dSLR Full Manual Shooting

[rpcrowe]

BETTER IMAGERY?
Robin...
If we are talking two photographers who have absolutely equal skills (I know that this is probably impossible but, please bear with me - this is a hypothetical situation) both of their images should be equally artistic, pleasing and be equal subjectively. Objectively, the images shot by the photographer with better equipment MIGHT be sharper and have better contrast etc. They might also be better because the better cameras/lenses can be more effectively used in the venues in which the photographer is shooting. In this case, we can consider indoor sports like basketball, hockey, etc.; or used more effectively in lower light levers, or may have focal lengths more in line with what the photographer is shooting; (i.e.: using a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS lens rather than the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens for wildlife). Additionally, the photographer using the better equipment JUST MIGHT be able to continue shooting under conditions which would knock out lesser cameras. I mentioned my Canon FX and FD cameras failing under the harsh conditions of Dong Ha, Vietnam.

I am sure that if all cameras are equal and if it is only the talent of the photographer behind the camera that differentiates the quality of the imagery, talented professional photographers, like Colin, would certainly not waste their money on the 1D series cameras but, would shoot with the cheapest Rebels available and save the extra money to purchase vintage wine! In fact, he might shoot with his cell phone and save even more money for some premium brandy to give to Donald...

Or to make an analogy between camera gear and cars, if I drove a Nissan Versa which is about one of the least expensive new cars availble in the USA (at about $10,000 USD) and you were driving a 700 horsepower Lamborghini Aventador (at about $380,000 USD); we would probably be just about equal in our capability to drive to the supermarket to pick up a carton of milk. In fact, the better driver would probably do better.

However, if we were in another venue, a racetrack, the Lamborghini Aventador would most likely win hands down, despite the skills of the drivers (as long as the guy with the Lamborghini Aventador didn't crash).

[Colin Southern]

Or to make an analogy between camera gear and cars, if I drove a Nissan Versa which is about one of the least expensive new cars availble in the USA (at about $10,000 USD) and you were driving a 700 horsepower Lamborghini Aventador (at about $380,000 USD); we would probably be just about equal in our capability to drive to the supermarket to pick up a carton of milk. In fact, the better driver would probably do better.

Or put another way ...

Sebastian Vettle is the current Formula 1 world drivers champion - he won the title last year by a HUGE margin (no small feat considering the calibre of the other drivers). And yet put him in a Nissan Versa and he'll finish last in every race. Put many other drivers in his car and although they probably wouldn't have finished last, they probably wouldn't have done as well either (his team mate in an identical car didn't do so well). Success comes from a team effort - car & driver - photographer & camera.

They do say (paraphrasing) that "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer" -- but I think that's only true to the point where the photographer is the weakest link -- past that point the photographer can get limited by the lack of capability of their equipment. After that it becomes a team effort. That's what I felt happened to me when I went from a 20D to a 1D series anyway.

I might add though that having a 1D series is also a bit like learning to drive in a Ferrari!

[RockNGoalStar]

Is that "Institute of Facial Surgery" logo Photoshopped on? If not, then what a great photo!

[Colin Southern]

Is that "Institute of Facial Surgery" logo Photoshopped on? If not, then what a great photo!

All genuine as far as I know - probably why it's the "money shot"

[William W]

10~14fps just makes one lazy.

3.5fps isn't much better.

MAN UP!

Watch the "Deer Hunter" and 26 re runs of "Kung Fu"
and then use manual focus and one shot , for the next Rugby Game.

Bah! Humbug!. . . back in my day, we actually worked for the by-line to the back page footy picture.

[rpcrowe]

Oh heck William... Let's run your tongue in cheek scenario, "10~14fps just makes one lazy. 3.5fps isn't much better.", a few more steps.

Digital photography makes one lazier than 35mm film photography; which makes one lazier than large format film photography, which makes one lazier than using wet plate emulsions, which makes one lazier than oil painting a scene; which makes one lazier than painting with charcoal on the walls of caves by firelight!

I probably missed a couple of steps but, that is my sick attempt at humor for April Fools Day!

Except for this: watch re-runs of Sanford and Sons and All in the Family, rather than regurgitated Kung Fu episodes as they are more intellectual

[William W]

love your extrapolation. . .

HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND

[Colin Southern]

Oh heck William... Let's run your tongue in cheek scenario, "10~14fps just makes one lazy. 3.5fps isn't much better.", a few more steps.

On a more serious note; the new Canon 1Dx is rated at 400,000 actuations and can do up to 14 fps ... did you both realise that at that rate the shutter wouldn't even last a single day!

They just don't make cameras today like the used to ...

[William W]

It is obviously a . . . .







"disposable camera"

[Black Pearl]

On a more serious note; the new Canon 1Dx is rated at 400,000 actuations and can do up to 14 fps ... did you both realise that at that rate the shutter wouldn't even last a single day!

They just don't make cameras today like the used to ...

For the first time ever a Canon has gone top of my "I've won the Lotto and this is what I'd buy" list........no I haven't gone over to the dark side I just want to take a 1Dx back to Canon 24 hours after its launched with a worn out shutter and complain about the durability. Has to go on my 100 things to do before I snuff it list too.

[dan marchant]

Brooks Institute is not exactly pompous. It has a great track record for producing photographers who graduate as being commercially viable, whether their chosen field is portraiture, advertising or other venues.

None of which in any way proves it isn't (or rather wasn't) pompous. There are many good cameras out there that aren't 'blads and any claim that you can't learn without top of the range kit is pompous and stupid. Their statement was akin to saying you need a Ferrari to attend an advanced driving school.

[rpcrowe]

None of which in any way proves it isn't (or rather wasn't) pompous. There are many good cameras out there that aren't 'blads and any claim that you can't learn without top of the range kit is pompous and stupid. Their statement was akin to saying you need a Ferrari to attend an advanced driving school.

Nope... You don't need a Ferrari but, try attending the advanced driving school driving a used Yugo!

Before labeling the Brooks requirement as pompous, it would behoove you to research the medium format cameras which were available for professional use at that time.

At the time that my friend was applying to Brooks, the Hasselblad was the medium format camera of choice for professionals. There weren't really many other choices in medium format professional equipment than Hasselblad. In fact, medium format was just beginning to be a viable tool for professional studio and advertising photography. A bit earlier, 4x5" and even 8x10" cameras were clearly the choice of most professionals.

If my memory serves me correctly, the medium format cameras available were the Rolleiflex twin lens reflex which did not have interchangeable lenses and and the Zenza Bronica (title derived from the unique name of "Zenzaburo's Brownie Camera") which at that time had only a focal plane shutter and was restricted to flash sync at 1/60 second (or perhaps 1/125 second). Of course, there were the Yashicamat 124G and TLR Minoltas but, few professional photographers relied on these cameras as their primary tool. There were also a couple of Russian or Eastern European clunkers on the market and there were additionally some rangefinder and press camera style medium formats available but, they couldn't hold a candle to the Hasselblad for image quality or versatility...

Don't forget, camera equipment had improved by leaps and bounds by the 1970's and later. The advent of cameras like the Mamiya RB67 and the Mamiya 645 as well as the 6x4.5cm Bronica and the 6x6 Rolleiflex gave the professional photographer a greater selection from which to choose. Even the later twin lens Mamiyaflex cameras (IMO: the earliest model was a dog) gave a photographer more choices. There may have been a medium format Kowa SLR available but, these early Kowas were not good cameras.

BTW, at that time; no self respecting professional photographer would think of using 35mm for jobs like weddings. The print quality of color negative film was just not there in 35mm until much later.

[drjuice]

Hi, RPCrowe -

I WISH there were something to attach to a black camera body so that when I'm diving into a dark, dark, dark camera bag, I'd be able to get a clue about what I'm trying to grab. ALL of my PnS cameras are silver (because nobody made color camera bodies back when I was buying them) which, because I tend not to carry a camera bag when I'm using them, is exceptionally helpful to finding them when I have them in a briefcase or other "full" carrying container. I'm with your wife on the pink camera, though I'd probably chose lime green or orange if they were available. ;~)

v