mikeonb4c wrote:bigdaddycain wrote:Great pics David... (i was gonna post some till i saw yours!)
In our defence BDC, it helps to have some good technology. One of the guys at the gliding club was showing me what you could get just by pointing and shooting a seriously capable modern SLR camera with big optical zoom and 'shake management technology'. It was awesome. He pointed it at a dot in the sky that we couldn't be sure was a buzzard or a red kite. The result, with no special work setting up, was a close up of such quality that it could have been used by David Attenborough. Oh, and the pic. told us it was a buzzard.

Yes, technology can help Mike but it never made a good pic on its own. Before technology you need an eye for subject, lighting, background, composition, depth of field,and so on - and, in the case of vintage aircraft, for example, some feel for the subject, and it's capability. Then there's follow movement and choose the moment. Some of the world's best photographs have been shot with
very simple kit, and some of the worst have been shot with heavily marketed, humungous pixel count (which mine isn't), vastly expensive kit, which mine also isn't. I saw any number of bods at Old Warden with lenses almost too big to carry, none of which would have given you much change out of two grand (just the lens that is) - some of them even more. In fact, you could buy a good Bongo for the price of some of the outfits being toted

Focal lengths would have been up to 1000 mm, yet with a relatively cheap and cheerful 20-200 mm zoom, I frequently had to zoom out to get the subject in shot, the display line is so close - so just what were they doing? Checking the colour of the pilots' eyes? No, give me a photographer with a Box Brownie, over a chav with a Nikon, any day
