[ll_coffee_lP]

...(snip)...

If you put people in a camera bay at a baseball game, and one guy has the sharpest, fastest system the other guy can negate almost all of that, by pushing the shutter release at the right time. If he can't rack, he can anticipate and pre-focus on a spot. I've done volleyball shots where I picked a spot, focussed on that spot and let the play come to the spot. For that one second, my setup was faster than the fastest auto-focus, technically superior in every way. The instant that guys step onto that mark on the floor, he was in focus and all I had to do was press the shutter release. NO one floowing him with a fast auto focus.. could have gotten a better shot. Technique, can always trump technical specs.

While what you've indicated may be true, you are talking exclusively about the skill of the photographer. What you are choosing to negate is the fact that a more responsive camera (and gear) is going to be able to do that very same thing AND much more.

c[_]

[Don From The Radio]

Considering how many "fauxtographers" I see on Craigslist trying to sell wedding photo services bragging about their Nikon equipment, this probably had a chance of being a successful campaign.

[normhead]

"While what you've indicated may be true, you are talking exclusively about the skill of the photographer."

No, what I've said pretty clearly is, the skill of the photographer can overcome the limitations of the equipment. The differences just aren't that great. You can't actually pre-focus on a spot and just shoot when your subject is in focus and track a subject at the same time. Having auto focus turned on takes away your control of the shutter release because the camera won't fire when the subject is not in focus so you may not get exposure at the exact instant you wanted the shot. Technology isn't your saviour, you still have to learn to be a photographer.

[Ash]

No, what I've said pretty clearly is, the skill of the photographer can overcome the limitations of the equipment. The differences just aren't that great

True for most dSLR bodies these days, not quite so for lenses. Sometimes the photographer simply needs the speed, or the reach, or the sharpness, etc. to execute the shot effectively and get the desired result.

[Don From The Radio]

True for most dSLR bodies these days, not quite so for lenses. Sometimes the photographer simply needs the speed, or the reach, or the sharpness, etc. to execute the shot effectively and get the desired result.

This is true if you define "great" photography as having particular technical characteristics. There was plenty of great photography being done in the days before super fast shutters and lenses. A good photographer will make the best of the gear he has. A $2000 camera might be able to shoot in the dark and stop even the fastest motion, but it won't stop trees from sprouting out of peoples' heads and it won't prevent a bad photographer from using spot color to "spice up" a black and white photo in PP.

[RioRico]

Does anyone remember the relative importance of the elements of a photograph? They are, in descending order:

1) Photographer -- if incompetent, nothing else helps much.
2) Subject -- perfect shots of boring crap are still boring crap.
3) Light -- we capture light, not subjects -- good light matters.
4) Lens -- without (1+2+3), the 'best' lens won't rescue you.
5) Camera -- sensors & features matter, but not as much as (1-4).

Yes, nice gear is nice. Sometimes nice gear is necessary. Sometimes it isn't. The photographer's most important tool isn't camera nor lens nor tripod, but brains.

[PentaxMom Felua]

We occasionally indulge but usually we think about it a lot, and usually discuss it to death first.

A good photographer can actually take a 20 year old film camera and get the job done. There's no question of that in my mind, but most photographers are like anyone else when it comes to upgrades, they will buy new just because they like to have something new once in a while. It's human nature. We all like finding shiny new toys, having something new to crow over once in a while, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I still do not believe that it's the gear that makes the photographer.

I think it's the photographer's skill that makes good use of the gear. If it wasn't then anyone could be a pro just because they bought into buying a 5K camera system and that's just not the case. Good gear certainly helps a good photographer be that much better, but if the person doing the photography hasn't a clue as to composition, use of light, color, mood, et all, then the use of the best camera in the world will give you nothing much but a flat snapshot, one of a million probably taken just like it.


Few of us are born prodigies.

When we are into it and work hard to bring to light all we see and what it evokes in us. We can sure use a camera, or words on paper with pencils - graphite. Turn a way away from our useal steps and sight and pathways. Step into the light when it is there and find the words we already knew but suddenly are so new and then frame them with a picture - I grow older now and life burdens and burdens become heavier with ballast. I have started to clean the house out: what on earth is it I really need to meet what I want to see and feel and if I do, is it really a need aswell to keep wanting to share that. I have come to long for silence more and more and my disire for haze and fleeting corners in the edge of seemingly important pictures has outgrown the importance of daily days dictation on what should. I sit and smile and find new tears in re-recognising things gone by and passing by. I touch as it touches me, sometimes with paper sometimes with a photo.

Recognitione, the eye of the one that sees , the eye of the one that wants to be truly touched.

I struggle to get past the gear, lame, I want to build a static moment that is still fluent and fading. Next moment is already there.

[ll_coffee_lP]

"While what you've indicated may be true, you are talking exclusively about the skill of the photographer."

No, what I've said pretty clearly is, the skill of the photographer can overcome the limitations of the equipment. The differences just aren't that great. You can't actually pre-focus on a spot and just shoot when your subject is in focus and track a subject at the same time. Having auto focus turned on takes away your control of the shutter release because the camera won't fire when the subject is not in focus so you may not get exposure at the exact instant you wanted the shot. Technology isn't your saviour, you still have to learn to be a photographer.

Bold type shows what I said and your response - apparently you don't agree on the fact that we are saying the same thing??

I'm unsure what the relevance is to the rest of your post. You can't spot focus and track focus at the same time? Of course you can't.

Any (d)slr camera that I've ever used can spot focus, but only a couple of higher end ones can actually track focus accurately and consistently.

c[_]

[RioRico]

Thank you for the portrait.

I struggle to get past the gear, lame, I want to build a static moment that is still fluent and fading. Next moment is already there.

Every moment erases the image of the previous moment. That's the strength and failing of cine|video|vision: each frame destroys the previous, overlays it, brings the next moment, an endless stream of moment upon moment -- but which moment should we concentrate on? A still image or fixed memory or fond artifact, ah, we can study those, absorb them. The next moment is OK, it's still comprehensible. But the next, and the next, ever faster?

Yeah, it feels much safer to just grab the moment. Think about what it takes to grab the moment. Obsess over gear, much less stressful than obsessing about the latest news of politics-disasters-scandals-etc. Master technique. Concentrate on framing images, extracting them from their surroundings. Whatever we shoot, we're grabbing just a sliver of a moment. And by selecting that sliver, that frame, we give meaning to it. A moment is important because we say so.

The gear, they're just sets of tools for various tasks. The tasks determine the tools. If building a house, I wouldn't obsess over hammers and saws, but over the plans and progress. I'm a lens fiend, yes, but I try to think less of the glass and more of: What pictures do I want to make? How well am I doing there? The gear just help getting to where I think I'm going. Riding on into the next moment...

[normhead]

Any (d)slr camera that I've ever used can spot focus, but only a couple of higher end ones can actually track focus accurately and consistently.

And how much of your photography is that necessary for. For me, less than 1% of my images could have been better with a better tracking camera. I'm just not willing to pay thousands of dollars for high tech equipment I may not ever need. I do as much wildlife as I can, who knows, maybe I'll miss a great shot some day. But I'm also pragmatic. If I don't see a lens paying for itself, I'm not interested. And honestly, unless you have a paying job for which you need a fast, quick tracking lens, sports photographer for Sports Illustrated or something, it's not going to pay for itself. In my current incarnation , canoe guide and nature photographer, I've been in two situations in three years where a longer faster lens might have helped me, and those shots weren't going to garner any sales even if they were better. By the way, I've met a lot of guys working behind the counter at camera stores who used to have a great collection of lenses, who eventually sold them off, because, they weren't paying for themselves.

[ll_coffee_lP]

And how much of your photography is that necessary for. For me, less than 1% of my images could have been better with a better tracking camera. I'm just not willing to pay thousands of dollars for high tech equipment I may not ever need. I do as much wildlife as I can, who knows, maybe I'll miss a great shot some day. But I'm also pragmatic. If I don't see a lens paying for itself, I'm not interested. And honestly, unless you have a paying job for which you need a fast, quick tracking lens, sports photographer for Sports Illustrated or something, it's not going to pay for itself. In my current incarnation , canoe guide and nature photographer, I've been in two situations in three years where a longer faster lens might have helped me, and those shots weren't going to garner any sales even if they were better. By the way, I've met a lot of guys working behind the counter at camera stores who used to have a great collection of lenses, who eventually sold them off, because, they weren't paying for themselves.

I require fast, accurate AF (and AF tracking) for each family session that I shoot (~ 15 sessions this month), and I assure you I'm no where near "Sports Illustrated, or something" (just a simple weekend warrior doing my thing).

As for lenses, I use good gear because it provides excellent, consistent results and because it is extremely well built. Consistent results means that I'm able to drastically minimize my PP time through automation. For me - time is money.

Again, use what works for you and your shooting needs, but be cautious when thinking that your thoughts are the only thoughts.

c[_]

[PentaxMom Felua]

Photography serves many. Users, active and passive. Both producers and beholders. Many need the "beholders", without whom they would be without need or urge.
Photography accompanies many. Some choose it to be their living, others use it to excel in certain circles filled with possible agreeers and admirers. Others like to play, don't mind so much, or just want to shoot down the happy moment.
Toolboxes are bought or crafted, neetly filled and then extended. An extra box with polishing equipment follows. All is shiny and well choosen and perfectly adept to pre-defined needs.

And then it has to happen.

But I leave the house and as everything simply hurts, I just pick up my daily bag with phone and wallet, tick remover and betadine, water bottle, map maybe, possibly a jacket, and yes a camera with lens, sometimes two and go and feel the wind and watch the sky the ground the water the fields the trees birds deer sometimes and squirrel fox and cow, the sheep the cars the cyclists, the loneliness the thoughts - and touch and breath, still breath and meet the world and at the same time deny it access to me, I am busy registrating - there is no time for need, no need if there is no need, no need to be whatsoever I really cannot be. Just be and be in accordance with what is around me. Time already erased me before I was even there and there the moment touches me with its need to be contemplated and in contemplating it being, as if in constant prayer, happiness shines through and breaks into my camera.

Of course this is all very self indulgent.

But I do have equipment and I am amazed about what it can do to me. And though it cannot make me good, it sure can break my back and make me jubilant with happiness both at the same time.
In the end it is the photographer that makes the equipment extremely good, for personal puposes that is.

[Arpe]

All I know is, once I moved to Nikon my keeper rate for SPORTS photos skyrocketed, thanks to the way faster AF. Same techniques, same everything except the gear.

And how much of your photography is that necessary for. For me, less than 1% of my images could have been better with a better tracking camera.

So for me it's more like 90%.

[twilight_samurai]

"While what you've indicated may be true, you are talking exclusively about the skill of the photographer."

No, what I've said pretty clearly is, the skill of the photographer can overcome the limitations of the equipment. The differences just aren't that great. You can't actually pre-focus on a spot and just shoot when your subject is in focus and track a subject at the same time. Having auto focus turned on takes away your control of the shutter release because the camera won't fire when the subject is not in focus so you may not get exposure at the exact instant you wanted the shot. Technology isn't your saviour, you still have to learn to be a photographer.

On my particular Nikon body (D700) and I'm sure on many more camera models, if you disengage the AF function from the half-press of the shutter button and re-assign it to a dedicated AF button, you can fire the camera ANY time even if your subject is not in focus. Therefore you can pre-focus and wait for your target to come to the spot, or you can use the AF button to track the subject and decide when you want to trigger. Best of both worlds imho.

[ll_coffee_lP]

On my particular Nikon body (D700) and I'm sure on many more camera models, if you disengage the AF function from the half-press of the shutter button and re-assign it to a dedicated AF button, you can fire the camera ANY time even if your subject is not in focus. Therefore you can pre-focus and wait for your target to come to the spot, or you can use the AF button to track the subject and decide when you want to trigger. Best of both worlds imho.

I didn't know you could do that with the D700. I should probably give the handbook a bit more of a read now that I've had a good year with the camera.

c[_]