more lenses for my 10d?--skill vs equipment

I find myself wanting more and more lenses, accessories, gadgets. I have a 10d

with a 28-105 USM II, a 75-300 USM, and a 17-40L. I am looking to get faster

lenses, particularly the 50 1.4, the 85 1.8, expodisc, the list goes on. But I

realize I am hoping more/better equipment will make me a better photographer.

Is there a way I could find an entire gallery of photos using a 10d with my

lenses? This wannabe (me) would like to see what real photographers (you) can

do with the same equipment. I'm also curious as to how often people get their

cameras and lenses serviced. I've had mine since 2003 and have yet to clean the

sensor or have it serviced. TIA.<div></div>

Better faster lenses will not make you a better photographer. However they will make it easier to get certain shots.

 

Looking at images on the net for a particular lens and/or body can often be misleading....most often the images are photo-shopped, and res'd down severely in order to "fit" on the web site....so what you see is often not a good representation of what the body/lens can accomplish. Go ahead and look, but take the images with a grain of salt.

 

As for skill vs equipment....one can be handed the $8,000 Canon 1DS Mark II and take horrible noisy ugly images....on the other hand a really talented person can make fine art with a box camera.

 

Equipment is not going to do much for you in regard to composition either.

 

In other words, a photog with great composition skills is hampered by a camera of low capabilities because maybe the great composition cannot be made because of noise, or the lens is too slow, or the flash is too weak, or other limitations of equipment.

 

On the other hand, another photog having bad composition skills will take his $8,000 camera and produce cr@p.

 

So what I'm trying to say is that you need both worlds....you need great composition skills AND decent equipment.

 

Those that say it's only the photographer and not the equipment are wrong. Those that say it's only the equipment are also wrong.

 

I think the answer is: Good composition skills, AND decent equipment.

 

Of the two worlds, composition skills are the more important.

 

Better to work on your composition and technical skills and worry about the better equipment later....but in the end you'll need both, no doubt about that.

I'm crossing this bridge too. I use a D60 (even older than you) and two cheap lenses - 50 1.8 and the 24-85. Two things I've learned over the past little while is to keep the lens at f5.6 - f8/11 if possible. This isn't possible in low light but otherwise fine.

The second thing is to use lens hoods.

The third is to ALWAYS shoot raw for shots you want to keep and learn how to use adobe's raw converter. When you shoot a picture in raw or Jpeg you really still have nothing but basic data. You need to fuss with curves, exposure, shadow, highlighting, etc, to get a real picture.

 

So, f5.6-f8, lens hoods, and practice with raw.

 

After a few months of ebay shopping I sat down and learned about the software behind it all and now my 'lens-lust' is gone.

like so:

I would add that you get a 50 1.8 lens. This is cheap (there are quite a few discussions on

1.4 vs 1.8) and the addition of a prime lens definitely will help in the skill area :-)

 

I have noticed, when using the 50 1.8 I have to move around to compose the picture

whereas with a zoom, I stand rooted like a tree and move the zoom forward/backward and

take the picture. Moving around not only changes the composition but some times you

end up "seeing" a new perspective (for lack of better wording - I hope you understand

what I am trying to say!) as well.

 

(My comment should fit in nicely with the "AND decent equipment" part of Dan's comment

;-))

Terry, it would be wrong to limit yourself to particular f-stops "F8/F11"....what about selective focus? What about getting in more light for light challanging shots? Perhaps if all one shoots are landscapes then sticking to those slow f-stops would be a great way to go.

Janis, you might find my gallery interesting. I live on Oahu and all the images were taken with

a 10D. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the gallery:

 

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_eos10d_05.htm

Hello Janis. As well as equipment and skill there is one extra thing, which so far nobody has mentioned, that makes a great photograph - LUCK!

 

I'll try to show an example but it may not work well at low resolution. Last December I was desperately looking for a suitable photo for my Christmas Cards, it has to be a seascape or similar. I was on the quay when the sky darkened so I jumped into my dinghy with the only available camera, an old Canon Powershot, got into a suitable position, then a rainbow appeared. I clicked using the Program setting. By the time I put on my glasses, looked at the histogram and thought about correct settings the rainbow had vanished. But I had the required image, technically speaking, far from perfect but good enough for Christmas Cards.

 

To get lucky you need to frequently be in the right place at the wrong time - then one day!

 

Geoff.<div></div>

Everyone--thanks for responding so quickly! I'm learning from each post. Will probably SPLURGE and get the 50 1.8 for <$80 at BH so I can move my feet, find new perspectives, and take no-flash pics of my daughter's first gymnastics meet this Saturday.

 

Puppy Face--I've been haunting these forums all weekend long, I've been enjoying your posts and I found your website but I didn't put 2&2 together and realize you were the same person. I enjoyed your photos. I like your Mokuleia series. I stayed overnight there a few weeks back, but only got a decent turtle and sand crab pic. I'll be returning to your site frequently. I work right across Ala Moana, so I might make the treacherous hike there to take a picture as well...

Of course, Puppy's images are incredible testament to the quality that is possible! I agree that it is skill plus decent equipment, as Dan and others suggested. Keep shooting and learning!

Luck always helps, good equipment usually helps, lots of reading helps a lot, and I what find really helps as much as all of the above is determination. You have no control over luck but you can get up at the crack of dawn to catch an unusual sunrise or bird or whatever. No lens ever got me out of bed to go take a picture....well maybe the 600mm f/4 IS.

 

10D is adequate, your lenses are adequate. Great equipment can be inspiring but not always so don't think if you get this or that you'll produce better pictures. Figure out what you really need (not want) in terms of equipment. Once you know that you'll feel satisfied. Plus, you can compensate with skill for whatever your lenses may be lacking (usually).

Janis --

 

Agreed w/all of the above, but I'd add that you should figure out exactly what it is about your photography that you think are shortcomings, and then determine if those issues can be remedied through gear or practice.

 

For instance, shooting moving race cars w/a 10D and slow glass is possible, but you'll probably miss a lot of good shots that you could capture with a 1D MkII and fast glass. In this case, better gear could make your photography better.

 

On the other hand, if your race car images are blurry because your shutter speed is too slow and you never capture your subjects in frame because you're bad at tracking, then it's all about skill.

 

I started w/a 10D and EF 28-135 USM lens. I learned for about a year and in that time got some good shots, but a ton of blurry, dark, useless images. After about a year I started to get into wildlife photography and, while I was applying the lessons I learned, couldn't get the great shots I wanted, simply because I had a lens that was too short and too slow.

 

So I bought a 300mm 4.0 L and WOW! My photos got better by an order of magnitude. But when I think back to that 1st year, if I had that 300mm lens when I first bought the 10D it'd have been useless since I wouldn't have known what to do with it.

 

So, short story long, do an objective evaluation of your current abilities and gear and how you'd like to enhance your photography, make sure you have adequate gear, and practice.

I also got a 10d and it is a quiete good camera. There are better ones but more more expensive.

I shoot a fair bit, and use a couple of zooms on the 10D, so I need to clean the sensor about every 2 months (roughly every 1 000 - 2 000 frames) - I do this myself with a blower, and then EPA on a swab for the settled dust. Many of my images (<u>except for Folder 1</u>) are taken with a 10D <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=376156&include=all">Link to PN portfolio</a><p>

Here's a link to some 10D shots I found on <a href="http://www.photopoints.com/main/sitesearch/default.aspx">Photopoints</a><p>

Definitely get yourself a prime lens like the 50/ 1.4, great in low light and no problem admitting dust like with the zooms.

Luck has been suggested as one of the key ingredients. I can't REALLY disagree with that idea, but I think a better way to put it is "time in the field". More time out there gets you more chances to be lucky. Plus it gets you the experience to know how to be in the right place at the right time--Which the ignorant will then call "lucky"!

 

I believe it was Lee Trevino who said "The harder I work, the luckier I get." To my knowledge Lee wasn't a photographer. But if he had tried it, I'm sure he'd have been a good one, at least if he lived by his quote.

Fortune favors the well prepared.

 

* * * * *

 

I prefer not to choose between (Poor and happy) and (rich and unhappy)

 

I rather choose between (poor and happy) and (rich and happy).

 

(All too often, people choose (poor and unhappy) over other choices)

Tons of pics with 28-105mm / 10D.

 

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=12842

 

75-300mm http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=13035

17-40mm http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=27226

 

Best of luck.<div></div>

Gil--Thanks for the links! It's exactly what I was looking for.

Terry--Thanks for the improved version of the much taken Diamond Head. (I just noticed your link.) Does everything have to be "photoshopped" or post processed? I just read a book by Bryan Peterson entitled "Understanding Digital Photography" where this author emphasizes getting it right in the camera. Does anyone get these gorgeous, colorful, powerful photos straight from the camera? Or am I waiting for Santa and the Tooth Fairy to come visit me?

Hi Janis,

 

I understand where you're coming from. All these sites tell you to get it all right 'in-camera' and then forget about it. I'm not sure if its just you and me, but I can't get a useable shot out of my camera. I ALWAYS need to adjust with photoshop and bridge. Alternatively, I've been using <a href="http://picasa.google.com/"> Picassa </a> for months and think its absolutely wonderful. I'd suggest to probably start there and in no time you'll be looking for the control that Photoshop or Photoshop elements will give you.

 

One more thing - get the 50mm 1.8. It costs you virtually nothing, and within days you'll be focused on taking pictures and not on buying lenses.

 

T

You probably have all the gear you need. If you want to improve your eye, spend money on a photography class, and it will result in better photos than any Expo disk or additional lens that you'd buy.

Terry, what steps did you use on the shot in Photoshop?

About getting it right in the camera....well, this is what we strive for, however I will on purpose over expose a tad to get the historgram to lean toward the right margin...just before highlights get blown, or just before the SUBJECT gets blown...no hard and fast rule, as I treat each composition uniquely. Shoot only in raw. More then half of the digital details live in the most right two stops on the histogram, so consequently my raws often look washed out, and often lacking contrast....are these good captures, you bet! Were then taking "just right" in camera? NO WAY! Do I want the image to be perfectly exposed at the time of capture? Mostly no!

 

Then during post processing, pull back the highlights a bit, set the black and white points, then fiddle with the mid-tones.

 

So IMHO we need to capture the light in such a way as to extract the most information from the light....then master the image in post processing.

 

Capturing in raw is about fitting in the dynamic range as best as one can to maximize image detail information, and to created the best starting point for post processing...so if you raws are exposed properly but look washed out, and/or lacking contrast, but the historgram is great, then you did your job just fine in most cases.

Most of us produce nice pretty pictures that will soon be forgotten. Better equipment may result in your pictures being remembered for 30 seconds instead of 20. Truly memorable work in any artform is the product of about 5 per cent inspiration and about 200 per cent perpsiration.

 

Why do I think this way? Every truly memorable work I have seen is the product of an artist who has practiced day in, day out, over years and years to hone their skills. After 20 years working 12 hours a day, they make producing incredible work look very easy.

 

Most of us being naive and wanting to believe that there is another way than years of blood, sweat and tears put their success down to 1) true artists must have much more expensive equipment than the rest of us or b) they were blessed with a rare gift that there rest of us missed out on.

 

Ken Rockwell's article on why your camera does not matter is a good read. See what Ansell Adams did with 100 year old camera technology. Ansell worked all day for about 80 years to produce maybe 100 great photos.

Thanks for the help and the inspiration all! As a wannabe, I've got a long road ahead and I'm looking forward to adventure. I will definitely be haunting this site...<div></div>