# Gear Realities



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

As someone who has had the great fortune to make good money and acquire a fairly extensive set of pro cameras & lenses, I thought I'd offer my personal insight into the age old question/fear of whether gear matters and if so, how much. I have used and upgraded lots of gear over the last 6 years or so since getting back into (D)SLR photography, so here are my thoughts.

The following discussion assumes good or maybe even great technique. This is a *critically-important assumption* as technique matters *far *more than equipment. The best gear in poor hands will always yield poor results, but that's a matter for another post, so we'll just go with the assumption for now. What follows is my personal opinion from where gear is least helpful to most helpful.

*General Photography*
Generally, a Rebel body with a kit lens will deliver excellent photos of most general subjects. Even in low light, the IS & STM work quite well unless the subject is moving. In good light, even sports and other difficult subjects can be captured with lenses like the 55-250 if the photographer has good instincts in terms of when to press the shutter.

*Portraiture*
The first step up in terms of gear helping is probably portraiture. The kit lenses are slow in terms of aperture making it harder to get that great shallow DOF style. Here, camera bodies matter very little other than to direct your lens choice, generally 50-85mm for crop, 85-135 for full frame. An aperture of f/1.2 to 2.8 is best and will give you a big step up from the kit lens. Standard EF primes work very well, though you don't need a fast lens if you shoot in a studio as you'll typically be at f/8-f/11 for most shots. What you save on cameras & lenses can easily be spent on lighting gear, but that's another topic. Just know that reflectors and diffusers used outdoors can acheive excellent results for very little money. The model/subject and your connection with them and their poses is the most important factor in getting great shots.

*Landscape*
The next step up is landscape photography. There are now a number of excellent wide and ultra-wide angle lenses for crop bodies, so the advantage of full frame in that regard is fading. Better bodies and equipment give you two real-world advantages - better durability and weather sealing for outdoor use, and better shadows in low light. If you don't hike to far away or rugged places or shoot before or after sunset in windy conditions where you need ISO 1600 to hold up in big prints, a Rebel body and one of the newer Canon or Sigma ultrawide zooms will serve you well. If you don't believe me, take a look at some of the winning landscape photos from major contests in the last few years. Most have been shot with crop sensors. One other thing worth mentioning are Tilt-shift lenses. While they are by no means necessary and won't revolutionize your work, they can give you unique shots and better control over DOF. They aren't easy to use, aren't weather sealed, and are all expensive manual focus primes, so these are best used once you've mastered landscape photography.

*Macro*
From there, I suppose macro photography is the next place where lenses and cameras make a difference. Macro shots are a bit misleading, though, as many of the zooms with short minimum focus distances work very well for close-up shots. What I'm talking about here is 0.5x (1:2) to 1x (1:1) and beyond. A true macro lens will make a huge difference here as you can get much closer, but focus tubes can work quite well with many lenses at a much lower cost. The 25mm tube and the old 24-70L took excellent photos and I used it a lot before I got a macro lens. One you start macro, you'll also realize that you're likely to need a lot of light. That means getting a macro flash, or a body that does well above ISO 1600, or both. I took lots of great photos without them, but trying to shoot a small flower in light wind at ISO800 is a serious exercise in patience. If you shoot still subjects indoors, there's no need to worry about, but for moving subjects or low light, it's important. Finally, focus rails and software like Helicon Focus can allow you to "focus stack" shots giving you much greater creative freedom, but again, it's not necessary.

*Architecture*
This is another specialty area where normal equipment can be used, but specialized equipment can make a big difference in your work. Full frame bodies aren't need for low light, but they allow you to use fisheye lenses and wide angles with complete freedom, but lenses like the Sigma 8-16 and third-party fisheyes can work with crop cameras. The exception are tilt shift lenses, which will give your work a professional edge. The TS-E 17 & 24 are able to straighten lines, give you better DOF and overcome issues that leveling the camera & cropping the photo simply can't overcome. If you can't afford this stuff, don't give up, though. A crop camera and a ultra-wide zoom + standard kit zoom will get you started and can generate excellent results in most situations if you take the time to learn how to use them and how to shoot architecture.

*Event Photography*
If you shoot weddings or other events, you will need to invest in better equipment. Fast lenses, especially f/2.8 zooms and flashes are very helpful to have. You will also need to have a back up camera, lens, and flash in case your main gear fails and to use for quick moments when you can't change lenses. More durable bodies and lenses are good to have as your gear will take a knocking. For some events, having a high end body with a fast frame rate and high ISO capabilities is also necessary if your subjects move quickly or the lighting is poor.

*Sports & Wildlife Photography*
As I said in the beginning, in good light, with good reflexes (and pre-focus) even the lowliest gear can capture great sports photos in the right hands. Think about the great sports photos before autofocus and digital...

Unfortunately, if you're serious about shooting fast-moving subjects (athletes, birds, animals, etc.) a camera with a 6+ FPS frame rate is going to be very useful. If you're getting paid, I would say it's mandatory unless you have incredible reflexes and anticipation skills. That doesn't mean you'll be holding down the shutter the whole game/time, but in quick bursts to catch the peak moment and using AI Servo mode to track the subject(s).

If you want to shoot those same subjects in low light or very low light, plan on getting a high end pro body (5DIII or 1D X). The same goes for lens choices. Athletes and wildlife are very sensitive about having cameras in their face, so telephoto lenses are needed for most shots, and lenses with a f/2 to f/4 aperture will help stop motion and allow good AF in low light.

Finally, I won't cover astrophotography or many other genres where specialized gear is essential. I think that's obvious 

*Summary *
So in summary, the answer is - it depends. A good photographer can take good photos with any gear (see the DigitalRev series for proof), but gear does help some or a lot depending on what you shoot.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2014)

Nice summary, with one glaring omission…you completely forgot to discuss the gear considerations for *cat photography*!


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice summary, with one glaring omission…you completely forgot to discuss the gear considerations for *cat photography*!


Damn, that's true! From personal experience, I can tell you that the 1D X + 300 f/2.8 II IS is nowhere near enough as they can still sense I'm there and they move way too fast for AI Servo tracking at 12 FPS + 1/8000s . On the other hand, even the camera on my phone works well during the other 18 hours of the day when they're asleep...


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 14, 2014)

Bloody well done, Mackguyver! You've certainly put together a great summary.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 14, 2014)

I still want to shoot with my 1dx + L lenses, regardless what situation I'm in


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Bloody well done, Mackguyver! You've certainly put together a great summary.


Thanks!



Dylan777 said:


> I still want to shoot with my 1dx + L lenses, regardless what situation I'm in


Dylan, I understand and we have totally spoiled ourselves with this gear and it truly is a pleasure to shoot with it. However, looking back at shots I took with my Rebel XSi/450D + 50 f/1.4 (portraits), Tokina 11-16 (landscapes), and 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS or 400 f/5.6L (wildlife), it's amazing what can be achieved with less expensive gear. Some of my best and many of my favorite shots were taken with that gear.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> *Summary *
> So in summary, the answer is - it depends. A good photographer can take good photos with any gear (see the DigitalRev series for proof), but gear does help some or a lot depending on what you shoot.



** So in summary, the answer is - it depends. 
Very true

** but gear does help some or a lot depending on what you shoot
True again

** A good photographer can take good photos with any gear 
Hmmmmm ! let me think; give him a T1i with a kit lens to shoot boxing fights under dim lighting - you are going to wait 10 years for him to deliver 13 acceptable images for your photo story.


** I still want to shoot with my 1dx + L lenses, regardless what situation I'm in
+1
That's why I bought it. I cannot afford to miss too many opportunities, or going home only with one good shot because I am a "good photographer". Good musicians play with their respective best instruments.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nice summary, with one glaring omission…you completely forgot to discuss the gear considerations for *cat photography*!
> ...



I remember trying to take pictures of a kitten playing in a paper bag with a P/S camera. The camera would strobe the flash before every shot, at which the kitten ducked back into the bag, and I ended with lots of pictures of paper bags and no pictures of kittens... Although I firmly believe that the photographer is the most important factor, there are definitely cases where gear matters!


----------



## FTb-n (Aug 14, 2014)

I do marvel at the great sports photos of yesteryear with the seemingly limited F1 body with a 250 exposure back and 3 fps motor drive. I'm shooting my kids' sports events with a 5D3 and 70-200 f2.8 II in the same high school gym where I shot yearbook photos as a student with an FTb-n loaded with ASA 400 Tri-X. I constantly wonder what shots I could have captured as a student if I had today's gear.

Best advice that I heard was to wait until your gear is holding you back before upgrading. For me, I was constantly pushing the ISO limit of my Rebel XT when moved up to the 60D. Then I pushed the 60D to its focusing limits before moving to the 7D. I was convinced that this was THE camera for me, but I kept relying on NoiseNinja to cleanup high ISO images until I finally took the plunge with the 5D3. So far, the 5D3 is handling my needs quite nicely. There may be a 1Dx in my future, but not any time soon.

Arguably, this may have been a more expensive path from the XT to the 5D3. But, it proved to be a necessary path to prove to myself that I could actually leverage the benefits of the 5D3 and shoot enough photos to justify the cost.

Decades ago, I sold cameras at Target and learned two things about a buyer's tendencies. First, it can be quite tempting to be drawn to the fancy gadgetry of the latest and greatest camera. It's the awe for the technology that inspired these sales. Second, it is easy for the less experienced photographer to confuse more automated modes with advanced photo gear and be sold on the idea that such automation can fill the void of experience and talent. These are buyers who look for "cameras that take great pictures" rather than looking at cameras for "photographers who take great photos".


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 14, 2014)

Besisika said:


> ** A good photographer can take good photos with any gear
> Hmmmmm ! let me think; give him a T1i with a kit lens to shoot boxing fights under dim lighting - you are going to wait 10 years for him to deliver 13 acceptable images for your photo story.


If you prefocus, use high ISO and something like DxO PRIME, I think it's doable to cover a fight like that. Not easy, not suitable for large prints maybe, but definitely doable. If you're getting paid for the shots, though, it makes sense to have appropriate gear. I have covered a dance production in a very dark theater with a Rebel XSi/450D and 50 f/1.4 lens with great results. I got better shots than the person they hired with his Nikon D3 and pro lenses, actually . I have also had excellent results with the same Rebel XSi/450D and the 135 f/2 lens sitting in the cheap seats. In fact, the 2010 Miss Florida USA is using my photo (without permission or credit, but I'm not losing any sleep over it) instead of the official photo ;D. It's the photo of her being crowned, 4th row, center on this page. It's not the world's best photo, but my timing was better, and it was taken with the XSi + 135 f/2.


----------



## Dylan777 (Aug 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I still want to shoot with my 1dx + L lenses, regardless what situation I'm in
> ...


Agree, it can be done. It just harder and more frustrating to get the shots.

I'm in the fav. of new Tech. It helps to get the job done right and easier. You get to bring your works to the clients faster = compensation in the bank sooner. Great for both parties 

I might be in the minority, but I do not believe in "gear doesn't matter" theory. You can't win a race if your race car doesn't have speed, regardless, how good the driver is.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> However, looking back at shots I took with my Rebel XSi/450D + 50 f/1.4 (portraits), Tokina 11-16 (landscapes), and 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 IS or 400 f/5.6L (wildlife), it's amazing what can be achieved with less expensive gear. Some of my best and many of my favorite shots were taken with that gear.


One of my favourite pictures was taken with a 2.1Mpixel P/S camera in 2001.


----------



## Besisika (Aug 14, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > ** A good photographer can take good photos with any gear
> ...



I See what you mean!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 14, 2014)

First of all, a good photographer who knows the limitations of his equipment and how to work around them can pretty much capture most situations.

However, it does get easier with better equipment. Trying to take fast action photos in limited light just plain requires fast lenses and a FF allows for faster shutter speeds with low noise. 

I compared my 7D with my 5D MK II and later 5D MK III for low light theater use, and the 7D images really suffered from noise if a high ISO was used, or from blur if a slow shutter was used. In the end, I just stopped using it as a 2nd camera because so few shots from the 7D made it into the final selection. 

With the cost of used FF 5D MK I's, I'd always grab one of them over a rebel. I see one locally for a good price, but I have too many cameras right now already, and I want to see what FF body comes out next year. Chances are that I'd go for a new lens rather than new body unless a miracle occurs and there is a breakthrough in sensor technology that I can't resist.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 14, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice summary, with one glaring omission…you completely forgot to discuss the gear considerations for *cat photography*!



Not to mention book plagiarism photography, which requires pro high FPS bodies, super zoom lenses, and third party speedlights.


----------



## Jeffrey (Aug 14, 2014)

Nicely stated, mackguyver!

I'm one who believes in taking a gun to a knife fight. So, I buy equipment that might be slightly beyond my skills set at that time and work towards growing into the better equipment. I'm not so much interested in buying new equipment at this point as I am using the great equipment I am so lucky to own. Oh I might buy a trigger to photograph lightning but that would be about it.

I don't use 600mm lenses often enough to own one, but they are easy to rent and return.

All of that being said, the cliche about the best camera is the one you have in your hand is usually true. I've had great luck with my Ricoh GR, and thoroughly enjoy shooting my 1D-X. And, I am very happy with both cameras!


----------



## tat3406 (Aug 15, 2014)

The most gear demand photography is test chart photography! ;D


----------



## kennephoto (Aug 15, 2014)

tat3406 said:


> The most gear demand photography is test chart photography! ;D



Some of you people seem to make me laugh more than I should on this forum! Speaking of cat photography, my cat in the backyard taken with the very iPad mini I am posting with.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 15, 2014)

Besisika said:


> Hmmmmm ! let me think; give him a T1i with a kit lens to shoot boxing fights under dim lighting - you are going to wait 10 years for him to deliver 13 acceptable images for your photo story.



Dunno about that. I imagine that there were quite a few really good boxing photographs taken even before the advent of digital cameras. 

Just do an image search on The Googles and see some of the excellent shots made by photographers who really knew the sport and could anticipate. You could not spray and pray with a speedgraphic. ;D

I think a good photographer who is experienced and knowledgable about boxing could take pretty good pictures with pretty much any DSLR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmmmm ! let me think; give him a T1i with a kit lens to shoot boxing fights *under dim lighting *- you are going to wait 10 years for him to deliver 13 acceptable images for your photo story.
> ...



Professional boxing, sure...the ring is always brightly lit. I've shot amateur boxing where I needed ISO 6400 at f/2-2.8 to get barely adequate shutter speeds. I've used ISO 6400 film (well, Delta 3200 pushed a stop), pretty grainy stuff...


----------



## Besisika (Aug 15, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Besisika said:
> ...


+1
I am a big believer in delivering enough amount of photos to satisfy client's need and not only 2 keepers out of 350 I took, that I can show off on my web page. I can call my self a great photographer only when my customers are satisfied (and I have disappointed few), but that's me and my own standard.
ISO 6400 at 1/320s and f2.0 is standard where I shoot; the main reason i moved from 5D mk III to 1DX. During my last shot, there were 4 of us to start and after the 2nd fight I was all alone, they showed up only when the judges announced the result (with flash).


----------



## surapon (Aug 15, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> As someone who has had the great fortune to make good money and acquire a fairly extensive set of pro cameras & lenses, I thought I'd offer my personal insight into the age old question/fear of whether gear matters and if so, how much. I have used and upgraded lots of gear over the last 6 years or so since getting back into (D)SLR photography, so here are my thoughts.
> 
> The following discussion assumes good or maybe even great technique. This is a *critically-important assumption* as technique matters *far *more than equipment. The best gear in poor hands will always yield poor results, but that's a matter for another post, so we'll just go with the assumption for now. What follows is my personal opinion from where gear is least helpful to most helpful.
> 
> ...




Dear Friend, Mr. mackguyver.
Just 1 more addition tool In my Idea, The Tool that I use for Shooting The super dark area in the Topless Bar ( The Dancing Girls) in Bangkok Thailand---And Super Shook Proof Camera that build like tank, Which I can us as the Weapon to fight with the Drunk People in the Bar.
I love your post, Great Job, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 15, 2014)

Besisika said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > *Summary *
> ...



I've got a T1i - give me a crack at it. I've gotten acceptable results in many difficult shooting situations. I've not tried a boxing match, but I bet I could get them.

Oh, and I have an American Strat Plus with a Fender Twin.


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 15, 2014)

surapon said:


> Dear Friend, Mr. mackguyver.
> Just 1 more addition tool In my Idea, The Tool that I use for Shooting The super dark area in the Topless Bar ( The Dancing Girls) in Bangkok Thailand---And Super Shook Proof Camera that build like tank, Which I can us as the Weapon to fight with the Drunk People in the Bar.
> I love your post, Great Job, Sir.
> Surapon



You may want to travel to such places with a compact monopod/nightstick


----------



## wsmith96 (Aug 15, 2014)

Great summary Mackguyver. I always enjoy reading your posts.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 15, 2014)

.
Makes me think of Michael Corleone in Godfather 2:

"If anything in this life is certain, if history has taught us anything, it is that you can kill anyone."


----------



## dstppy (Aug 15, 2014)

What about photography with the lens cap on? Seriously, gear matters, I'm looking at you 5Dmk3

For all the buzz about it, there must have been a HUGE demand for that kind of shots.


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

Have you tried digiscoping?

Top image is with an iPhone through 15X binoculars, bottom image is the full view (rescaled to fit website) with a 60D and 150-600MM at 600mm....


----------



## surapon (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Have you tried digiscoping?
> 
> Top image is with an iPhone through 15X binoculars, bottom image is the full view (rescaled to fit website) with a 60D and 150-600MM at 600mm....



Wow, Dear Friend Mr. Don Haines----Wow ---Great Comparision, Sir, I will Dump both of my Canon DSLR, Canon EF 600 mm and Stupid Cell Phone and Buy I-Phone and Binocular in my next Birding Trip. That will Cut my pain in my back after the trip.

Thanks you , Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

surapon said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried digiscoping?
> ...


Quite frankly, I'd rather have the 600F4 and DSLR myself 

It's an example of how you can get creative with what you have... Some of those spotting scopes that birder's carry around are impressive chunks of glass....


----------



## Menace (Aug 15, 2014)

surapon said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Have you tried digiscoping?
> ...



Dear Sir Surapon,
Please donate the 600 to me - I'll look after it as much as my 400.
Many thanks. 

p.s. postage to New Zealand


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 15, 2014)

Google photos of your favorite sport, from the 1950. You'll be amazed at how good they are.

*Motorsports*
Formula !, 1954, notice the photographers at the edge of the track -- no long lenses http://292fc373eb1b8428f75b-7f75e5eb51943043279413a54aaa858a.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/motoring_01_2_temp-1363778487-51499bb7-620x348.jpg

Here's a F1 crash, mid 1950s http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f10/387472d1345741141-indy-formula-one-fatal-non-fatal-crash-photos-stop-motion-color-b-w-frames-195920german20gp20avus20-20hans2-1.jpg

Motorcycle GP 1950s http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RqcoTwioL0s/Tasf8YyAVsI/AAAAAAAAEFU/qcsnUXcILM8/s1600/250-bialbero-monocilindrico-corsa-_schedaI-1.jpg

Type D Auto Union, 1938 British GP http://sv.wallpapersus.com/wallpapers/2012/07/Auto-Union-Type-D-Tazio-Nuvolari-1938-Grand-Prix-at-Donington-Park-1440x2560.jpg

*Football before Face Masks.*
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hm0FphM_Ae0/UTyHRpN-stI/AAAAAAAAIlw/ShH2sFBSjdQ/s1600/1952+DAL+vs+LA_GWG+helmet+stripe.jpg

*1952 World Series*
http://goldinauctions.com/ItemImages/000009/9180a_lg.jpeg
*
Carmen Basilio - Sugar Ray Robinson*
http://www.ernst-haas.com/archive/robinson/robinson08.jpg


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Google photos of your favorite sport, from the 1950. You'll be amazed at how good they are.
> 
> http://292fc373eb1b8428f75b-7f75e5eb51943043279413a54aaa858a.r38.cf3.rackcdn.com/motoring_01_2_temp-1363778487-51499bb7-620x348.jpg


As my favourite sport is canoeing.... and having 4 pre-1950 canoes, I don't understand the question 
The picture is of the 1910 Dean sailing canoe, taken earlier this week.....


----------



## Besisika (Aug 15, 2014)

Menace said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Splendid idea!
600+400=1000. That is a lot!
I offer my assistance with the 400 whenever needed.

p.s. postage to Canada.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> As my favourite sport is canoeing.... and having 4 pre-1950 canoes, I don't understand the question
> The picture is of the 1910 Dean sailing canoe, taken earlier this week.....



I was thinking about real sports, where there are winners and losers  http://latimesphoto.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/fa_701_32calbears-2_970.jpg


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 15, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Sirs, Surapon and Don,
I've seen some of my fellow birders with Swarowski's ATX 30-70x95 (Swarowski -> http://www.swarovskioptik.com/nature/atx-stx-c210201/atx-30-70x95-p5006351-B3). They get some decent reach with those beasts! And from what I've been told they are not so bad when it comes to digiscoping either...  Easy to carry, and they'll even make your wallet substantially lighter to drag along.
An alternative that I have the hots for, is the Celestron C5 Spotter 5" - mostly because that's one I easier could afford if I had any money. (Celestron -> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/485314-REG/Celestron_52291_C5_Spotter_5_0_127mm_Spotting.html)


----------



## Don Haines (Aug 15, 2014)

DominoDude said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...


and the Celestron can use a t-mount adapter to mount your DSLR to it.....

and yes, I have seen a birder using an 8 inch Celestron telescope! Some of them are true fanatics!


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 15, 2014)

Si si! *nods wildly @ Don*
T2 adapter mounted on the Celestron will give you a f/10 manual lens with weird bokeh from that lens design. It will be reasonably short and possible to fit it all on a gimbal head. I think there is a a sort of T2-adapter to the Swaroski as well, but they call it TLS APO something.


----------



## 100 (Aug 16, 2014)

How about creativity? 

Just an example:






Source: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2012/mar/09/week-in-sport-pictures

You can combine slow shutter speeds and action and still end up with an (more than) acceptable image.
Even 3 second exposures at f/11 in dim light can be enough to tell a story about (fast) action.





source: http://petapixel.com/2012/12/20/blurry-long-exposure-portraits-showing-dancers-in-motion/

Creativity is an important part of photography, well, at least I think it is. 
More capable gear in the hands of creative photographers will give them more creative possibilities, so gear does matter.
Good technique will maximize their results, so technique is important too.
But without creativity…


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 16, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Google photos of your favorite sport, from the 1950. You'll be amazed at how good they are.
> 
> *1952 World Series*
> http://goldinauctions.com/ItemImages/000009/9180a_lg.jpeg


i was at a minor league baseball game a few weeks back and they had photos of people who made it to the majors... from today and yesteryear... and OMG... the images from yesteryear were so awful. They were crazy grainy and looked out of focus... I suppose they were action shots... but I manage to get action shots of baseball in focus even when manually focusing... 

I don't disagree with your thesis... but I was surprised because I expected yesteryear to be better... 

And for what it is worth... I'm not that impressed with the world series photo...


----------



## unfocused (Aug 16, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > Google photos of your favorite sport, from the 1950. You'll be amazed at how good they are.
> ...



Personally, I've always thought this was one of the all-time greatest sports photos (says a lot more than any razor sharp action shot ever could in my opinion)
http://www.milliondollarbackfield.com/images/tittle16x201.jpg


----------



## jdramirez (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Personally, I've always thought this was one of the all-time greatest sports photos (says a lot more than any razor sharp action shot ever could in my opinion)
> http://www.milliondollarbackfield.com/images/tittle16x201.jpg



that i like... but if it was taken today, people would say that it doesn't follow the rule of thirds.


----------



## Omni Images (Aug 16, 2014)

Mackguyver, I'd have to mention that landscape photography is not just a case of using the widest lens possible to cram as much as you can in.
Most if not all my shots are taken using my 1Dmk4 with 35mm 1.4LII lens and using the manfrotto 303+ pano head in the vertical position stitching maybe 8 to 12 shots together.
Even a 50mm lens is good for this on a full frame body.
The pano head is such an important item for stitching as it will allow you to stitch images that have close foreground objects such as bushes, rocks etc and also have your background subject line up too .. so you don't get ghosting of the merged images.
A longer lens brings up the details of a mountain range etc ... using a wide lens pushes the detail way off so as you can't see detail of trees and rocks etc in say a mountain range.
I also use my Linhof 617s with the 90mm lens ... I wouldn't go any wider.
I would agree on using the tilt shift for increased focal range, I have a 4x5 Horseman and that is exactly what they can do.
A good landscape image I feel is one with interesting close foreground detail along with detailed background .. all in focus .. that is the landscape photographers conundrum.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Aug 16, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> that i like... but if it was taken today, people would say that it doesn't follow the rule of thirds.



Some of the best/most famous photos violated the rule-of-thirds, and every other rule you can think of. Some were even out-of-focus.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 16, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Google photos of your favorite sport, from the 1950. You'll be amazed at how good they are.



Actually, for the most part, they're _really not_.

They're "_good for their time_", "_good for the gear available_" - and yes they capture a moment - but that's not the same thing at all as them being "amazingly good" in terms of the part the gear has played in their capture.

By modern standards, they just don't cut it. Even rank motorsport beginners aspire to standards much higher than these old offerings get anywhere near to.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Aug 16, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Personally, I've always thought this was one of the all-time greatest sports photos (says a lot more than any razor sharp action shot ever could in my opinion)



_Why_, though? A sentimental attachment to the idea that "old, grainy and b&w" somehow has a meaning, a significance - a "truth" - in itself? (Nothing wrong with that, of course).

For me, I see in that image a great photo opportunity somewhat lost for the want of modern equipment to capture it.


----------

