@Yetibuddha.... Yup, agree...

One of the great advantages of digital is the ability to shoot hundreds of images, and throw them all away. Thomas Edison said after 1000 attempts to create an electric light bulb which did not work, "We now know a thousand ways that do not work." And this is what digital allows us to do so easily, try a thousand times to do something, and if it does not work, we at least have learned. And, when you get as old as I am, you have done a million or so shots which have not worked. And so we keep trying. And e keep improving. Most of us need to keep a couple things in front of us. Keep and open mind. If you think it may be a shot, take it. Then simply throw away what you are not pleased with. It is in our head and our heart what determines if we are a good photographer. The equipment we use are simply the tools.

This is a very good discussion, crossing technological, technique and philosophical lines. I thought I would weigh into the fray a bit and articulate a couple of points that need to be a bit more explicit from my perspective. I am just an amateur, wanting to spend some time having a hobby that I feel good about so my perspective may very different from the pro's on this forum.
I view the technology as an enabling factor, not necessarily a determining one, in doing good photography. It enables in at least two ways: (1) in helping to quickly review, reflect and criticize one’s work (images) in a way that was not possible in the film era—when it took 10 days to get processed slide film back; and (2) in allowing one to be a bit more creative and do some things that were very difficult with earlier technology—such as shooting in low light with limited noise or doing the panning that msmoto discusses. The technology builds confidence in what one can do, and allows critique and conjecture on how to do something better.
I have only taken a couple of photography shortcourses, but those were focused on composition. As a result when I am serious about my fun, I ask myself what story do I want to tell in a particular image. That story influences what technique I use, how I use the technology and how I build the composition. The technology allows the execution of these three to be more efficient and to learn. But, as with every other area of life, the execution is not necessarily perfect.
So my feeling is that the equipment does not make a person become a better photographer, but may enable a person to do so. At some point, a person may feel that the technology is limiting, and thus desire a more advanced technology to improve.
Have fun!

adamz said:
@msmoto - maybe one time You will give me some panning lessons, as I suck on it big time :(

We all do! The best pan shot I have seen is at a NASCAR race, shot with a 600mm Nikkor on a D3s, at 1/15th sec. Used a tripod or monopod but it was a long shot and had about four or five cars, all crispy, but background was total blur. The cars were moving at 180-200 mph. (290-320 kph). My guess is the photographer shot several hundred exposures to get the one with the cars sharp. VR makes it a lot easier. I will post some this summer from Road America in Elkhart Lake, Wisconsin, shot with the 400mm and a 1.4 or 2.0 teleconverter on the D4. I want to try and reproduce the long shot described above.

But, just FYI, the only secret, if there is a secret, is to shoot a lot of exposures. I think it is totally hit or miss. Actually the D4 tutorial with the Japanese guy and the 500mm or 600mm shows a great example of panning. The vehicles relative speed increases as it gets closer. Thus the panning must also get quicker.
The Digitutor http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-SLR-Cameras/25482/D4.html shows this well. Just listen to the interview with Masanobu Ikenohiro. He is an expert on this and has much good advice.

A note... for the Mini shot... 9 point area continuous servo auto focus. Just like he suggests.

@msmoto - maybe one time You will give me some panning lessons, as I suck on it big time :(

adamz said:
guys, as mich as I understand both sides, You don't need the latest&greatest camera to get the shot on one hand but having the latest&greatest allows You to achieve Your goal quicker, no matter either You doing this for money or not. as we discussed it some time ago, the equipemnt doesn't make You neither a professional or amateur.

The difference between pro and amateur is only in the issue of how one makes the money.... it has absolutely nothing to do with quality. One sometimes assumes a "Pro" is better. The PAD on NRF clearly demonstrates that is incorrect. I know of a lot of "pros" who could not shoot their way out of a paper bag. Yet they think they are good. I was blessed to have been trained by some great masters.... Gerhard Bakker was one, Joel Strasser another influence in my photo career, Fonville Winons out of New Orleans. And a bunch of folks at Alderman Studios in High Point, NC, at one time the largest studio in the world for furniture sets. (1960's-70's). And some of the equipment I used the Hasselblads, Sinar, Deardorf, all the very best, simply made the job at hand much easier to reach an end result.

Specifically, the panning shots... well, sure it does take a bit of understanding what one wants to achieve, but almost anyone who has an interest in learning can get a great product. My Mini shot could have been done on a D40 or whatever. One would not have needed any more than a single shot system. I did this hundreds of times in the days of hand cranked F bodies. I think the difference is, I did the Mini shot in about a 45 minute shoot after finding the venue. Shooting at 2.5 FPS, in this situation, with the limited shooting "window" would have taken longer to get the shot and it may be that with my limited talent, I would have missed the Mini shot due to the fact it was not coming back.

If, this shot had a $2000-3000 budget, the Mini would have been coming by every two or three minutes and the shoot would have been completed in about an hour with most likely 200 exposures of the Mini only.

The question is: Does better equipment mean better photos? I suspect the photographer is the one who will determine the answer. I am hoping the D4 will get me some nice stuff, especially as the motor racing season begins. I keep seeing all the nice work up on the PAD, Bland's and other's bike shots, and everyone's super work. Heck I am just trying to join the club.

So, adamz and sevencrossing are correct, much as we hate to admit it, ha, ha, ha.

though for the today

A first class photographer with average equipment will take much better photographs than a average photographer with first class equipment

But, for truly first class results, you need a first class photographer with first class equipment

guys, as mich as I understand both sides, You don't need the latest&greatest camera to get the shot on one hand but having the latest&greatest allows You to achieve Your goal quicker, no matter either You doing this for money or not. as we discussed it some time ago, the equipemnt doesn't make You neither a professional or amateur.

msmoto said:

I remember talking to someone about the great shots in National Geographic and the ratio of exposures to final product.... in the days of film. I was told it was somewhere in the range of 3,000 to 5,000 for each shot in the magazine. This suggested the editing process was important and that starting with several hundred images is a good thing. Allows for deletions at the slightest whim.

Oh the memories ... That is why we all printed contact sheets, had light tables, and used magnifying lenses back in the film days. Digital does have its advantages but it is a different art form with with digital media and the unlimited ability to alter what was actually captured.

the point I was trying to make, is that with a bit of effort NSXType-R could have got a similar shot with a D40 and an 18-135.

You shot at ISO 100, not 25600.

After a lot of hard work, you got the shot you wanted. It was your hard work that got that shot, I see nothing to say it was shot with a d4.

NSXType-R said:
Thanks msmoto- I did not know you were doing your shoot for a gig.

That would certainly justify the D4 and its capabilities.

This becomes too confusing to really explain, but much of the stuff I shoot either is open for free use, one simply steals the file, or I give it away without charge. The shots are taken for the website I own, which in turn pays the costs of doing business. A large amount of the work is done for non-profits, and this is costed out, but the final bill is not charged to them directly. I am available and as I told Peter Hurley, my rate was nearly double his. But NRF is not for commercial enterprise, so I cannot get into more detail.

@Pierre... My guess is the D200 I just sold would be all I really needed. But what I find is the D4 makes it OOH so much easier!!! For sure, the quality is there and the colors seem to be much deeper, even when I am shooting JPEG Fine which is about an 8MB file. One thing I do is to walk around and use "splatter vision" as one individual stated. But what this consists of is simply a very open minded attitude about what I am going to see. Usually I "see" the shot, walk up to it, watching it "grow" and when I am in place begin the shoot. I push the shutter release anytime something is in front of me. Deletion is easy. I remember talking to someone about the great shots in National Geographic and the ratio of exposures to final product.... in the days of film. I was told it was somewhere in the range of 3,000 to 5,000 for each shot in the magazine. This suggested the editing process was important and that starting with several hundred images is a good thing. Allows for deletions at the slightest whim.

But, Pierre, you have some of the finest photos on PAD. SO, maybe it is not your photos but your perceptions that need working on. You do good work. So, get the camera you want! The D800 will no doubt blow your socks off. That is an American expression. Means you will like it.

Thanks msmoto- I did not know you were doing your shoot for a gig.

That would certainly justify the D4 and its capabilities.

As the quality of my shots, my ambition and skill increases so does my frustration for not being able to climb to the next level. I will only know if getting a D800 will increase the quality of my shots after playing a while with it.

I often find my D700 shots too soft but once in a while, it surprises me, letting me believe that there is something wrong in my doing. I unfortunately do not have time to take photo courses but would still like to find a ways to improve but I am running out of ideas. When I press the shutter, I still cannot predict if the shot is just going to be ordinary or not so surely there is plenty of room for me to grow.

As it’s been said, motivation get you started and habits keep you going. Perhaps I have fallen too much into habits and need fresh motivation which I hope the D800 will provide. I just don't want for my aquipment to be the liming factor.

The term 'better picture' is so vague and personal. A photograph could be perfect technically speaking and still be boring. In that sense I agree that having a device that can make it even more technically perfect will not help. On the other hand, it is a very sad thing when a system does not give back the talent one puts into it.

NSXType-R said:
Well I was able to do this with a D40 and an 18-135. Back in 2008. No VR either.

The shutter speed could have been a touch faster, but I was a real noob back then.

Framing is a bit off maybe, but I'm happy with what I got.

How quickly was that Mini moving anyway? You may not have needed all of 8 fps.

The D40 does 2.5 fps.

First off, I love this shot of the Aston or at least what I think is one. Your shutter speed looks excellent. Any faster and you would have "lost" the shot. The framing, while not exactly by formula, is so very pleasing. The car has "somewhere to go" which I think is very important when shooting vehicles. Or, very, very tight crop so no space shows.

The "MINI" shot.... well, with a shutter speed of 1/30 to get the background the way I wanted it... and the vehicle moving about 40 mph (65 Kph) it took about 100 - 150 exposures to get the one I wanted. I shot a lot at 1/15th sec, decided I could not do that handheld, and then used the 1/30th sec with better results. A tripod/monopod may have increased the "keeper" rate, but not always. I think I had about three to pick from and liked the Mini best.

While sitting in my car I camera edited in the D4, which allows a magnified view of successive photos, so one can delete and move to the next magnified view without all the entering into this mode stuff having to be repeated. Thus only a few minutes to delete 50 - 100 photos. I suspect I downloaded about thirty or forty and edited from there. As for the 8 FPS, because the background was chosen for the color after about twenty minutes of searching. (I think is is an Auto Zone parts store) the shooting angle between obstructions was only about 0.5 second or thirty feet as the vehicle was moving about 60 feet per second. And I was forced to shoot between telephone poles, trees, road signs, etc. Thus, I got off maybe 4 - 6 frames at best and these vehicles did not obey my commands to return. I shot all sorts, SUVs, yellow cars, red cars, white cars, a lot of variety. But the final product is dependent on several factors, I believe. It is a green Mini... traditional. The drivers position, arm out is great. Window down adds. Even the vehicle in the right rear quarter of the Mini adds I think.

So, this shot is certainly possible for a lot of "amateurs" . And the only difference is one works "on assignment" and the other works for oneself. But in a role shooting for a special shot requested by a client.... this is the type of end result I would include in the choices presented. And the question was asked about a "pro" shot... there you have it.

Well I was able to do this with a D40 and an 18-135. Back in 2008. No VR either.

The shutter speed could have been a touch faster, but I was a real noob back then.

Framing is a bit off maybe, but I'm happy with what I got.

How quickly was that Mini moving anyway? You may not have needed all of 8 fps.

The D40 does 2.5 fps.

Granted, I was in Aperture Priority, so I had no control of shutter speed, but still, it can produce similar results.

Gareth said:
OK msmoto, show me an example.

I want a shot that looks as though only a professional could have taken it, as you certainly have the professional gear.

OK, go to PAD and look at the MINI.... a lot of folks do not know how to do this... especially without a VR lens.... And, if you examine what I do, you should ( not always possible due to monitor differences) see a product that is "camera ready" as we used to say, meaning it requires very little modification to be put into print. The separations can be made from the digital data directly. And, composition.... in most of my stuff the "rule" is close to the 1/3, 1/3 process. Each photo is moved back and forth until it "pops" into place.

Having said all this, I suspect you may be in the "pro" category to have given me the challenge in a friendly way of course. We all know there is no such thing as a shot "only a professional could have taken" as there are as many talented amateurs as pros. In fact, in the photos of race cars I do, seen on my website and others, the quality is usually much better than what most of the other "pros" do, as the post processing is not there with the magazine pros, but in my case the car owners want to see their cars.

Anyway, we got the thread going again, huh?

OK msmoto, show me an example.

I want a shot that looks as though only a professional could have taken it, as you certainly have the professional gear.

Let's light the fire here again..... with a new camera, the D4, I think (very dangerous thing for me to do) this is actually improving some of the shots I want to shoot. The high FPS, more ergonomically tuned controls, much better technical attributes such as focus, exposure, etc. and of course the ability to shoot in the depths of a coal mine...... high ISO.

So, in this one case, the better equipment has improved and made it easier to obtain the result I am seeking. Mmmmm.......

My opinion on this is that the answer to the question asked is 'yes' providing that the 'better' thing in the 'better' camera is something that contributes to image quality. I found this to be the case when I upgraded from an old Olympus E10 to a D5000 - the difference at every level was astonishing.

If you want to experience great improvements, just leave your upgrades 10 years or so. If you jump from say D90 to D300, the difference will be small indeed.

msmoto said:
...what is much more important than equipment is what is in the photographers head.....I will sit with a model or subject and sometimes talk for thirty minutes even more, before ever picking up a camera.....the photographer has the responsibility to set the tone of the shooting session and this means total communication with the subject....

+1...well said. For me personal connection with those that I'm taking pictures of are the ones most rewarding. Having my subject be "themselves" makes getting "that shoot" that much easier, moreover, sweeter.

Better Gear DOES = Better Photographs

BUT

That does NOT mean the latest or the most expensive or the most mega whatnots . You just need the best gear for the job in hand

Wow, I love this Mike Gunter guy..... my first SLR was a Minolta SR3 or something like that. I had a Canon 7, I believe, and still have two F bodies including one of the first Photomic systems which never really worked well. A bunch of old manual lenses. And a few of the Ektachromes from the 1960's I can restore show that I could take photos back then.

But what is much more important than equipment is what is in the photographers head. A lot of great photos are not technically that pure. The best example I can think of is working with people. I will sit with a model or subject and sometimes talk for thirty minutes even more, before ever picking up a camera. Especially with non-professional models, the photographer has the responsibility to set the tone of the shooting session and this means total communication with the subject. Even animals must have a sense that the photographer is projecting a positive feeling and is not frightened. Some of this is difficult to understand perhaps, but is my experience over the past fifty years with a time out of photography for about thirty years to practice psychiatry.

As Carbear, Ferdie, and Dawg, on my website might say.... Mmm....

Ms. Tommie Fantine Lauer, MD, FASAM

Appreciate the history Mike. I started with photography in the early 80s, so I cant appreciate when the change to SLR happened.

Hi all,

The grass is always greener...

I've been buying Nikon gear for over 40 years and a lot of it at that. In some of the posting, I've tried to be clear that one can save money by not spending, and I really believe that. So forgive me if this signal isn't clear.

Some of the things in this thread are in a chronology of a few years, not over a few decades or even a dozen decades and technology changes a lot.

Lenses today all have something that used to be called 'multi-coating', but I remember when it was a big deal. It improved contrast, reduced flare, and was a reason to update the lens collection.

The big move to 35mm SLRs was in the 50s and 60s and I remember that. SLRs have focal plane shutters. And there were flash bulbs and electron flashes that had to be synchronized to the shutter, and the shutter speed was much slower than now. In some cases as slow as 1/25. Rear curtain didn't exist. Slow and heavy electronic flash, well you get it. You understand that as things improved, you wanted to update because it helped you to create things that you couldn't create before...

The point is that some of the technology has allowed one to do things easier, better, or even outside the box.

Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side.

In my case, I'm excited about the D800. In the past year I've printed over 100 20x30 inch photos, and in 2012 I have a couple of projects that I would like to do 200 or so 40x60 inch photos that the 36MP would work out nicely.

My best,

Mike

I would have to say better equipment never makes better photographs. Better equipment gets you higher resolution, high iso, greater capabilities, etc…. The photo is created by the photographer.

Some of my most favorite photos, I took with an FM2, 24mm f/2.8, Tri-X pushed to 800 and developed in Diafine. Lots of contrast and grain. Now I could have taken the some image with my D200 and it would have given me greater latitude in how I processed and eventually displayed the image but would the photo been any better, No.

With that said I always want the latest and greatest unfortunately rarely can I justify it. I figure by the time I can justify getting a D800, the D900 will be on its way :-)

BTW-I always shoot RAW and JPG.Memory is cheap and I've never ran out of card space.

@mirtos - how many shots do you fire away? You may want to upgrade the 512mb card ;)

I don't think SquameshPro was trying to imply you need more MP but probably what I thought as well - why not use your camera to your full potential?

I have played with some time lapse stuff and shot small files so I could get 4000 photos (and my computer can't batch process that many at full res). I rarely shoot RAW as well in good light if I know I am not doing much editing.