Why not just use the best you got and not care? Which is what you're saying. But really, why not shoot with the latest greatest camera, lenses, and light, and just focus more on shooting.
If you have a 10d, use it. 1DsIII, use it. Hassy, use it. AB, Profoto, Bron. I don't care. More shooting, less caring about gear.
P.S. I prefer the first. Not for any technical reason, but I like his expression more. The second looks like every image ever taken with a strobe above ambient off and above. Go hack at it with some ps work and put in some background, do that photoshop voodoo and make it into something worth looking at. Otherwise, it's just a boring image :/
I think part of the point that Rian is trying to make is that lighting is a lot more important than optics in just about any case. Particularly in the realm of portraits, fashion, or other types of staged "people photography," many people who are prepared to budget hundreds or thousands of dollars on latest red-ringed optics might do better by spending their money on some lights, and modest optics. It especially makes sense for this kind of photography, which is usually shot at pretty high f/ numbers anyway.
yeah exactly. This video i'm making is about the importance of lighting. for the price of a 50d body you could buy a set up that could produce any of the photos I do.
The fact that a camera i paid $350 for keeps up with my $4500 camera its testament to that
lordarka wrote:
I think part of the point that Rian is trying to make is that lighting is a lot more important than optics in just about any case. Particularly in the realm of portraits, fashion, or other types of staged "people photography," many people who are prepared to budget hundreds or thousands of dollars on latest red-ringed optics might do better by spending their money on some lights, and modest optics. It especially makes sense for this kind of photography, which is usually shot at pretty high f/ numbers anyway.
Arka C.
But isn't that an obvious point? Or does it really need to be pointed out to the people taking photos of brick walls and zooming to 1600% ? I thought they were just written off anyway ?
But still, you get what you pay for. More expensive lights are better. Paul Buff makes cheap lights that are highly effective and are wonderful. However, anyone saying that more expensive lights aren't worth it because nobody needs faster recycling, better flash consistency, better color consistency, better build, yadda yadda yadda, are only saying that because they don't need the features. Those new Profoto Pro-8 Airs are amazing. Some people need the features, almost everyone else doesn't. So stay with what suits you.
Same with cameras and lenses. If you don't want the sharpest, distortion free, contrasty, corrected piece of glass, don't buy it. You can probably make a great image with kit lenses. Or a pinhole camera. I mean, people are making tons of money shooting with cheap gear because they sell themselves well. Tons of distortion? Make it your style.
yeah exactly. This video i'm making is about the importance of lighting. for the price of a 50d body you could buy a set up that could produce any of the photos I do.
The fact that a camera i paid $350 for keeps up with my $4500 camera its testament to that
I guess it does need to be said then. I always figured if you have to tell someone to care more about the image than the gear, they probably don't enough passion or the right drive for what they think they want to do.
Tomagado wrote:
I guess it does need to be said then. I always figured if you have to tell someone to care more about the image than the gear, they probably don't enough passion or the right drive for what they think they want to do.
While that can be true in some cases, i think it perfectly normal for a beginner to miss that point completely. Most people just starting think its all about how many MP you have This video is for the newbie. I just figured i would post a couple samples
I could have shot with the hasselblad to make it a $20,000 camera vs $350 with the same results, but i think a high end "prosumer" camera fit the bill
RianFlynn wrote:
While that can be true in some cases, i think it perfectly normal for a beginner to miss that point completely. Most people just starting think its all about how many MP you have This video is for the newbie. I just figured i would post a couple samples
I could have shot with the hasselblad to make it a $20,000 camera vs $350 with the same results, but i think a high end "prosumer" camera fit the bill
Rian
But I think you're misleading by saying you get the same results. Different sensors give different feels. For amateurs, this may not be too apparent, but you'll soon learn to love MF. And for true beginners, why not steep them in the beauty of natural light first?
Nah man i think you are missing the point. I'm showing that the camera body is not as important as it seems. I actually put the trigger on the 5d and the flash results were MUCH better.
PS. this video is people made for people who are interested in getting into portrait and rock photography
how large? 8 MP is not as good as 21, but most people aren't going to notice the difference. its been awhile since i have shot something this "low res" but really its not bad. Check out the 100% crop. Keep in mind this is a 20d and a plastic kit lens! haha
This is actually a multi-video concept my buddy and I are making called "talk nerdy to me". I can assure you that there will be some sweet music to go along with it!
They both seem like pretty good examples of bad lighting, bad processing (or lack thereof). Natural light vs strobe, both are lacking.
Sure the 20D can capture good images. I have one, a 5D, a 5DmkII. It doesn't take long pushing the files around in Photoshop to realize the 5Ds have much, much more headroom to work with. It's a better tool, end of story.
It's funny I was actually shooting in very similar conditions just a few hours ago. I went for natural light.
I could have done something similar with my 20D but I can guarantee the file would have succumbed to a lot of noise, and therefore been less desirable than my $$$$ 5DmkII. The newer technology simply works better.
But, I think Rian's point is that someone who wants to make nicer photos might consider using light rather than thinking they have to have a more expensive body or lens to improve.
You obviously have the gear you need to shoot what YOU like to shoot.
Many others do not have the funds to buy a 5Dmk2 let alone a 5D (or both)...or L glass etc.
You are fortunate to have what you have.
Others like to make photos and have to make do with much less.
So, I think Rian's concept will be interesting to LOTS of folks who want to photograph their friends and local bands and will prove they can make nice photos without having to buy lots of expensive gear that is perhaps outside of THEIR budget or financial ability.
This video is for the newbie. I just figured i would post a couple samples 
