x-isle wrote:

A pro isn't nessecarilly a better photographer than an amatuer. However, as I said, BigMike is right, but also wrong. A keen amateur (one that plans a photography outing for a particular reason) would benefit from spending £££££ on equipment on the same way a pro would,

come on. That's like saying a professional builder is not neccessarily better than your average weekend DIYer. Yes there are of course some talented amateurs out there, but generally speaking an amateur looks at the gear AS the hobby wheareas a pro treats the gear as a tool in the same way any trade uses tools. There is no point using a 10 pound hammer to put in tack nails in the same way there is no point using a heavy dslr when a compact will do. The only camera I own is a compact. I don't own any lenses or camera bodies at all, everything is rented for the job in hand. So a catalogue or billboard shoot will be done with a medium format digi with a 60 MP back, a basic food shoot will be done with a dslr and a long lens etc etc. It is not the gear that makes a good photographer, and that's the mistake many many amateurs make. Upgrading a lens to a canon pro lens at 1600 quid will NOT make you a better shooter, I can categorically tell you that. For example, I won an industry award for a shot which was taken with a Holga - a camera which cost less than a tenner.

The other difference between a pro and an amateur tends to be that the pro understand light in a much more comprehensive way. He knows how to use artificial light, generator packs, light shaping tools etc. It's rare to find an amateur who has or understands phase 3 lighting, or light shaping tools and how to use them.

If I was to give any advice to an amateur shooter, it would be to improve your eye, composition and most of all, understanding of light. Not to go out and buy expensive gear. And also to ignore the so called "rules" of photography like the "rule" of thirds etc. Also to exclusively use a fixed focal length lens, now THAT will make you a better shooter. Not to get hung up on mega pixels (irrelevant), card storage sizes, basically all the stuff that is just not in any way relevant at all. Most importantly, to get out and take pictures and get those pictures right in the camera, not mess with them in photoshop for hours afterwards.

BigMike wrote:

Granted, if you want to take close ups of flowers and frogs then you need other bits of kit, but for the intended purpose, one lens is all you need. Match it to a camera with a decent ISO range and bobs your uncle.

How did you know ...... This is from one of my previous outings:


Click image to enlarge

Glyn :sheep:

Admin note: this post has had its images recovered from a money grabbing photo hosting site and reinstated

x-isle wrote:

.....AND IF BY MAGIC!!!!!!

http://www.cardinalphoto.com/content/long-...ed-vr-lens

About time Nikon!

That is the exact lens I have been using along with a Nikon 17-55mm ED DX. It is awesome but weighs a ton, and as mike has mentioned- will attract MANY thieving eyes. AWESOME though, easy to use and very sharp- the frog picture above was taken with it

Glyn

Glynparry25 wrote:

x-isle wrote:

.....AND IF BY MAGIC!!!!!!

http://www.cardinalphoto.com/content/long-...ed-vr-lens

About time Nikon!

That is the exact lens I have been using along with a Nikon 17-55mm ED DX. It is awesome but weighs a ton, and as mike has mentioned- will attract MANY thieving eyes. AWESOME though, easy to use and very sharp- the frog picture above was taken with it

Glyn

Almost, this new one is to replace the old 80-400mm which is very outdated now and has a slow AF compared to a modern lens. I'll be in New York at the beginning of May and the US price is £800 cheaper for this new version. I don't normally buy a foreign model due to warranty, but at £800 cheaper..........

As for the choice of lenses, perfect. You'll also find the 70-300mm a great lens, smaller, lighter and much faster AF than the 400 you've been using.

London Camera Exchange are great for 2nd hand too - http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/ Craig Rogers

2007 Puma 110 XS
2011 Evoque Coupe Dynamic Lux
www.craigrogers.photography

x-isle wrote:

Sorry Mike, but you are generalising there. I agree that a lot of amatuers don't invest in knowledge over equipment and that's possibly the majority, but tar and brush springs to mind.

There's a distinction between amateur photographer and someone who wants to take good photos.

As for professional builders, that's a great example!

Most professional builders are cowboys and a DIY'r is probably much better and I'm speaking from experience too after recently fully renovating an old farm cottage.

I agree that an expensive lens doesn't make you a good photographer, but a good photographer will benefit from an expensive lens.....in certain circumstances. Take photo of a bird on a branch for instance. Take it with a lens zoomed out to 300mm at f/5.6. Photo becomes flat and everything is in focus. Get a little closer at 200mm with f/2.8........ Very different photo that you can't acheive with the cheaper lens.

Then you have different types of photography, you sound like you do a lot of studio work and yes, lighting tecnhiques are crucial and an art form. However, if you're in the bush trying to photograph a Lion, you need to work with what you've got and move around. You can't really start looking at phase 3 lighting.

And this is my point. You're showing a lack of understanding of lenses I'm afraid. If you want a shot with a nice blurry background it has nothing to do with the quality of the lens. It's about geometry; the position of the subject being shot versus the background versus where the shooter is plus the focal length. And 300 mils is closer than 200 mils so your whole statement about 300 vs 200 is just plain wrong I'm afraid. You can get the same blurry shot with the subject in focus with both of the lenses at the apertures you mention, it just depends on where you are positioned. You can also get that same shot with a 24-70, a fixed 50, 80 etc, pretty much any lens in fact. Ok it's harder with some than with others, and I could bore you to death with how a lens is constructed but it won't make any difference I suspect.

One problem in the industry in general is so many weekend shooters who just think they know it all (yes this is directed at you) and when a photography question comes up on a forum everyone with a camera is an expert, and few if any will actually even bother listening to what a professional has to say. It is FACT that Glynn does not need more than one lens to do what he wants to do and get some great images, but rather like modifying landrovers, if he WANTS different lenses then that's fair enough. The trouble is that as before, too many amateurs spend too much time about changing lenses, researching gear, messing with settings etc when they should be concentrating on getting the shot with the lens they have. The research they should be doing should be about the geometry issue I mentioned, and about how to get the best shot using the available light they have, and how that light is falling on what they want to shoot, and ultimately the limitations of a camera (any camera), and many people don't or can't grasp the latter.

I think I'll bow out of this now otherwise I suspect I'll just end up ranting at the screen.