DmitriM wrote:
,because they want something new and cool and because they REALLY think it's going to make them better photographers.
However, after playing with those cameras for a few weeks they realize that their dog,cat and baby images are 100% if when they were shooting with their cheaper cameras.
.
I had been wondering about the question in the OP as well. Interesting....
Certainly with my 5Dc I am able to confidently take very nice photos and have learned how to use my camera well. I do find it limiting now without the live view and lack of better auto focus. I would love to take some landscape photos now with a tilt shift lens, night sky photos focusing with live view, use shallow dof with focus points other than center, and track objects so everything is not focused at the center point. Not sure it is worth upgrading to the 5DII for live view and still not have the auto focus features. Since I make no money off any of my photos, I have to wait on the 5D3 a bit. and enjoy my 5Dc for what it can do well. It certainly is a great camera.
I suspect this is more of an American phenomena as photographers on this site from the States seem to have limitless amounts of money to throw at the camera manufacturers....particularly amateurs. Not all of course...but a lot.
I also think it is a male mindset. I know a couple of female photographers in the UK that use very 'average' cameras and seem able to give their customers what they want. To them a camera is a camera is a camera not an object of desire or status.
Of course there might just be a lot of people who thought that the bodies would be in short supply for some time so buy now (if possible) and sell for a profit a little later. Unfortunately the price hasn't held and most of the 'must have' Canon releases are available under their release price and seem to be readily available.
Also there might be those that believe the myth that the latest upgrade will automatically lead to them being a better photographer.....and then realizing they have made an expensive mistake.
Wow, you guys are making me rethink my recent 5D III purchase. I sold my IIn, 5D II and a few lenses to fund it. But now it seems that better AF, in camera HDR, multiple exposure, etc will just be a waste for an amateur like me....
Yes its an expensive hobby for an amateur if they want the best equipment. Does the best equipment make my technique better, no. Will it improve my keepers and overall quality, yes.
Better equipment = Better results for those with and without natural artistic ability and trained technique.
Sorry both lenses and bodies can improve your results is it the cheapest way or will it always provides the best results, no. That is what professional talent is for. Sorry I can't afford to hire it for every family get together or children's sporting event I attend but I do like to get the best results my meager talents can provide. Better equipment helps that.
I don't think people should be so quick to judge others for buying equipment. If someone has the means to purchase a new camera/lens/etc why does it matter to anyone else what their skill level is or their artistic ability. If amateurs didn't purchase camera gear the retail shops and manufactures would be significantly reduced. You should be happy that regular people are willing to purchase 'pro' gear, it keeps the companies producing 'affordable' gear for the actual pros.
I doubt the numbers of used 5Diii or D800 are actually that high. Consider how many bodies are being sold, how many people might have pre-ordered multiple bodies, etc. My local shop had at least 10 d800's in stock waiting to go out to pre-orders.
I'm actually more surprised how many 5Dc are for sale locally. Close to a dozen in my local area, which is probably double or triple what would normally be available. And some are asking quite high prices still (900-1200 for a body only). I'd assume most of those people have now upgraded to another body and are finally moving on from the original 5D.
jctriguy wrote:
I don't think people should be so quick to judge others for buying equipment. If someone has the means to purchase a new camera/lens/etc why does it matter to anyone else what their skill level is or their artistic ability. If amateurs didn't purchase camera gear the retail shops and manufactures would be significantly reduced. You should be happy that regular people are willing to purchase 'pro' gear, it keeps the companies producing 'affordable' gear for the actual pros.
PetKal wrote:
Would you believe that 90% of seemingly experienced photographers I meet on my photo outings use Av or even TV mode only ? I think many of them really do not understand the way manual exposure works. But they all shoot RAW, or at least that's what they say.
Actually this smacks of holier than thou attitude... Most folks I respect as photographers do NOT use M all the time and some do use Av or Tv majority of the time. I use Av most of the time myself.
Vivek wrote:
Actually this smacks of holier than thou attitude... Most folks I respect as photographers do NOT use M all the time and some do use Av or Tv majority of the time. I use Av most of the time myself.
There are a lot of negative attitudes being expressed on this thread: Envy; superiority airs (often, of course, masking an inferiority complex), and aggressive ignorance, to name a few. It's astonishing that those who choose not to buy the new tool are so quick to judge people who choose to buy the new tool, as if "real photographers" don't "stoop" to buy the best tools they can. Absurd..
jctriguy wrote:
I don't think people should be so quick to judge others for buying equipment. If someone has the means to purchase a new camera/lens/etc why does it matter to anyone else what their skill level is or their artistic ability. If amateurs didn't purchase camera gear the retail shops and manufactures would be significantly reduced. You should be happy that regular people are willing to purchase 'pro' gear, it keeps the companies producing 'affordable' gear for the actual pros.
I doubt the numbers of used 5Diii or D800 are actually that high. Consider how many bodies are being sold, how many people might have pre-ordered multiple bodies, etc. My local shop had at least 10 d800's in stock waiting to go out to pre-orders.
I'm actually more surprised how many 5Dc are for sale locally. Close to a dozen in my local area, which is probably double or triple what would normally be available. And some are asking quite high prices still (900-1200 for a body only). I'd assume most of those people have now upgraded to another body and are finally moving on from the original 5D....Show more →
Well compared to the stupid crap many people waste their money on like booze, drugs, shoes, weddings etc, I'd put spending on camera gear as one of the better investments. It's a hobby, it's gets you out of the house, hopefully it gives you a greater appreciation of the world we live in and it makes you more observant. I know people that spend more on booze and cigarettes in a year than I ever would on photogear.
I think i might have to join in on this conversation. I recently bought a 5DIII from a guy who actually bought 2 5DIIIs and a D800. I think he had quite a bit of money!
On the topic of ametuers buying pro cameras. I am not a pro nor do i get paid for any work i do. Although i wanted something better than my T2i. I had the money to buy something nice and I did. As an ametuer, the photos i take now are improved and the situations are more flexible. I made sure when i bought my 5DIII to go through the manual and find all those nice features i paid for!
I shoot primarily in Tv and Av depending on the situation. I don't understand people looking down on those using Tv/Av vs M. I find Tv/Av much quicker than setting up M. I almost shoot RAW all the time because i can manipulate photos much further than JPGs.
As stated above (Pixel Perfect)^
I don't see the expenses on camera gear all too bad considering i don't spend money on a lot of short lived things. I prefer to put money in things i can continually use. I can't imagine spending hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on the weekends getting wasted, which a lot of people i see doing around here. On the other side some people can't fathom spending $3000 on one camera. So to each his own.
Vivek wrote:
Actually this smacks of holier than thou attitude... Most folks I respect as photographers do NOT use M all the time and some do use Av or Tv majority of the time. I use Av most of the time myself.
The point is not whether that someone who spends $3k+ uses Av/Tv/P modes, the point is that you would think someone spending that would actually KNOW how to actually change from P to Av/T/M. It makes zero sense to buy a $3k camera and be clueless how to change the settings. It also seems ridiculous to buy a 36mp camera and put one of the cheapest kit lenses on the body.
Volks1470 wrote:
I think i might have to join in on this conversation. I recently bought a 5DIII from a guy who actually bought 2 5DIIIs and a D800. I think he had quite a bit of money!
On the topic of ametuers buying pro cameras. I am not a pro nor do i get paid for any work i do. Although i wanted something better than my T2i. I had the money to buy something nice and I did. As an ametuer, the photos i take now are improved and the situations are more flexible. I made sure when i bought my 5DIII to go through the manual and find all those nice features i paid for!
I shoot primarily in Tv and Av depending on the situation. I don't understand people looking down on those using Tv/Av vs M. I find Tv/Av much quicker than setting up M. I almost shoot RAW all the time because i can manipulate photos much further than JPGs.
As stated above (Pixel Perfect)^
I don't see the expenses on camera gear all too bad considering i don't spend money on a lot of short lived things. I prefer to put money in things i can continually use. I can't imagine spending hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on the weekends getting wasted, which a lot of people i see doing around here. On the other side some people can't fathom spending $3000 on one camera. So to each his own. ...Show more →
Again my point wasn't so much that the guy was shooting in P mode. The point was he had NO IDEA how to change it to another mode. And as i said earlier, it makes no sense spending $3k+ on a camera - particularly one that is 36mp and then sticking a sub $200-$300 kit zoom on it.
khurram1 wrote:
Again my point wasn't so much that the guy was shooting in P mode. The point was he had NO IDEA how to change it to another mode. And as i said earlier, it makes no sense spending $3k+ on a camera - particularly one that is 36mp and then sticking a sub $200-$300 kit zoom on it.
I hear you, but who really cares? He's having fun; he's not hurting anyone, people like him buying the camera constitute a significant part of the market, and help the manufacturer amortize their costs over more units. If you're just jealous that he can afford it and you can't, such sentiments do not do you proud; if you're just feeling superior because you "know better," that doesn't do you proud either.
He's not hurting anything or anyone; how about let's talk photography or learn/teach about gear instead of deriving some amusement (or something) at the expense of someone not hurting anything?
khurram1 wrote:
Again my point wasn't so much that the guy was shooting in P mode. The point was he had NO IDEA how to change it to another mode. And as i said earlier, it makes no sense spending $3k+ on a camera - particularly one that is 36mp and then sticking a sub $200-$300 kit zoom on it.
Man, why making such a claim? I see people using P or even auto with DLSRs all the time... for amateurs it is more about budget constraint than skills.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well compared to the stupid crap many people waste their money on like booze, drugs, shoes, weddings etc, I'd put spending on camera gear as one of the better investments. It's a hobby, it's gets you out of the house, hopefully it gives you a greater appreciation of the world we live in and it makes you more observant. I know people that spend more on booze and cigarettes in a year than I ever would on photogear.
+1 photography is a pretty healthy hobby, at least the way most people choose to engage in it.
I was just thinking that it's great that people do that, whatever the reasons. They drive the economy forward and allow the less fortunate people (like me) to get almost new products at lower prices.
Would you believe that 90% of seemingly experienced photographers I meet on my photo outings use Av or even TV mode only ? I think many of them really do not understand the way manual exposure works. But they all shoot RAW, or at least that's what they say.
why would there be anything wrong with shooting in either AV or TV mode?
