Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gatorbait" data-source="post: 96793" data-attributes="member: 11218">I think I have been trying to say the same thing you are saying - you still have to know what to do with the equipment you have, no matter what it is. Even if I spent $3000 on new golf equipment, it wouldn't improve my game unless I took lessons and practiced consistently. (Even then, I probably wouldn't see $3000 worth of improvement <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />). Why is it, then, that those that are so very accomplished in photography aren't satisfied with the equipment they started out with, but continue to upgrade? (Just a rhetorical question). Would you have reached your skill level faster if you had better equipment to start with? Sort of like playing guitar - my first guitar was a cheap little steel string with strings set so high I could hardly get strings down to the frets. It made playing miserable and the notes inconsistent. When I decided to go to a good quality guitar, the rewards in comfort and consistency in playing clear, precise notes made playing much more enjoyable and gave incentive to improve and expand my playing. So, what is the minimum amount of camera equipment I will need in order to learn how to produce the kind of photograph I see in my mind's eye? - that pretty much sums up my initial question, I just didn't word my question quite right. I know the experience and knowledge is available here on this forum, that's why I posted the question.</blockquote>

Verification