Hey friends,

I'm making a video about the importance of good lenses and lighting over amazing camera bodies.

Photo one was shot with a 5d Mark2 and a 16-35 2.8L II

And photo two was shot with a $350 20d with the 18-55 (non is) kit lens...
But this time with a $600 alien bee lighting rig.

$4500 camera and lens vs $950 of crap we found on craigslist for our video.

Would you have been able to tell? (no photoshop on either of these)

5dii and 16-35L:

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.

Arka C.

^^^

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.

Blah blah blah.

Take more pictures. Care less about gear.

RianFlynn wrote:
^^^

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

Rian

RianFlynn wrote:
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

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

Try printing them both large and then say they are the same

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

Hi Rian,

I think it is a good concept. Good idea to try to help others too.

Should give more people confidence to use a lower priced kit and a desire to use light to make better images.

I look forward to watching your video.

The last one (Dinosaur) was great. Not that I expect a soundtrack like that on an educational short...

Don't worry Steady!

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!

Rian

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.

killer work dude!

You guys either work "late" or are up early.

Michael,

I like your first photo.

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.

working late

The best photos are taken from behind your eyes

Rian,

Your topic title is sure to get people in the mode of "My camera is better than Your camera" thinking. Or..."My 5dmk2 is better than any 20D."

I suggest changing the title to "The importance of lighting gear" or something like that to emphasize the real message.

Your post is really about how the added flash light makes the image better regardless of the camera and lens, is it not?

Otherwise, BOTH shots should be using the SAME light (flash) with different lenses and bodies.

From my POV, the comparison should show only one variable (body or lens or light/no light) not three variables (light + body + lens).

I hope these comments help you.

Rian,

The photos will come out even better if you put a beautiful girl in front of the lens, regardless of the camera. I thought you had learned that valuable lesson already.

Looks like a fun project. Can't wait to see more of what you get from this experiment.

I like the first one better! But that's just because I'm not a fan of flash. I'm a natural-light fangirl.

Can't wait to see the video.

And about a previous comment about MP..I have so many people ask me how many MP my camera is. It's the first and mostly only question they ask. Even the other weekend when I was hanging out with other teen photogs. It makes me go

Working way too late.

I hear what you're saying. My counterpoint is there are very valid reasons why people spend the money on more expensive gear. In my example, which was very similar to his example, a 20D probably wouldn't have produced a professional product. At least not what I'd want to present to a client knowing there are far more capable cameras out there.

At any rate, the infamous Ken Rockwell did this schtick some time ago.
$150 vs a $5,000 camera

And then he one-upped himself
$25 vs a $5,000 camera

And Luminous Landscape did a lengthy rebuttal

Your camera does matter

It's an age old debate.


Steady Hand wrote:
Michael,

I like your first photo.

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.

Rian I agree with one of the earlier posters that you need to change the title of the video or concept to being about lighting.

The difference between good and great is lighting but equally important is knowing how to use the equipment you have.

About two weeks ago I was photographing a country artist prior to the concert for some promotional shots. I had already been informed of what they wanted but was told I'd have about 10 mins to shoot. In a case like this I found the location that had good natural light at the venue and only about 60 yds from where the tour bus was located. I used one off camera light for fill and shot Aperture priority/centered weighted using on camera exp comp to adjust for clothing colors. My assistant had on a sky blue dress so I used her to set my off camera light power for fill. Then when the female artist cameout wearing all white and the male artist had all black on I used exp comp for the individual shots and 0 comp for the together shot.

I used one of my D3's for this shoot but could have done the shoot with my brothers D60. Point being you have to know both lighting and equipment. Along with what the output is going to be and what it is to be used for before comparing this camera to that camera.

Lance