So I got into photography earlier this year, and purchased a

File: 1387547774572.png (55KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 625x626px

>>2930551

File: 1395605627009.gif (134KB, 340x340px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 340x340px

lol

This is 99% rotten ol' bait, but on the off chance that OP is being serious, close that order page and don't even fucking think about buying a new body, lens and flash.

Post the picture you are most proud of. Also, post the things you hope to do with the new camera that you can't do with the current.

There are endless rants on the internet already about gear being blamed on poor shooting when it's the person behind it that's to blame. You need to take a fuckton of shots with the rebel, run it into the ground and make your shutter explode, so that you get the practice you need. You should switch out of P mode, shooting Av and Tv, paying close attention to iso, shutter speed and aperture, before switching to M and setting them all yourself. Learn about exposure until you can see any scene and know what settings it demands. Whenever you catch yourself masturbating to test charts and YouTube reviews by snarky Asians, take your camera and go outside to shoot instead.

Fuck dude, you are not limited by your gear, its your mind rationalizing its own ineptitude so you don't have to face the truth - the solution is not a shiny new toy but countless hours of shooting. There is no magic pill for practice, and if you do click purchase, I hope you accidentally drop the bag of gear under a moving bus and the only thing that survives is the SD card to put into your rebel and shoot some more.

>buying canon
>buying new

>>2930574
This isn't a troll, I'm serious.

Why wouldn't it be better to have a much better camera to practice with? Don't have any of my photos, as I am posting on my phone, but I just want to become a professional photographer so I can make some money taking pictures of people's weddings. And I don't always shoot in P mode, I've expirmented with M.

>>2930604
are you really serious? bc youre post has all the hallmarks of bait on here:
- conflates price of gear with quality of photo
- blaming the camera rather than the photographer for taking bad pictures, especially when you just started doing photography and undoubtedly still have work to do on fundamentals
- believes that wedding photography is a fun & easy way to make money as a beginner photographer

the only reason i am giving you a little benefit of the doubt is bc i work at my university darkroom & i met a guy last week who bought an M7 for a Photo I class. so this sort of thing is certainly *possible.*

>>2930619
I don't see why anything in my post is being confused with trolling. Obviously a better more expensive camera will allow you to take better photos, otherwise, what's the point?

And while I don't think I'm good enough for wedding photography right now, I can practice and work on portraits and senior photos over the next 6 months, and be ready with practice on new camera and flashes for the summer wedding season of next year. It's crazy how much money there is in it!

>>2930624
Sorry but better cameras don't take better photos. That's just Canon marketing. Feel free to buy it and see for yourself, I don't give a fuck what you do.

>>2930624
>I don't see why anything in my post is being confused with trolling. Obviously a better more expensive camera will allow you to take better photos, otherwise, what's the point?

b8 everybody, move on

sage

>>2930653
So a $3500 camera with a better sensor and better processing ability won't take a better photo than a $500 camera?

Is this bait?

>>2930665
lol, no

>>2930677
Please explain to me how a better imaging sensor will not correlate to a better image?

>>2930678
it's you who takes the photo :^)

>>2930665
>>2930624
>>2930604

Its objectively correct to say that a more expensive camera will take better pictures. However in reality, the limiting factor is almost always the photographer. There's no end of proof that even dismal equipment will suffice given a good grasp of the actual art of photography - there are multitudes of people today, not to mention master photographers of the past, that use cameras shittier than rabals with kits. And yet, their work eclipses OP's (lack thereof).

Again, equipment is no magic bullet. OP, you don't have an understanding of why your photos are lackluster, and a new body won't answer that. Sure, you will chimp your way to some passable snapshits with the new one, but you'll never engage in the process of learning what makes a photo good (hint - its not the equipment). Be honest with yourself and say that you want something new to show off, and are not actually interested in putting in the hours.

A new camera is not just unnecessary - it will actively cripple you, because you'll drown even more in settings you don't understand, expectations from others will be higher because you have pro level gear, and you won't even want to take the thing outside because it cost so much. Keep shooting with your current setup - take it from someone who isn't trying to cloud your judgement and sell you something.

Im no pro but I'd say buy a photography book about composition and the like and practice. Watch yourself improve over time and maybe in a couple of years buy a new system.

>>2930679
Give two people who are shite at photography a Canon 10D and a Canon 1DX MKII. Which will have better photos?

>>2930753
taking the bait.

What do you consider to be a better photo?

>>2930768
>hurt abstract photography subjective reflection.

Two people who are equally shit. IE: same skill level.

>>2930753
Neither. You may get a higher res pic in one over the other but that doesn't mean it's better.

>>2930551
How are you going to set up these 3 flashes? Besides, buy Yongnuo or Godox to save a good bunch of money - Canon's speedlights and transmitters are overpriced even if you want TTL.

Love the 100mm f/2.8, good choice. (I've got the even better Sony 90mm FE now, but that'd only be an option if you considered an A7 II or A7S II or even A7R II).

The 5D IV is also too expensive for how it performs, if you ask me.

>>2930788
So higher quality gear does not offer the user more opportunity or a larger possibility to take a better photo?

Sure, your logic is sound to a degree, but is not all encompassing. Let's draw a comparison to racing; Yes, the driver is going to be much more important in many cases than the car, and no, you cannot buy skill. At the same time, a better car with a good driver is going to give a higher likelihood of success. Same as if you put a shitty driver in a GTR as opposed to a Carrera GT5.

No, you don't need an expensive camera to take a good photo, but at the same time a skilled person with a better camera will tend to have better results with their photography endeavor. The real question is whether or not you are reaching the upper limits of your current camera for your intended purpose.

>>2930804
I dunno m8.

Honestly. You can own a 5D Mark IV but you're never going to outshoot Robert Capa. You can try, but good luck.

>>2930808
But imagine if he had access to all the modern photography equipment there is now.

You might not unseat Elvis as the king of rock and roll, but going from recording music on your iPhone to a proper studio sure isn't going to hurt.

Whether or not OP is throwing bait into the water, don't forget that other people are swimming in it, including amateurs and interested noobs. For their sake, let's be rational and try to prevent G.A.S.

All these arguments about having better equipment to learn on are silly. If you've never swam before, it would be ridiculous to drive to the nearest olympic diving pool, because "that's what the pros use".
Same for the argument that "I'll grow into it", because there's many options for equipment combinations (high-end FF and lens, m4/3 with primes, mirrorless with vintage glass, etc.) and you won't know what you will thrive on until you spend a lot of time with your beginner platform.

As to giving 2 photogs shitty/good cameras, we will see a difference because they know how to use both to their limit; beginners will just produce crap in higher definition. Whether or not you start with the best gear, you'll still have months and years of painful learning with subpar results - the only difference is that you''ll spend a lot more money, get salty about your nice camera "not working" and it will end up collecting dust on that 50 mp sensor.

Fuck it, go buy whatever you want, it helps support a dying industry. Just be conscious of the difference between obsessing over gear and using it.

>>2930821
The pool comparison isn't quite fair, a better one would be an artist and his paints/brushes/canvas.

>>2930836
Exactly.

Like, a good artist can make amazing art with a stick of charcoal and a sheet of paper, but OP feels the need to get the brand-name mahogany easel holder with rosewood brush and hedgehog-hair tip.

OP, stick with the shit camera and see if you really enjoy the ACT of photography or not. If you find yourself not enjoying it, the new camera will just be a distraction for a few days before you get bored of it too.

>>2930753
Use whatever camera you currently own and ill go out and buy a disposable kodak camera for 5 dollars. Lets put the theory to the test.

>>2930753
The 10D because the 1DX doesn't have a green box mode

>>2930665
That's exactly what I'm saying. Not only will your pictures be about the same (even in resolution, most rabal owners don't into technique), but there's a not very well documented anomaly where your pictures will get much worse temporarily each time you change gear. You miss shots and generally fuck things up until you know every single function by heart.

So your resolution probably won't increase significantly at first, and your pictures themselves will get worse, temporarily.

Enjoy your 5D.

>>2930551
Get a used 5dmkiii instead of the new mk4. I hear wedding fucks like their 70-200s. Buy your lenses used and assuming you don't drop them you'll be able to sell them for roughly the same price down the line.

The reason people think your post is bait is because of your boneheaded second to last sentence. The mk4 is a relatively small incremental upgrade over the mk3. You won't take better photos then him.

>>2930896
you're a fucking tard
not for suggesting a canon but for replying
get the fuck off 4chan and let me enjoy my safespace without ledditors or 9fags

>>2930604
Sell me your camera

>>2930551
Fag

>>2930813
>recording music on your iPhone to a proper studio sure isn't going to hurt.

Using your own analogy, in this instance you have just picked up a guitar earlier this year and you are not good at it. You do not posses the skill that requires a proper studio to record. So you should use your iPhone to record, build your skills, then you can spend the big bucks to go to a studio to record, once you have gotten better.

You do not need an expensive camera, because you do not have the skills to utilize it. Once you think you do, by all means spend 10k on equipment.

>>2931489
Your analogy is using a false pretense.

That would be like saying OP is renting a art gallery do display their works...

Buying a new camera is like buying new musical equipment; a new guitar or a new amp might produce better sound, or rather, a better potential for sound for the sake of argument, but if you don't know what you're doing you will not be able to make music, just as if you don't know anything about photography, whether it how to use a camera, composition, color, editing, lighting, etc your photos will be shit.

>>2931516
The thing is that Canon and Nikon especially gimp their entry level bodies in a way that can necessitate an eventual upgrade to a more expensive body. The viewfinders are tiny and dim, there's not enough buttons to immediately access things you may need to change on the fly, they lack weather or dust sealing, they don't auto focus as quickly. They can absolutely take great pictures but you're probably going to have a better time with a larger camera that's comfier to use and will last longer.

When people buy upper end bodies they are not just doing it for the IQ. And while a more experienced photographer will appreciate the kinds of things I got up more as he or she has had to deal with them, it would be nice not to have to deal with in the first place. That's why I don't normally recommend anything less than say, a used D7000/60D, or a Pentax K5 etc. for people who think they are going to be serious about photography for years to come.

>>2930551
> insanely good professional wedding photographer skills
> Begin Checkout

I've successfully shot with a used Canon D60 (not 60D) for about 8 years and the camera challenged me where others with newer cameras had no problems. In regards of my technical skills, also great workaround experience, that thing was a blessing!

What do you do when your convenient camera is not convenient enough? Take money for looking stupid? Great wedding deal!

Shoot, shoot and pay attention to work of other photographers, but never think of gear as an experience replacement.

>>2931579
post work faggot

>>2931583
I did and became tired when criticism just aimed for details, but failed to notice the overall subject. Futile effort in recurring discussions did the rest.
With the etiquette of b, this community loses more from day to day.

>>2931628
>hurr they just don't understand muh art

Unfortunately, you're right, /p/ tends to suck now. Four or Five years ago you could get actual solid critiques, and people would destroy your photo to such a degree you could learn all the mistakes you made, and how you could take a better photo. A bunch of prima-donnas drove most of the good people from here, and now the place is barren.

The "etiquette of b" is what made it great. There are tons of photo websites you can go onto to get positive comments and upboats on all of your photos, what was unique about this place is you could get actual criticism, as there is no ego tied to an account. Now it's just a bunch of pseudo intellectuals who talk about high art and other nonsense.

Fuck this place. And fuck you.

>>2931671
>talk about high art and other nonsense
You mean they quote twaddle from art catalogues and are obsessed with the minutiae of DXO numbers and other lab scores.

OP, buy a good, but cheap 35mm or 50mm prime lens. Get an f1.8.

Use only that lens for a while on your current body. Develop your composition and exposure skills. Fuck around with depth of field.

Then you will be ready for the gear in your pic.

It always amuses me how the majority of /p/ would rather hate on gear fagging/it's the photographer and not the camera rather than discussing the nitty gritty of what's actually improves photography

saged

As a newbie, if you want good gear, go sony, the evf is wysiwyg, taking all the guesswork over exposure out and it makes framing much easier in low light.

Also sonys lenses far outperform those from canon and nikon. The 24-70 2.8, 70-200 f4, 55mm f1. 8 and batis 18mm would make for a great kit bag with an a7ii or a7rii.

>>2931761
if we're talking about photography as an artistic pursuit: good subjects and good composition. almost always beginners are taking pictures of fucking nothing. learning this doesn't require a 5D mkIV.

having said that, I would be totally okay if he bought a 5D mkIV. I'm not gonna sit here and complain about people with cameras they don't "deserve" to own (yet or ever).

It's just that if I was dropping 8k USD I would definitely want to minimize the risk of regret by making sure this is a long term hobby and not just a phase and that I have the potential to grow into that kind of camera so as to not be wasteful. But if you're rich, then who gives a shit. You could be spending money on worse shit, like gaudy gold plated garbage.

If your aim is to be a professional, then all it takes is getting paid to do it. There is no ``art'' requirement to joining the club of professional photography, though it certainly helps.

>>2931671
Your second paragraph can be reduced to this:
>There are tons of photo websites you can go onto to get positive comments and upboats on all of your photos, what was unique about this place is you could get actual criticism

In a sense it is the ego that destroys this place.
Since laymen are capable of breaking anything with their comments, and family and friends love the smashed down photos, negative feedback turns into damage based on conclusively justified motivation!

The concept has worked in past with fewer laymen. Today, everyone is a photographer starting with 30 bucks. Any effort is to be replaced by little money.

Imagine the board would still be anonymous but would offer the possibility to still unrecognizable mark people based on their posts.
First it would be difficult to dismiss replies as idiocy if one personally marked the people positive before, second it would be easy to not fall for trolls.

File: IMG_1078.jpg (61KB, 600x773px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x773px

>>2930551

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	600
Image Height	773
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2931794
Forced tripfagging.

>>2931794

Or you could just not be an idiot and reply to obvious bait or low quality posts.

>>2930604
>I know this is bait bit still.
I started out taking pictures of birthdays and weddings of family with a rabel t3i. Friends of family members saw my work and started asking me to do there's. I shot with it for about two years before I upgraded. The only difference between me and you is I actually went out and practiced. Just about everyday I'd go around just taking pics of whatever, experimenting with shutter speed, apertures, I read books, looked at examples, and even took a photography class at my uni as an elective.

If you want to get good at photography spend that money on educating yourself, and you'll be taking better pics with that rebal than you would with that than 5d mark iv.

File: 1469834812596.png (137KB, 526x436px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 526x436px

>when the obvious bait turns out to be real >>2932251

>he actually goes and does it
>no, john. you are the bait.

Wedding photography is cancer

i would ditch the kit zoom and get a few cheap primes to learn with. maybe learn with just a wide angle.

>>2932376
I bought my first camera, a Canon 40d and used it when photography was just an hobby. I gradually got into shooting for money, and upgraded to an 50d, as that is the only camera that fits my housing. Yes, I work as a diver in the summers and during the winters I shoot baby swimmers, approximately 500-600 this year. With my 50d,in the Chelsea housing, ikelite, available. The lens is a tokina 11-16mm crappie. Around 2-5% of my photos gets returned so I'd say one can run a business with crappy gear...

>>2933491
Not Chelsea, but cheapest...

>>2930551
shoot more. shoot a hundred photos a week minimum. wait a week and review them.

see if there's a critique group in your area.

>>2933494
refer to

>>2932251