StephenG wrote
singemonkey wrote
Careful. I might just actually know what I'm talking about. ?
I'd write that up to your opinion..
I am sure Annie Liebowitz must be fuming she spent all that money on 5 Canon 1ds's when all she needed was an entry level camera from Makro and a tripod ?
my cell phone camera is as eqaully crap as a 450D with kit kens amd if you think otherwise you fooling yourself. and the 450d sensor is smaller than a 5D and smaller than a 1D and so on and so.. 450 better than a cell phone? yes. plenty of cameras better than a 450?? also yes.!
why dont we take this coversation onto a photograpahy forum so you can tell everyone all they need is a tripod? and not waste R1000's of rands buying pro gear.
how much advise have you given to people on this site about buying guitars, amps and pedals, and which ones are better than the next? yet when it comes to photography you seem to feel ok to tell them to buy entry level amateur equipement from makro - with a tripod and they will be turning out pro - quality photos ??
next time , tell people on here that its fince to buy a sanchez ans behringer for cash crusaders, asm its all in the technique, not the gear.
i wonder why camera manufacturers bring out "up graded and pro equipment" if the entry level stuff is all thats needed??
and I dont need to be carefull.. i too happen to know something about photography.. ?
StephenG, I'm not sure what your intention is with being so aggressive on this matter but Singe is 100% correct.
Of course you can get better results with a full frame ccd, 16 megapixel camera and a ultra fast lens but that does not mean you can't get good (even great) results with a 10 megapixel camera and kit lens. You asked Singe for a picture to prove that and he did exactly that.
Of course there are things you can do with a top end camera and lens which you can't do with an entry level camera and kit lens but photographing a stationary band in moderately low light is not one of them. When you get to photographing a bird in flight at dawn of which you need to crop the picture by 50% and still be able to publish it on a full page in a glossy magazine, then yes, a 450D with 15-88mm f/5.6 lens will not be good enough but the conditions of these pics that Hammeron posted are well within what a 450D with such a lens should be able to do.
The fact that Annie Leibovitz spends thousands of dollars on gear does not mean that you can not get good pictures with cheap gear.
And by the way, I don't think your Cash Crusaders argument holds. The Canon 450D is not the camera equivalent of a cheap Sanchez from Cash Crusaders. It's a damn fine camera. Sure, it's not the vintage Gibson Les Paul of the camera world but it has everything the artist needs to pull off great results. If an artist can't put in a good performance with an Epiphone Les Paul, he'd be wasting his money buying a vintage Gibson. Similarly, if an artist can't get good results with a Canon 450D and kit lens, he won't get better results with a 1D MkIV.
