how to use it, and if i had the money i would no doubt buy the best, why wouldn't i. :)
 
Lunaticsamurai said:
i'd bet that you don't know how to use your gear to its full extent, not many people do
Click to expand...

Correct on both counts.....but I do know that I can do things with my 7D that I couldn't with my previous camera a 40D and my 17-55mm Canon can do things that my previous 17-50mm couldnt, things that will greatly help me take consistantly better quality photos.....and again, that's why expensive equipment is worth the extra money to me! Pricey gear might be wasted on some people because they simply don't have a need to go anywhere near its limits.....but some people shoot right on the limits of their gear day in day out where their livelihood is on the line. Having an extra stop of light, having usable high ISO quality, quicker AF blah blah blah can mean the difference between being able to pay the mortgage and not. These things do sometimes make the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot....not all the time, but certainly sometimes, whether this is important enough to you to worry about it or not, I don't know, but to some people it definitely is important! (y)

In the main, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I think for you to be so dismissive about the advantages of high end gear when you've admitted that you've never used it is a bit silly.....how can you know?! :thinking: Which makes a comment like this:
i do believe that in certain situations cheap gear can out-perform expensive
Click to expand...
make me scratch my head a bit....:thinking: How can you know that, if you've never used any pro gear?!

Just to make this this clear, I hate spending money on equipment. I will only spend the money after thinking about it carefully and if I can justify it to myself....I would never buy anything for the badge or the kudos it may bring and everything is bought on a "value for money" basis. I see my equipment as being a tool to do a job, nothing more! On TP meets I often lend my equipment to others so they can use equipment they be looking to purchase so they can make their own decision as to whether it's worth the extra dough or not. To some it is (y), to others it's not :thumbsdown:

Everything I've said in this thread has been meant with the best intentions.....I'm really not in to p*****g contests and I appologise if it's come across that way. I know this is a long shot, but if you're heading anywhere near Norwich any time soon you are more than welcome to pop round to mine and have a proper play with anything in my kit bag. Not the minute or two you might get in a camera shop but an hour or two around the local area that will give you a real experience with some fairly pricey gear....this is a genuine offer, however unlikely it is of happening!! :p
 
Slimbert said:
Correct on both counts.....but I do know that I can do things with my 7D that I couldn't with my previous camera a 40D and my 17-55mm Canon can do things that my previous 17-50mm couldnt, things that will greatly help me take consistantly better quality photos.....and again, that's why expensive equipment is worth the extra money to me! Pricey gear might be wasted on some people because they simply don't have a need to go anywhere near its limits.....but some people shoot right on the limits of their gear day in day out where their livelihood is on the line. Having an extra stop of light, having usable high ISO quality, quicker AF blah blah blah can mean the difference between being able to pay the mortgage and not. These things do sometimes make the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot....not all the time, but certainly sometimes, whether this is important enough to you to worry about it or not, I don't know, but to some people it definitely is important! (y)

In the main, we'll have to agree to disagree, but I think for you to be so dismissive about the advantages of high end gear when you've admitted that you've never used it is a bit silly.....how can you know?! :thinking: Which makes a comment like this: make me scratch my head a bit....:thinking: How can you know that, if you've never used any pro gear?!

Just to make this this clear, I hate spending money on equipment. I will only spend the money after thinking about it carefully and if I can justify it to myself....I would never buy anything for the badge or the kudos it may bring and everything is bought on a "value for money" basis. I see my equipment as being a tool to do a job, nothing more! On TP meets I often lend my equipment to others so they can use equipment they be looking to purchase so they can make their own decision as to whether it's worth the extra dough or not. To some it is (y), to others it's not :thumbsdown:

Everything I've said in this thread has been meant with the best intentions.....I'm really not in to p*****g contests and I appologise if it's come across that way. I know this is a long shot, but if you're heading anywhere near Norwich any time soon you are more than welcome to pop round to mine and have a proper play with anything in my kit bag. Not the minute or two you might get in a camera shop but an hour or two around the local area that will give you a real experience with some fairly pricey gear....this is a genuine offer, however unlikely it is of happening!! :p
Click to expand...

This is a discussion and no harm intended, i love the feedback, but regard s to you scratching your head, i may have never used high end gear but i have seen shots taken with high end gear, and i can tell you without a shadow of a doubt i could do better with my gear. Thats not me being bigheaded but more the fact that its what the user does with it and like you said, if there is no talent then whats the point of spending money.

If in the hands of myself, then maybe i could do better that what i have done, but again its down to the user not the gear.
I have owned Canon and Nikon DSLR's and now i have a NEX, i can say that out of all the camera's i have owned, this is the best bit of kit i have ever bought, and the shots i am producing at the moment are outperforming my D90 with kit VR lens.

Your offer is kind, but very unlikely, :p:D, it does remind me of when i had a play of my makes 5Dmk1, and it was marginly different compared to my old 400D.
 
Lunaticsamurai said:
i have seen shots taken with high end gear, and i can tell you without a shadow of a doubt i could do better with my gear.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean that your NEX is better than whatever high end gear was used to to take the photo you're talking about, it's all about user AND camera working together, rather than expensive gear being a waste of money full stop!

If I gave you an old 300D with a kit lens, and then gave you a 1DSmk3 with an L lens attached, potentially, you'll be able to take much better photos in a much wider variety of conditions and situations with the 1DS than you would with the entry level equipment.....it all about "potential" rather than "guarantees" (y)

I'll bow out now and leave you to your thread.....sincere appologies for going so far off topic but I think my point was relevent in some small way. I still think you're wrong to be comparing in any way at all the potentials of different equipment by looking at examples taken by different people in different situations....it won't serve any purpose but to generally share photos, and there are plenty of sections already on here for that exact purpose....I've even heard rumours that there's a scary, creepy, dark place, only for witches and wizards that use something called "film"....whatever that is!! :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Slimbert said:
That doesn't mean that your NEX is better than whatever high end gear was used to to take the photo you're talking about, it's all about user AND camera working together, rather than rather than expensive gear being a waste of money full stop!

If I gave you an old 300D with a kit lens, and then gave you a 1DSmk3 with an L lens attached, potentially, you'll be able to take much better photos in a much wider variety of conditions and situations with the 1DS than you would with the entry level equipment.....it all about "potential" rather than "guarantees" (y)

I'll bow out now and leave you to your thread.....sincere appologies for going so far off topic but I think my point was relevent in some small way. I still think you're wrong to be comparing in any way at all the potentials of different equipment by looking at examples taken by different people in different situations....it won't serve any purpose but to generally share photos, and there are plenty of sections already on here for that exact purpose....I've even heard rumours that there's a scary, creepy, dark place, only for witches and wizards that use something called "film"....whatever that is!! :shrug:
Click to expand...

:) Its all constructive no matter what, again thanks for your input, i'm not proffesing to right or wrong, merely using examples in the real world.

Like i said, i don't think my camera is superior, far from it, but it serves its purpose which is to take good quality photo's. (y)
 
Not a great photo or anything but was STUNNED about how sharp it came out. Was done with a Minolta Beercan 70-210mm :)
5405600184_596cbb142b_b.jpg

On that rusty pillar i can make out really small details, like all those white bits on it just above the water (on the full size image).
 
Last edited:
Lunaticsamurai said:
Great stuff, i have been looking at this lens, have you anymore examples?
Click to expand...

Are you talking to me about the beercan, if you are im afraid i dont have a lot else at the mo. Havent had it too long and mainly saving it for some motorsport action, will get used a lot for first BTCC race in April :D . But the sharpness of it is amazing, especially for the price, highly recommend it
 
pwynn-mackenzie said:
Are you talking to me about the beercan, if you are im afraid i dont have a lot else at the mo. Havent had it too long and mainly saving it for some motorsport action, will get used a lot for first BTCC race in April :D . But the sharpness of it is amazing, especially for the price, highly recommend it
Click to expand...

I was, lol.. Can't wait to see your rally shots, although i'll probably have the lens by then. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top