A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses.

[livestrong 10]

I'd also add as a wedding photographer kit can make a very big difference. Try shooting in a dark cathedral where no flash is allowed, nor tripods etc and you aren't allowed within about 10m of the couple during the ceremony.

 

A camera with great low light capabilities i.e. high ISO is a must along with fast lenses. A 70-200 F2.8 IS L and the 135 F2.0 L were the only two lenses I have that could cut it. With a kit lens or any not as fast I'd have had no chance. Lolly84 your notion that a point and shoot would be just fine, in these circumstances is nonsense. The equipment has to be fit for purpose.

 

I don't disagree that people can take great pictures with cheaper equipment but you are always limited by the capabilities of that equipment.

 

Personally I have seen a massive improvement in my work as my kit has got better. Granted my skills are getting better all the time however having the kit I need to allow me to do what I want to makes a huge difference.

 

If your style involves shooting wide open as often as I do between F1.2 and F2.0 it comes at a price. Yeah sure you can get cheaper primes but often the autofocus is poor and really hunts in low light to the point of being unusable.

 

Some people do however make the mistake of thinking the more they spend the better they will be. Personally though I spend what I need to to get the results I am after.

[Phanerothyme 12]

I think that limitations are like sonnets.

 

Free verse is all very well, but if you really want to test your creative writing try penning a poem within the constraints of a meter.

 

If you really want to test your photographic ability in all its spheres, get into some pinhole photography. Build your own camera!

 

When you have built your own camera, and it takes 5 minutes and a blackout bag to put another piece of film in it, you'll be more picky about your composition, you'll be more attentive to the actual light levels, and you'll have a good reason to open the shutter.

 

It's easy to become incontinent when you have what amounts to limitless film and processing.

 

I'm not suggesting that people should only use pinhole cameras, but time spent with one will greatly improve anyone's photography.

[Phanerothyme 12]

I'd also add as a wedding photographer kit can make a very big difference. Try shooting in a dark cathedral where no flash is allowed, nor tripods etc and you aren't allowed within about 10m of the couple during the ceremony.

 

A camera with great low light capabilities i.e. high ISO is a must along with fast lenses. A 70-200 F2.8 IS L and the 135 F2.0 L were the only two lenses I have that could cut it. With a kit lens or any not as fast I'd have had no chance. Lolly84 your notion that a point and shoot would be just fine, in these circumstances is nonsense. The equipment has to be fit for purpose.

 

I don't disagree that people can take great pictures with cheaper equipment but you are always limited by the capabilities of that equipment.

 

Personally I have seen a massive improvement in my work as my kit has got better. Granted my skills are getting better all the time however having the kit I need to allow me to do what I want to makes a huge difference.

 

If your style involves shooting wide open as often as I do between F1.2 and F2.0 it comes at a price. Yeah sure you can get cheaper primes but often the autofocus is poor and really hunts in low light to the point of being unusable.

 

Some people do however make the mistake of thinking the more they spend the better they will be. Personally though I spend what I need to to get the results I am after.

 

If you're shooting to order, then there's a straightforward cost/benefit to good kit and whether it's worth it. Like the insanely wide angle aspheric lenses. I'll dig out the ones I took with my dad's dslr. It had a focal length of something like 7-18mm yet you could photograph a small painting on the wall from a distance of 15cm almost without distortion. The lens cost eight or nine times as much as the camera, but the upshot was work that paid for the lens eight or nine times over.

 

I only added this because rereading the thread, my previous post might sound critical of your own, which of course was not my intention as we posted effectively at the same time

 

I'm interested to see how many videographers are switching to dSLRs.

[ndegwa 10]

without DSLR's having articulated screens and needing the use of loupes, they are somewhat limited. Still not in the same league to be fair. Modern video cameras provide decent platforms for mics, lights. Not to mention that they are well balanced to be held in different possitions. To make a DSLR that easy you are looking at expensive rigs.

 

I recently covered a wedding (photography) and the wedding was being filmed for the four wedding programme. Whilst they were impressed with what i could do with the canon 5DII, i couldnt have done it for a full day on it.

 

 

As for Photography kit, My style has meant that i am more a prime lens shooter than a zoom lens. I have one lens that i may have used once this year for any wedding shots, almost to the point that i am thinking of trading it in for another prime lens. For that reason i am saying that i would say whilst the majorit is the person behind the camera, focusing the right point, taking the image at the right time. The camera has to be able to be manipulated to do what i want, that means expensive lenses or bodys as point and shoots just wont be as good.

[mcbobz 10]

I think Nikions advertising has worked - your all discussing it

[livestrong 10]

I think Nikions advertising has worked - your all discussing it

 

Not quite... I'm a Canon aficionado.

[mcbobz 10]

But Nikon, Nikkor and there current marketing slogan was used here - job done, even canon users have joined in

[upinwath 10]

I think Nikions advertising has worked - your all discussing it

 

Only in a negative way.

Oscar Wilde suggested, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.".

 

Not if you're a large company and everyone thinks you've made a prat of a statement.

I use Olympus.

[Tony 10]

Nikon sell camera gear, not photographers.

[Toten 10]

Okies where do i start.........

 

Equipment

35mm

Nikon - fm,fm2, Fe, em, nikkormat, F3, F2as, F4s x 2 , 801

Olympus- Om1,om2, om4, om20, om40

Leica screw - 2 + 3a

Retina - various

 

Medium format

Rolliflex- 3.5 & 2.8, baby rolliflex grey

Mamiya - 645, 645 pro, 645 pro s

Bronica - Etrs-i, etrs

Yashica - Yashicamat, yashica 635

Zeiss ikon - super ikonta

 

Large format

MPP - microtechnical field 5x4

 

 

 

Best of the lot ?

1950's Retina IIc folder with 3 interchangeable lenses, all manual 35mm film camera with an exceptional collection of lenses for contrast and fine detail. If i had to have only 1 camera it would be this one.

 

Edit:

snapshot camera Fuji finepix S5700

Various digital Dv cams

Edited October 7, 2011 by Toten
added digi snapshot camera

[knighthawk 10]

Okies where do i start.........

 

Equipment

35mm

Nikon - fm,fm2, Fe, em, nikkormat, F3, F2as, F4s x 2 , 801

Olympus- Om1,om2, om4, om20, om40

Leica screw - 2 + 3a

Retina - various

 

Medium format

Rolliflex- 3.5 & 2.8, baby rolliflex grey

Mamiya - 645, 645 pro, 645 pro s

Bronica - Etrs-i, etrs

Yashica - Yashicamat, yashica 635

Zeiss ikon - super ikonta

 

Large format

MPP - microtechnical field 5x4

 

 

 

Best of the lot ?

1950's Retina IIc folder with 3 interchangeable lenses, all manual 35mm film camera with an exceptional collection of lenses for contrast and fine detail. If i had to have only 1 camera it would be this one.

 

Edit:

snapshot camera Fuji finepix S5700

Various digital Dv cams

 

Nikon F2as is a cracking camera...I still use my F3..its a shame people are turning there backs on film..

[Bunderson 10]

I never use Nikkor lenses. in fact I have spent many hours comparing Nikkor lenses to Sigma and Tamron equivalents and found no difference except half the price.