Exclusive Offer - 20% Off Mitsubishi CP-M15E Printer Bundle!

Better gear equals better photos...

thewilliam2 3 1.5k United Kingdom
9 Jul 2020 2:28PM
Aren't most cameras good for some tasks but not all?

In the good 'ol days of film, we used a large-format Sinar P for still-life in the studio because it was the best tool for the job but it wouldn't have been much good for sports photography. People photography was easiest with medium-format but a 35mm camera, even with a PC lens never found a use in our studio.
dark_lord Plus
16 2.7k 709 England
9 Jul 2020 2:58PM

Quote:Aren't most cameras good for some tasks but not all?

JackAllTog Plus
11 6.1k 58 United Kingdom
9 Jul 2020 10:02PM
I think more like this "Better PHOTOGRAPHERS equals better photos".

You have to 'see' the photo first, wild shooting will have a very low 'keeper' rate.

I like watching challenges where you give a very poor camera to a pro photographer - its amazing what can be done with so little sometimes.

All that said a high frame rate in sports burst mode more often than not gets the shot,
or excellent AF/Face/Eye detect across the frame catches the subject more easily
or better IS/OS/VR etc make more handheld shots sharp
Or better low light performance captures more photos on poor light
Or multishot HighDef photos catch more detail, or exposure bracketing for HDR, or Focus bracketing for Macro DOF.
Or clearer viewfinders, or remote shooting / live view etc etc.

For the Pro's that run businesses the kit has to earn its keep against the competition - and many of them do buy/rent the higher quality kit.

I know i've been in situations where better kit could have got me the shot i wanted, I also know an Iphone can take a brilliant group or scene shot that's great for many many uses.
Its a way off yet for me, but i'd buy the new EOS R6 in an instant if i had the free cash.

thewilliam2 3 1.5k United Kingdom
9 Jul 2020 11:34PM
I started photography on 1956 when cameras were somewhat more primitive than today although many were of superb quality.

The automation of modern cameras has allowed a photographer to delegate exposure and focus so that the only decisions that he/she needs to make are 1) where to stand, 2) where to point the camera, 3) what zoom setting to use and 4) when to press the button.

For a full-time professional who's buying a camera to serve for the next 5 years or more, isn't it better to play safe and buy the best?
seahawk 13 1.4k United Kingdom
10 Jul 2020 10:34AM
Surely the 'best' camera is the one you happen to have with you when you see a shot worth taking. I used to have a Lumix LX5 which I kept in my car glovebox for 'impulse shots'. I took some of my best photos with it. Nowadays I use my iPhone for that.
Dave_Canon Plus
14 1.8k United Kingdom
10 Jul 2020 1:31PM
Normally I do not take more than one camera out. However, one day in the North Yorkshire moors, I stopped in a layby near a reservoir and noticed several interesting birds. I grabbed my Lumix Bridge camera and took a few shots with its 600mm f2,8 lens and filled the frame what looked OK on the back of the camera. As my car was so close I went and got my Canon 5D2 then with 70-200mm f2.8 lens. I took almost identical shots but the image was rather small in the viewer. When I got home and reviewed the images, I discovered that if I cropped the Canon image to fill the frame and compare with the Lumix, there was a significant difference. Despite the heavy cropping the canon images were sharper, better contrast, less noisy and colours better but then the sensor in the Canon is thirty times the area of the sensor in the Lumix.

clicknimagine Plus
10 723 101 India
10 Jul 2020 4:59PM
Thank you so much friends for your contributions, if i understand correctly reading your views, that the formula must be like that, better gear in better hand equals better photos...do you agree with it...

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.