On 2011-09-24 19:23, Russ wrote:
I also want to clear something up I am NOT currently using a 10d My point was that its the Photographer not the camera that makes the difference.
Depends what you're doing. What kind of photography. And usually it's both. I'm pretty sure that a 1970s master of sports photography could not produce pictures competitive with a current master of sports photography--until he'd learned to exploit the new equipment. I believe that in that area, the technical benefits of the equipment would thoroughly dominate the differences between photographers. (But note that I did NOT say a modern *amateur* with the current equipment!) Similarly, trying to do serious product photography without a tilt/shift lens strikes me as optimistic today in many fields. MY point is that, in some areas of photography, technical requirements are such that you cannot be competitive without fairly current equipment. (I don't think you could compete with a modern 5D/85TS guy with a 4x5 because of the speed of work, and the lab and scanning costs.)
As example I stated that I could do better with an old 10d that Uncle Fred with his new $3k Swartzoflex 5000
Still depends what you are doing. (We'll assume Uncle Fred is in fact not very good; usually safe enough to assume that.) I'd say this: A technically adequate set of equipment is necessary but not sufficient. They won't make a duffer produce good work; but a good photographer without them will produce notably inferior work to a good photographer with them. What's "technically adequate" depends very heavily on what the job is; some kinds of photography put MUCH higher technical demands on the equipment than others. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
