Have you ever bought a piece of kit that really changed the way you thought about your photography?

[photo_galleries]

<p>Since this is a Nikon forum... My first Nikon many, many moons ago... an FE2.<br>

Otherwise, my first SLR - a Pentax K1000.</p>

[rich_evans]

<p> After re-reading the OP, I guess I got distracted by everyone elses' answers and didn't really answer the question properly.</p>

<p>So - aside from the camera, I'd have to say the the equipment that has made the biggest impact on my shooting has been the combo of an SB800 and a Gary Fong Lightsphere. Totally improved the look of my event and wedding flash photography.</p>

<p>--Rich</p>

[nikbryant]

<p>My first set of studio lights. too long ago to remember ant spec or maker (that was around 1970)</p>

[alexander_ghaffari]

<p>A waist level finder (WLF) really opened up the world of street photography to me. You can really get those candids and other great shots.</p>

[ian_packman1]

<p>my bionic eye. yes it cost six million dollars but at least i'm never without a camera.</p>

[ian_packman1]

<p>also my nikkor 200-400 f/4 VR. i don't just love it, i take it to bed with me.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Easy. Like Shun, Conversion to digital- able to experiment extensively at no cost, immediate feed back, great post processing. Made my images light years (pun intended) better than if I had been shooting film.<br>

Second, like Kent who has been so helpful with all his lighting advice over the last couple of years, is off-camera lighting. Teaches to really "see" light, learn to make it yourself and maximize what you find if not altering it. </p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Oh, and should add this site and its members. You can learn which gear to select, how to use it, places to shoot from people that have a great deal of experience. The experienced posters on this site who take the time to pass on their knowledge know who you are. Thanks for all the help and inspiration. </p>

[red_buckner]

<p>A Speed Graphic allowed me to shoot 4x5 and appreaciate for the first time how extreme sharpness can be surreal. Before, I had thought large format's sharpness and detail would make things look more real, not less.</p>

[rgerraty]

<h2><br /></h2>

<p>Jacob Deschin's 1959 "35 mm Photography: approaches and techniques with the miniature camera". </p>

[joshua_croft]

<p>My nikon D70.....My nikon D200.....My nikon D300! Haha....but really the D70 revolutionized and substantially shorted my learning curve. Also....Sigma 300 2.8. Simply amazing. (Cost vs. Performance).</p>

[Mike_R1664876643]

<p>My very first SLR, a Practica LTL-3 I bought for like $199 out of a catalog, including three lenses and a flash unit. How times have changed. </p>

[doug grosjean]

<p>Old medium-format twin-lens reflex camera(s), with all manual controls.</p>

<p>It taught me to slow down, really compose, meter, think about what the light is doing, and the reflectance of the subjects, instead of just relying on modern automation.</p>

<p>Benefit: my percentage of photos (in tricky lighting) that were keepers improved - regardless of what camera I used.</p>

[martin_aspeli]

<p>The Nikon D40. It only lasted about 9 months before I upgraded to a D300, but it was affordable enough for me to take a chance on. Before I had a DSLR, I'd never much enjoyed taking pictures. I had a few compacts, but never bothered to take them anywhere. For all its flaws (the lack of an AF motor was the deciding factor for me to upgrade), the D40 was fun, easy to use, and let me learn a lot.<br>

After the D40, the game-changer was the D300. It's taken a few months to learn how to use it properly, but it's amazingly powerful and exudes engineering excellence.<br>

In terms of lenses, the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4 taught me a lot about low light and depth-of-field, and about composition, being a prime lens.<br>

Martin</p>

[joseph_grace1]

<p>OK, this is going to sound mooshy but here go's. I started taking pictures seriously in 1996 two years later my first daugter was born. I soon learned that photography was not just taking pictures but capturing a moment that would be gone otherwise. Now my daughter is nine and has her own p&s. I take her with me on shoots like recently at the lake to photograph birds. I watched her capture a shot that she thought was her best ever. The look on her face and how excited she was, was the most thrilling moment I've had in photography. This just proves to me that every time I pick up the camera and look through it I will see something whether big or small that is worth saving.<br>

Have fun & shoot often Joe </p>

[joseph_grace1]

<p>OK, this is going to sound mooshy but here go's. I started taking pictures seriously in 1996 two years later my first daugter was born. I soon learned that photography was not just taking pictures but capturing a moment that would be gone otherwise. Now my daughter is nine and has her own p&s. I take her with me on shoots like recently at the lake to photograph birds. I watched her capture a shot that she thought was her best ever. The look on her face and how excited she was, was the most thrilling moment I've had in photography. This just proves to me that every time I pick up the camera and look through it I will see something whether big or small that is worth saving.<br>

Have fun & shoot often Joe </p>

[msitaraman]

<p>1. A 28mm E lens. I had no experience of shooting anything wider than a 45mm, and I had decided I did not like the highly distorted (as they seemed to me then) wide angle shots common in US photojournalism in the late 1960s through the 1970s. Making my own wide angle pictures made me appreciate the possibilities (artistic and technical) of shooting wide.<br>

2. A little "sling" handstrap for my Leica M, made by Lutz Konermann. It made me appreciate how simple I could make the kit I carry around most of the time. 1 camera, 1 lens, two fingers...<br>

3. An SB600 flash. I'd studiously avoided using flash but learning to use sideways bounce flash for spontaneous indoor portraits was a revelation.</p>

 

[photo5]

When I began shooting black and white with a Rolleicord camera, having been shooting 35mm with my FE2. That really opened my eyes to the possibilities of medium format film and the way a scene could be rendered differently. It's didn't change the way I thought about my photography, but it allowed me to further explore my vision and I enjoyed the challenges of composing in a square.

 

More recently, my new D700 has given me new possibilities in shooting with natural light that I didn't have otherwise with my D300 and older digital cameras. ISO 6400 looks great to me and I have my Auto-ISO set up to max out at that setting.

[tri-x1]

<p>I guess I would have to agree with those who say the Internet is the biggest change. Before the Wide World Web about the only way anyone got any news on what other photographers outside their local communities were doing was through the photo magazines. Now photographers and collecters communicate daily, exchanging ideas and information.</p>

[bruce_hemingway]

<p>The D3, and some good glass. I moved up from a D70. The visual world shifted. Now it's up to me; I can't hide behind the limitations of the equipment.</p>

[Albins images]

<ul>

<li>TTL flash! ...Although I do fine now without it, using SB22 on D200/300..</li>

<li>F3. It cannot do a lot, feature-wise, but it does (did..) all I need. The TTL-adaptor completed it. The motordrive is a bonus.</li>

<li>24/2.8. My most used lens. Until DX came along..</li>

</ul>

[alvinyap]

<p>2 things.<br>

a) Prime lenses. It made me wake up in regards to what perspective really is vs "zooming".<br>

b) DSLRs. I can experiment like mad.<br>

OT:<br>

c) Pano software. My world. Is panoramic.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Earlier: "... <em>Prime lenses. It made me wake up in regards to what perspective really is vs "zooming".</em> ..."</p>

<p>I'm curious. All zoom lenses do, if we're standing in one place, is crop in-camera so we don't have to crop afterwards. Are you suggesting that prime, or single focal length, lenses reminded you to move around to change your perspective? Was your prior thinking that zooming from one position without moving around changed perspective (which it does not)?</p>

<p>So, if I get your appreciation of prime lenses, you see them as forcing you to move so you can change the size of the image of your subject, thereby changing perspective. Before, you only zoomed from one position, thereby not changing perspective as you changed the size of the image of your subject. Have I got it?</p>

<p>There's so much to learn in the science and art of photography. I find everyone's posts have been provocative to me in that they make me go back to my own experiences and force me to relearn what I thought I knew. Thanks everyone -- great thread!</p>

<p>.</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>The AI 24mm f2.8... the DP-20 finder in the F4.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I had already been taking pictures for many years mostly with Konica equipment when I started buying Minolta equipment in the late 1980s. The Minolta X-700 didn't seem very special when it came out in 1981. I didn't like the aperture priority automation and I thought the horizontally running cloth shutter was a step backward from the XD-11. What changed my mind was the very bright viewfinder combined with interchangeable focusing screens and TTL flash metering. These were especially good for macro work and I wound up getting the whole Auto Bellows III system. I only recently added a 360PX flash to the three 280PX units I already had. I now collect and use many systems but I still prefer the X-700 cameras for flash work. </p>