Reply To: you're not a real photographer because your camera is too small/ not full frame

[jermyster]

nesgram:  1st I’m into zoo photography as well and you’re absolutely right.  usually people make duck and cover when they see the canon 100-400m as you pull out to zoom.  they usually say, “that thing is huge” my friends and i usually follow up with “that’s what she said”

side note:  couple of great photo clubs in san diego that do nothing but zoo photography.  amazing work and great people who will be happy to critique your work and share their time and lenses with you.

the right tool for the right job, but that’s not the issue.
issue:  people and other moron photographers (not a beginner starting out and not grandma who just wants photos of grand kids) who thinks you suck because you’re camera is not as big or latest and greatest and that buying an expensive DSLR means automatically amazing photos.

you work hard, fine tune your craft, put in your dues and suffer to get to the point of being a good photographer.  still the mentality is the same…if its not a giant DSLR or full frame then you suck.

the argument is its not so much the camera, but the person behind the camera.  yes wildlife, zoo, aviation, birds, those should be done with a different camera because gorillas will tear you up…however, handing someone a camera doesn’t mean anything unless he/she or shim knows how to use it.  I’m not suggesting running up to a grizzly bear to take a shot with a 35mm to prove a point.  I’m just asking others what their horror stories are so we can see a pattern and relate to each other about myths of bigger camera = better photos.