I really don't see the point to this thread. Its like asking what makes a delicious meal, the oven or the pots and pans. Too many variables go into creating a "quality photo". I predict peoples "feelings" are just going to get hurt in this thread. Let's NOT turn this into another "what I said was" back and forth.
What makes the picture? The camera or the lens?(34 posts) (21 voices)
It comes down to what each photographer WANTS TO DO. They are just tools.
I have hammered a nail back in the deck with my boot but I didn't build the deck with just a boot. I have changed my oil in my car with a cheap socket set from pottery barn, tin foil, coffee can, and a string.
My point, for one-off's, any of us can make do with almost anything. What changes is that we start to find our focus and thus the tools become refined and less oil is on the garage floor.
Example: I can't get the same mid day landscape shot of a grouping of birch tree with a full blurred background from a 18-85mm lens that I can with my 85mm 1.8 even though they both hit 85mm with the constraints I have. I could have taken the same shot with almost the exact same results with a D70 that I did with my D300. Now if I took that photo at late sunset, my D300 makes a huge difference with the ISO, noise, and detail. Same goes for if I shot it in brighter sunlight and I needed my shutter speed to go above 1/4000.
The fact is that I have never seen a Holga camera as primary camera at a game, wedding, or shooting the kids at a Christmas concert.
Too many times photographers (with good intent) tell casual or new shooters that "equipment doesn't matter" or a $200 dollar lens or cheaper body will do anything that pro $1k equipment can. No one (including me) wants to see a friend spend unnecessary amounts of money. We all know equipment does matter for each individual - some more than others.
We need to help new photogs know what questions should be asked. Not, is it the body or the lens, but an take the extra 5 minutes to ask them the basics;
Who or What is your subject?
When are you shooting?
Where are you shooting?
Why are you shooting X?
and How do you want it to look?
this time it's going to be me who will terminate this discussion for violation of rule number 2:
"2. No trolling, bashing or use of abusive language. Personal attacks on other members will NOT be tolerated and posts will be deleted. Try to keep your comments with the discussed topic and avoid discussing other forum members. This rule is valid for everyone, including the forum moderators and admin. Moderators word is final when there's discussion going among users (considering the rules) and admin's world is final when moderators have a disagreement."
also jonathennn is going to receive account suspension for 7 days - first post 1st Offense, 2nd post 2nd Offense
"1st Offense: A formal warning will be sent via PM
Upon a members first offense, a PM will be sent to them informing them of the rule violation and they will also be informed of this Offense Structure.
2nd Offense: Account suspension for 7 days
Upon a members second offense, the member will have their account suspended for 7 days. Any attempt to circumvent this suspension by creating extra accounts on the forum will directly lead into a permanent ban from the forum."
it's a discussion board as jonathennn wrote, people can have different points of view, but PERSONAL ATTACK on anyone will NOT BE TOLERATED, either You like it or not. If You doesn't agree with one or other users/posts and want to use abusive language go ahed and do it privately. But for God sake, not in the forum.
I've cleared the topic so it doesn't have all the unpleasant aspects, as IMHO it's valuable and jonathenn, once Your ban is lifted You are more than welcome to the forum.
I'm gonna delete my post in 24h, just wanna all to get familiar with this what happened here, and why some of Your posts got deleted.
I would look at it like this. Lets say you have the optimal camera settings shot by the best photographer in the world. The pictures will be the best they can be for the camera and lens in the photographers hands. Will you get a better picture by having a D300S with the 18-55 kit lens or a D5000 with the 18-55 kit lens? On the other hand will get you get a better picture with a D5000 and the 70-200 f2.8 or a D5000 with the 55-200 kit lens?
I think a little depends on the camera, but I think you would see more significance in the glass and not the body.
As the owner of a D50 (looking to upgrade to D7000), I will say that in many cases, the body will make a huge difference. The best lens will do nothing to improve things like high ISO performance, AF speed and accuracy, dynamic range, body ergonomics/controls, etc. But then the best body won't make up for a bad lens, either.
I agree that the photographer is #1. The body (or maybe I should say the sensor) vs. lens debate is more subjective depending on what you have and what you want.
I've had my D50 for 5 years and my photos have improved over the years without upgrading anything except my skill (which is free), but they could be better with better equipment.
I really want better low light/high ISO, more pixels, and more/better controls, so in my case it's much more worth it to spend $1000 on a new body vs $1000 on a new lens, especially since a lens is limited in practical use (I can't use one single lens for everything) but the body is always constant.
Another thought is you would have to judge current technology of bodies. If you are saying the difference between a 5 year old body and upgrading to a high body that is brand new, then the change in body might be a very significant one. Kind of hard to argue one way or the other without having a certain case to deal with. Depends on the jump in bodies and the jump in lenses + use of both.
TaoTeJared: Very well put; if that post had appeared earlier in this thread, perhaps the rest of it would've taken a much different tone. And the questions you ask at the end are good not just for those of us just getting started, but probably a good reminder for those who've been shooting a while as well.
@Aslightdelay - Sorry for the late post and thank you for the complement.
It was beautiful day here and I went out shooting ;)
Two examples of what I was speaking to. Taken with a D300.
There are some really awesome pictures from D40 and similar entry level Nikon's on many of the online galleries including alot of very dramatic shots in black and white. I don't think anyone should be made to feel that "serious" photography requires a certain camera and above. I actually met a guy who was able to get a coffee table book published based on snaps he took from a pretty simple <$250 point and click film camera during his hikes in India. His shots were amazing even enlarged(we used some of his shots for a local museum event). I've also know a fairly serious photographer who don't play with the ISO on his D200 and use other things like fast glass, tripods/monopods, and judicious use of off-camera flash to deal with low light scenarios. The D3100 also has a host of things (like spot metering) that you didn't find on entry level film cameras when I was younger.
A friend of mine believes a full magnesium body is a must based on his F4's experience with freefall in Yosemite. Another believes you should have a cheap plastic kit you can carry everywhere so you never miss a shot due to weight or fearing theft or damage. Another friend is addicted to VR taking hand held shots indoors. Another believes you should choose the right background, the right foreground, bring a tripod and shoot at F8 as the sun is rising or setting to get the dramatic lighting or you shouldn't shoot at all.
Photography's an individual pursuit that attracts a bunch of nut-jobs. Bear that in mind as you troll the forums.
You must log in to post.