Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Me again, weddings again!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jan 2013 - 12:38 AM

No significant increase in technology since when ? you latest shots show you using a D200 which is positively ancient in terms of technology. The D800 for instance would enable you to shoot faster at a higher quality and in much lower light . If that cant make you a better photographer and you dont think you could utilise a better tool for the job then i give up.

As for the best kit that would be a question of the task in hand , for my work probably a Canon 1Dx , for others maybe a longer lens for wildlife , a portrait tog maybe a Phase One etc

We have the vision, the camera makes it a reality - both parts of that equation have equal parts to play and that for me is not to hard to understand

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
17 Jan 2013 - 12:38 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

paulcookphotography

Since i bought a D700 and D3 (as mentioned earlier)

Shooting faster at lower light would not benefit me in the studio. It also wouldnt help much more with landscapes. Possibly a benefit with wildlife, but as yet i havent felt restricted (i have spend money on good glass, rather than falling for shiny new bodies). So really, a newer body is not going to 'make me better'. As for higher quality i assume you mean higher resolution. The largest i print is A3+ and my current gear is more than adequate for that (even the D200). Whenever i buy another camera, it will most likely be when one of my current bodies is no longer performing as expected.

So you have to agree that the 'best' is whatever works best for you. If it is restricting you (realistically) then of course upgrade, but dont expect miracles.

True, a combination of vision and the camera make the 'reality'. However, the 'reality' is that with whatever camera i use, whether its film, my kit or any latest camera, the end result is still my vision. I would totally disagree with the parts being equal though. Some may feel they are little more than a button pusher, but i put a bit more creativity into my work than that.

pulsar69
pulsar69  101611 forum posts United Kingdom6 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jan 2013 - 1:08 AM

I quite agree Paul , and your work is without doubt creative and admirable, it is also however largely down to processing or at least the work here on EPZ is which is great and you have great skill at that part. I cant rely on processing and have to make sure what comes out of the camera is as good as it can be , the result otherwise is a massive amount of time processing shots. That would result in me not being able to fit the amount of work in that i need to sustain my income as a photographer. I can see where you are coming from but hopefully you can also see my point ?

779HOB
779HOB  21034 forum posts United Kingdom
17 Jan 2013 - 7:21 AM


Quote: I cannot understand this mentality of people bleating on about not needing the latest , its just talk that comes from people who cant afford it


Quote: The D800 for instance would enable you to shoot faster at a higher quality and in much lower light. If that cant make you a better photographer and you dont think you could utilise a better tool for the job then i give up.

I have money in the bank to buy a D800e. I'm single so can spend it on what I want. However, I am not convinced an 800e, or any camera newer than my D700, will improve me as a photographer.

I often shoot in low light which is why I am thinking of buying a D800, I like too that it's massive MPs means I can crop into images and not bother walking closer to the subject, but I think that might make me a worse photographer. Shooting faster doesn't bother me. But I don't think the D800 will make me a better photographer, in the same way that driving a 2013 Ford Focus (I don't) would make be a better driver than if I drove a 1980 Ford Escort.

Last Modified By 779HOB at 17 Jan 2013 - 7:23 AM
collywobles
17 Jan 2013 - 8:38 AM


Quote: I have money in the bank to buy a D800e. I'm single so can spend it on what I want. However, I am not convinced an 800e, or any camera newer than my D700, will improve me as a photographer.

You are dead right Andrew but as in my case if you do not upgrade on a fairly frequent base (and thats a personal choice when) your equipment does tend to become 'old hat'. I have two 20D's that I bought in about 2003 complete with lenses and flashguns, these suite me fine now but for me to upgrade to the latetst now would cost me a fortune - so I'll probably see these out until they pack up. So if you have a long term interest in photography is it better to upgrade progressivly or leave it and for how long.


Quote: in the same way that driving a 2013 Ford Focus (I don't) would make be a better driver than if I drove a 1980 Ford Escort.

Again you are right, but you will have a more highly speced vehicle, with more comfort and it will be much safer with all the latetst technolgy and more economcal, better handling, more reliable with much better crash protection and while it wont make you a better driver - its tehnology might save you from an accident --- you make a choice. Not quite the same comparison as a new camera though I must admit but ita a valid point.

paulcookphotography


Quote: I quite agree Paul , and your work is without doubt creative and admirable, it is also however largely down to processing or at least the work here on EPZ is which is great and you have great skill at that part. I cant rely on processing and have to make sure what comes out of the camera is as good as it can be , the result otherwise is a massive amount of time processing shots. That would result in me not being able to fit the amount of work in that i need to sustain my income as a photographer. I can see where you are coming from but hopefully you can also see my point ?

The work i post here isnt really an example of my professional work, its more the hobby side, or a mix of the different aspects of the areas i cover. That said, digital artwork may involve a lot of processing, but also requires carefully and accurately captured shots. As do largely untouched (uncropped and minor edits) wildlife work and studio shoots. When i mainly did wildlife work, i learned how to track animals and study their behaviour, build hides and went on shoots with wildlife experts and pro photographers. This largely reduced the need for cropping and/or long lenses (longer than my current 300mm) and 'panic shots'. Yes, i could go and buy a D800 and crop, or buy a longer lens to reduce the need to track an animal or get as close, but that is not making me a better photographer.

I do see your point and totally agree that for wedding work you need to reduce editing time, but i'm not convinced that the latest/best is always going to make life easier for you. Neither am i convinced that it will make you a better photographer. In all honestly, it says to me that you feel your work could/would be better, and as a professional, its perhaps not the best viewpoint. I know i can give my clients the best of my work, regardless of the kit i use because i have adapted around it, and i am also happy that every shot is as good as it can be regardless of the camera.

I work best with certain cameras mainly because of how they 'feel'. Partly why i still use the D200 for messing around. I love the camera even if its a bit dated. I had upgraded at one point to a D300 as my Dx body, but eventually exchanged it with a friend for a spare D200 and lens as i just wasnt as happy with it.

779HOB
779HOB  21034 forum posts United Kingdom
17 Jan 2013 - 9:04 AM


Quote: So if you have a long term interest in photography is it better to upgrade progressivly....

100% - I spent most money on the Nikon pro lenses as I do think these improve my photos just in terms of clearer, sharper images. In digital upgrade terms I have gone from a D80 > D300 (still use as a second body) > D700 but I bought the pro lenses with the D80 mostly.


Quote: a more highly speced vehicle, with more comfort and it will be much safer with all the latetst technolgy and more economcal, better handling, more reliable with much better crash protection and while it wont make you a better driver - its tehnology might save you from an accident

Yep, the newer car will make my life easier as a D800 might make my photographic life easier in low light, but it won't make me take better pictures.

mikehit
mikehit  56742 forum posts United Kingdom11 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jan 2013 - 9:50 AM

Surely want, convenience and need are three different things.

Pulsar - you mention that processing time is reduced using your new camera which means that the superior model had specific benefits to you. But if the next new model does not have an additional benefit to you, your comments would suggest you would still updgrade. We are getting to the level with digital cameras that the photographic differences between successive generations is getting smaller and any significantchanges are to 'other' elements such as geo tagging and face recognition.

779HOB
779HOB  21034 forum posts United Kingdom
17 Jan 2013 - 9:56 AM


Quote: Surely want, convenience and need are three different things.

They are but I would say that convenience could fall into need. In my opinion you should only upgrade if and when you identify a need to do so.

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jan 2013 - 10:02 AM


Quote:
I've worked with many tradesmen and tools never really came up, unless I specifically asked. ...

Tradesmen discuss tools amongst themselves, it is often the case that lay people don't know enough about the vagaries and uses of good tools. But to the tradesmen, they are his lifeblood and his livelihood. My experience having been 'time served' was that tools were discussed very very often and purchased made to develop one's tool kit as one becomes more experienced.

A tradesman is not born to a set of tools, he has to buy them piece by piece so their exant is important and dicussed very often.

eg Can anybody tell me what a "Pogey spanner" is? Tradesmens' discussion often centre on things like this where special tools were developed by people for specific needs well before they came onto the market by way of a copy. One learns by discussion about tools just as we learn here by reading about others experiences and practices.

Never knock tradesmens' learning by such methods.

Last Modified By Focus_Man at 17 Jan 2013 - 10:03 AM
ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014845 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jan 2013 - 10:02 AM


Quote: I cant rely on processing and have to make sure what comes out of the camera is as good as it can be , the result otherwise is a massive amount of time processing shots.

Do you lightroom ?

You can do incredible things incredibly quickly with the right workflow - book a day out and I'll show you. I've trained an estate agent - setting up import and export presets - who just pulls in pretty ordinary Nikon D90 shots and pops out bright, punchy cool looking watermarked shots in about 5 minutes.... then they're on his website and selling houses.

This reliance on "the latest kit" will have been the downfall of many photography businesses - people blowing redundancy payments on 10-20,000 of cameras/lenses/lighting rather than getting a sensible base kit (not the bare minimum, but one covering most bases) and stowing the capital for those rainy days.

If you need a specialist lens for a job - hire it in for 25/day, don't blow 2500 on it and use it once a year.

I've had one job where a 5D (and 5D2 actually) wasn't suitable. It was for a gym wall - they wanted a shot of Otley Bridge to go in front of the rowing machines. It was about 15 feet wide and 4 feet high - but he wanted it to be viewable at close quarters, about 3 feet away. So it needed to be about 150dpi for that quality (according to my printer). Single shots were never pixled enough and the never really worked with panos - go stand on the weir and try it

I ended up with a 15 shots Panoramic I'd shot on an Ambleside jetty - that had enough pixels...

Also - if you watch Karl Taylor's YouTube, he's got a film where he compares the 1Ds3 and 5D2... saying the image quality on the 5D2 exceeds that of its big brother....

And finally...

I know a semi pro who gets the new flagship Nikon D (now D4) the day they are released.... producing uncomfortable, cringe-worthy portraits and very average action shots - only ever shooting in JPG because he's never learned about RAW.

Just makes me chuckle really

Focus_Man
Focus_Man  4481 forum posts United Kingdom631 Constructive Critique Points
17 Jan 2013 - 10:05 AM


Quote: Fortunately I am the MRS and I will be treating myself to something new a bit later in the year. Just need a camera shop to stay open long enough to go and buy it!!! Wink

I love it - go for it girl

lemmy
lemmy  71949 forum posts United Kingdom
17 Jan 2013 - 10:09 AM


Quote: I do see your point and totally agree that for wedding work you need to reduce editing time

The best way to reduce the editing time would be to exercise a little restraint with the camera shutter button. Thousands of pictures at a wedding? My nephew got married a couple of years ago on Jersey and employed a very professional young woman photographer from a proper wedding company. The cost was a couple of thousand pounds.

She wasn't taking thousands of pictures but she missed nothing and produced some lovely work and everybody was delighted with the results. My nephew got what he paid for, therefore.

I mention this to say that not all wedding photographers use the 'hose 'em down, take everything that moves' technique. Some still exercise their eyes and brains rather than their shutter finger.

This business about cameras producing pictures, yes I do notice how much better modern practitioners are than Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Elliot Erwitt, Herb Ritts, Don McCullin etc etc. If only these people had had today's cameras, they'd have been as good as we are.

thewilliam
17 Jan 2013 - 12:27 PM


Quote: This business about cameras producing pictures, yes I do notice how much better modern practitioners are than Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Richard Avedon, Elliot Erwitt, Herb Ritts, Don McCullin etc etc. If only these people had had today's cameras, they'd have been as good as we are.

The great photographers from the past were artists and their pictures have a quality that makes the details of technical quality somewhat irrelevent. They were getting the best out of the kit and materials that were available to them.

I'm reminded of a quote about Stradivarius, "most craftsmen do what they can with their materials, whereas Stradivarius does what he wants"

Geoffphoto
17 Jan 2013 - 2:41 PM

I shot over 600 images at a recent wedding, look me longer to edit and process them than I was at the wedding !!! Only used about 100 images in the end ( and that was too many !! ) Smile

Remember folks - less is more !

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.