[a b]

Hey dont.care

Thanks for the clarification.  I agree with everything you said.   I said what I said because I see way too many people who call themselves aspiring (pro) photographers that falsely believe that their own shortcomings are the fault of their camera.  One in particular, a former coworker, didn’t understand how to select the focal point on her D3100.  She believed that the (kit) lens was not sharp, when it was really just not properly focused.  She was already charging for her work within literally days of getting her D3100 two-lens kit, and had no prior experience.  She shot on either Green Box Auto or No-Flash Auto. Not even P, much less SAM. She wanted to upgrade to a D800 with a 24-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8, thinking that it would make her photos better.  I know that she was an extreme example, so hopefully the author of this topic doesn’t think that I am accusing her of  wanting to upgrade so prematurely.

I am simply saying that somebody who ‘goes pro’ should have previously developed the skills necessary to get a real benefit out of owning professional level equipment, and that simply purchasing professional level equipment as a beginner will not make that person a better photographer. On that, I think we are all in agreement, aren’t we?

As for hand tools, I’m a Craftsman guy.  The lifetime warranty is nice, they are inexpensive and tough, and since I am not a professional mechanic, they are more than good enough for working on my ’47 Willys CJ-2A and my ’84 Toyota Pickup

[a b]

I am not a pro, as I said earlier, but I think I am decent at what I do.  Having a job that is not photography doesn’t make me ignorant on the subject. You can check out the link in my previous post to see if you disagree.  Regardless, buying an pro-level DSLR simply because you would look silly with a consumer-level DLSR seems like a dumb thing to me.  There are many good reasons an aspiring pro should upgrade, but I don’t think that an upgrade is justified without a specific need that an upgrade will address.

 

[a b]

Better cameras don’t necessarily take better pictures.  What specific shortcomings does your current setup have that cannot be addressed by improving your skill and technique, and can only be improved by acquiring new equipment?  What specific pieces of equipment will address those shortcomings, and how?  If you can’t come up with specific answers to these questions, don’t spend a dime.  This is why I still use a D90 with a Tokina ultrawide, a 35mm f1.8, and a handful of 1980s era Nikon prime tele lenses. (I am not a pro – just somebody who shoots for fun. Here’s some samples: http://www.slickpic.com/u/chiefmanyrabbitguteat)

[a b]

Depends on the occasion.  My main Digital setup is as follows:

D90 body
D70 (old, backup)
Tokina 12-24 f4 AF
Nikon 35mm f1.8 AF-S
Nikon 85mm f1.8 AF
Nikon 300mm f4 AF
Nikon SB-600

Usually, I pack around my Canon PowerShot S100, which is a spectacular little thing

Sometimes, I go on Film only trips.  I usually take either my:

Yashica 12 (6×6 TLR)

or my:

Minolta X-370
MD Rokkor 28mm f2.8
MD Rokkor 45mm f2
MC Rokkor PF 135mm f2.8

And often, I take just my Olympus XA, which is not much bigger than the S100, and is at least as awesome.

I also have, and occasionally use:

Nikon F2 Photomic w/50mm f1.4 Nikkor lens (was my grandfather’s – more of a keepsake than a workhorse to me.  Still, it begs to be shot. It was my main camera from 2004-2007)
Nikon FG with 50mm f1.8 AI Nikkor Lens (and the AF lenses listed above)
Nikon N55
Canon EOS-650 with some crappy discount-brand 28-80mm f4-5.6
Canon AE-1 Program with Canon 50mm f1.8 lens
Pentax K1000 with Sears 28mm f2.8 Macro and Vivitar 28-80mm f4 lens
Fujica AX-5 with Fujinon 50mm f1.9 (I think) lens
A couple of Canon SureShots.

[a b]

Thanks for the advice so far.  I’ll work on some of that stuff. And cameraclicker, I know that the interior shots suck.  They were mostly to document the terribleness of the crappy motel I was staying at.

[Author]

Posts