Photography is an art. It's also a science. Photography is a way of seeing the world, and a way of hiding from it. Photography is a way of recording life, though if you're not careful it will pass by as you watch in the viewfinder.
Lately I'm quite fond of Canon gear. I shoot exclusively digital anymore, and haven't touched film in probably eight years (this being 2007). Shown is my progression in digital cameras. I started with a Kodak DC120 in 1998. I paid a whopping $400 for this camera, and it was a refurb! 1.2 Megapixels, and it was the absolute coolest thing I ever owned. Then came the Olympus E10. I bought this in 1991, thus setting up my "Three-year digital camera lifespan" theory. 4.0 MP, a cool $2000. In September 2002 I the Fujifilm Finepix 2600 Zoom for my birthday as a camera to bring places the E10 just wouldn't go (like amusement parks). It was 2.0 MP. In 2004 I bought the excellent Canon s410 to replace the Fuji. 4.0 MP and substantially better picture quality and features. In August of 2004 I bought a Canon 10D (6MP, 1.6x crop) and then quickly upgraded to the Canon 1D Mark II. The Mark II weighs in at 8.2 MP (1.3x crop), has a 40 frame jpg buffer (20 RAW), and shoots an amazing 8+ frames per second. I have since upgraded to the Canon 1DsM2.
The lenses in my arsenal range greatly. I've owned almost every "L" lens including the coveted 200mm f/1.8L.
Ever notice this; If you take a great photo and show it to someone, they'll say "That's great! What kind of camera do you have?". If you show the same person a lousy photo they will invariably say "Who took that photo?". Nice huh? Cameras don't take great photos, people do. Or you can use the opposite (and oft-used) argument: When in doubt, blame the gear. :) Now that being said, when I upgraded from the E10 to the 10D, and then the 1D Mark II, I noticed an immediette improvement in my images. The conclusiion I came to was that over the years my skills and knowledge had expanded beyond the capabilities of the E10. The E10 was a fine camera, but limitations like 320 ISO, not being an SLR, extreme depth of field and poor focus had limited my creativity in ways that I had not realized. Suddenly I have a camera with a very useful ISO 1600, and zoom lenses with amazing glass and constant apertures of f2.8.
My advice? If you can afford good gear - buy it. If you're seriously into photography (or any hobby), buying better gear will not go wasted. My 1DsM2 cost a LOT of money, and the lenses weren't cheap either. How do I justify it? I took in excess of 20,000 images a year. Imagine what it would cost to develop all that film. It's a hobby I enjoy, and it makes me happy. In my case the high-end gear serves me well.
I don't have any articles on photography that I've written, because I don't consider myself good enough to write any. I also don't have any galleries up, because most of them are of my family, and, well - they're private.
So what do I take pictures of? Well... some people like landscapes. Some like portraits. I like it all. I seem to be drawn to certain things more than others though. For example a friend of mine whom I was traveling through Ireland with pointed out that I always seem to take pictures of doors. Any psychologists out there care to take a stab at that? Of course my kids are my number one subjects, and any old architecture - especially churces, is high on my list. As anyone who's been with me while I have a camera will tell you, I'll stop in the middle of a busy street if something catches my eye.
|Back to: GAD.net Newf.net||Email: firstname.lastname@example.org||Copyright ©1997-2010 Gary A. Donahue|