The investment of expensive lenses.

[fuzzybabybunny]

Many people say that photography is 90% the photographer. I tend to think that this is an oversimplification, and I'd like to explain why, but please note that I'm not trying to be snooty to the fine folks who don't have the cash for expensive equipment.

The ability of a good photographer to get the shot that he wants depends almost entirely on his equipment.

Want to take breathtaking pictures of a race? You need a camera and lens with fast enough auto focus servo to keep up with the subject.
Want to take natural light shots of animals at dusk or football games under weak stadium lighting? You need an expensive, bright lens to get the shutter speeds necessary.
Want to take pictures that will be printed to a very large scale? Then you need a camera with a high pixel count and a lens that's sharp enough that can RESOLVE that fine detail, and give it to the sensor.

With cheaper, less sharp, less bright, and slower lenses these shots would be IMPOSSIBLE. It doesn't matter how good the photog is when he's fighting against the laws of physics.

Photography is 90% the photographer under ideal situations. Under not-so-ideal situations (and there are many, MANY non-ideal situations) , quality equipment pulls its own weight and the photographer's weight.

But keep in mind that the equipment contributes 0%, ZERO, if the photographer stays on his *** and doesn't go out to snap

All this is not to say that good photos are unobtainable from cheaper equipment. I once saw someone's gallery in which he was using a cheap (comparatively) $200 consumer lens, but the color, the composition, were amazingly spot on. I had never seen a better example of raw skill in my whole life.

In fact, I would like to note that the vast majority of the contest-winning photographs in the world are made by a simple 50mm lens. How much is it? $50. It's not even a zoom! But pictures from these 50mm primes are simply amazing...

[Capt. Insane]

i have to agree. there have been tons of shots ive tried to take, things that look amazing in person, but when i look at them later they're not even close to being the same.


and as for the thing abotu the cheap lens, i saw this thing on some news show (like dateline or 60 mins) where this one photog uses an old fashioned camera (where you stick in a new film sheet for each picture, one with bellows) who took absolutely amazing pictures and developed them himself. on the finished product, things way off in the distance (over a mile, say) were in perfect focus with the rest of the picture (these are on nature panoramas)

[Sharp_Shot]

Well said Fuzzy.. I totally agree.