DominikDUK
Well-known
First thanks for the link.
Second he is mostly right but there is also the equipment junkie costumer who looks down at the photographer if said photographer does not use the best and newest toys. And in this case not using the best etc.. will result in either loosing the Job or not getting a job from the costumer in the future. This is one of the reason pro celeb photographers have a large entourage of assistants etc... perception is everything at least in some parts of the photographic world.
Third in the news the image counts the camera counts less but the Image should still hold up to a single of better double page.
I believe the biggest fallancy of most photo Blogs is that they see the pro world as uniform and not the way it really is, very diverse. What is good enough for one part of the photographic world is not halfway good enough for others parts.
Second he is mostly right but there is also the equipment junkie costumer who looks down at the photographer if said photographer does not use the best and newest toys. And in this case not using the best etc.. will result in either loosing the Job or not getting a job from the costumer in the future. This is one of the reason pro celeb photographers have a large entourage of assistants etc... perception is everything at least in some parts of the photographic world.
Third in the news the image counts the camera counts less but the Image should still hold up to a single of better double page.
I believe the biggest fallancy of most photo Blogs is that they see the pro world as uniform and not the way it really is, very diverse. What is good enough for one part of the photographic world is not halfway good enough for others parts.
YYV_146
Well-known
Exactly. Mr. Arias can claim that he can produce similar results as a Phase One from an X100 - and I don't doubt that, given the ungodly expensive light setups he must be using. The X100 can even sync as fast as the best Phase has to offer, which is just icing on the cake given the nature of his work.
On the other hand, some of us have to shoot moving objects illuminated by candlelight, and actually get images that can still be processed and printed to somewhat respectable sizes...
pgk
Well-known
Absolutely! And given that an awful lot of digital cameras are now extremely capable, its more a matter of using gear that you actually enjoy using.
For me this means working with lighter, simpler cameras and fixed focal length lenses. I work better, and I think that I get better images as a result, with equipment which suits me - and its good, but not state-of-the-art. If someone won't use me because of the gear I use then so be it, but this is pretty much a none-issue in all honesty and my gear has only ever been commented on once (I was using a Leica - and the client was thoroughly reassured when I explained the cost of one lens, so the problem was solved).
uhoh7
Veteran
Frankly, the blog does little for me either, beyond stating what is obvious to shooters who try to keep up online.
M43 like the old 35mm?
Perhaps that's true in terms of users--even that is a stretch, since m43 is a niche shared with Sony APS-C, and others.
Closest thing to the old 35 in actual use, digital, obviously it would be an M9, MM or M.
It's a big confusing world out there. The blogger is trying to make sense of it, I guess. Good luck
M43 like the old 35mm?
Perhaps that's true in terms of users--even that is a stretch, since m43 is a niche shared with Sony APS-C, and others.
Closest thing to the old 35 in actual use, digital, obviously it would be an M9, MM or M.
It's a big confusing world out there. The blogger is trying to make sense of it, I guess. Good luck
Pioneer
Veteran
In terms of users I think the phone camera is the new 35mm.
pgk
Well-known
Or perhaps the new Box Brownie - is format really that relevant in such terms?
RichC
Well-known
Gearheads...! <shakes head sadly>
These kinds of threads - nitpicking about gear - annoy me. Thankfully, RFF is a peaceful haven compared with sites like DPReview, where "fanboys" (very few "fangirls", I suspect!) of camera marques and form factors attack each other with religious fervour.
Full frame, crop factor, mirrorless: who cares, providing the photograph obtained meets your or your client's requirements? Unless you've got special needs that have yet to be met - such as having to shoot at f/0.00001 or making 30-foot prints to be viewed from 6 inches - get off the technological treadmill of buying the latest camera, whether it's megapixels or form factor being pushed!
Today's technological turnover of models with lifespans of a mere 12-18 months is bad in all kinds of ways. Bad for photography (encouraging the myth that better equipment = better photographs = a better photographer), bad for the planet (piling up electronic waste and reducing our dwindling mineral resources), bad for society (widening the "digital divide": my elderly parents no longer take photographs - they can't buy or develop film easily, don't own a computer, and are now completely bewildered by technology such as touch screens).
Take Canon's G series cameras: there have been 14 models in 14 years - that's a model life-span of only a year! The 12 MP Canon G16 (which came out in 2013) is undeniably a more versatile camera than the 3 MP Canon G1 (2000), but what about compared with 2009's 12 MP Canon G9? Would the G9 or even the G5 be sufficient for most people? Of course it would!
And that's the point: how many people who upgrade their cameras absolutely require the new features? How many owners of a Nikon D800 or Sony A7r need 36 MP because they must make huge prints? How many who bought the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art always shoot at f/1.4? Was what they had before simply not up to the job? Were large prints from, say, their "obsolete" Canon 5D utter crap, were photos taken with a Canon 35mm f/1.4 (or the f/1.8) blurred messes? Do prints from their new mirrorless Sony a7s blow away those from their Nikon D700? I don't think so...
Obviously, camera equipment must meet certain requirements for a photographer: a mirrorless camera may suit them better than an SLR because they photograph in way that requires small, lightweight gear. But most photographers I know use kit that goes far beyond their needs.
Buying new gear because it will give better image quality (assuming your previous camera had sufficient megapixels for the size you printed) is often just an excuse for wanting more electronic heroin...
Take SLR lenses. Excepting the very cheapest, the sharpness of lenses made in the last 3-4 decades is good enough for anyone. Make that 20 years if you want autofocus. Yes, there are minor differences - but the acid test is: will these be noticeable in the final image (whether on a website or as a print)? If not, then having bought the newer, "better" camera or lens or whatever hasn't improved your photographs, only your bragging rights. No one needs a £3000 Zeiss Otus because of image quality - if I showed large prints taken with that and my 30-year-old, £50 second-hand Nikon lens, I doubt few could tell them apart, and if they did, it would be because of inconsequential differences in appearance not variation in quality.
I take my photography seriously. But I just don't get this obsession with gear (except to ensure it'll do what I need it to). When shooting digitally, I use a Nikon D800E because I print large - but I couldn't care less about lenses (excepting the lowest quality "consumer-grade" ones, which I do avoid; but even those, I suspect, would be good enough for most of my work - even for my large gallery prints costing £1000). My lenses are cheap and cheerful, from the 1970s to 1990s. Would new lenses be sharper with less distortion? Without doubt. Would using them improve my photographs? Only in a sense akin to considering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: my images using "obsolete" lenses are already sharp and distortion free, so additional image quality is pointless - but I would of course gain bragging rights.
I despair of people who must have the latest tech or jump on the current gadget bandwagon (aka mirrorless cameras) without needing it - especially if it's clear they couldn't use what they had before properly. Those who must have the latest phone, console or other gadget, camping outside Apple shops to be the first to buy one ... they're gullible fools sucking up the spew of rampant consumerism! The camera industry epitomises this malaise in Western capitalism.
Do you really need "better" images? If you're a pro, would your clients notice the difference?
Get off the technological treadmill!
These kinds of threads - nitpicking about gear - annoy me. Thankfully, RFF is a peaceful haven compared with sites like DPReview, where "fanboys" (very few "fangirls", I suspect!) of camera marques and form factors attack each other with religious fervour.
Full frame, crop factor, mirrorless: who cares, providing the photograph obtained meets your or your client's requirements? Unless you've got special needs that have yet to be met - such as having to shoot at f/0.00001 or making 30-foot prints to be viewed from 6 inches - get off the technological treadmill of buying the latest camera, whether it's megapixels or form factor being pushed!
Today's technological turnover of models with lifespans of a mere 12-18 months is bad in all kinds of ways. Bad for photography (encouraging the myth that better equipment = better photographs = a better photographer), bad for the planet (piling up electronic waste and reducing our dwindling mineral resources), bad for society (widening the "digital divide": my elderly parents no longer take photographs - they can't buy or develop film easily, don't own a computer, and are now completely bewildered by technology such as touch screens).
Take Canon's G series cameras: there have been 14 models in 14 years - that's a model life-span of only a year! The 12 MP Canon G16 (which came out in 2013) is undeniably a more versatile camera than the 3 MP Canon G1 (2000), but what about compared with 2009's 12 MP Canon G9? Would the G9 or even the G5 be sufficient for most people? Of course it would!
And that's the point: how many people who upgrade their cameras absolutely require the new features? How many owners of a Nikon D800 or Sony A7r need 36 MP because they must make huge prints? How many who bought the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art always shoot at f/1.4? Was what they had before simply not up to the job? Were large prints from, say, their "obsolete" Canon 5D utter crap, were photos taken with a Canon 35mm f/1.4 (or the f/1.8) blurred messes? Do prints from their new mirrorless Sony a7s blow away those from their Nikon D700? I don't think so...
Obviously, camera equipment must meet certain requirements for a photographer: a mirrorless camera may suit them better than an SLR because they photograph in way that requires small, lightweight gear. But most photographers I know use kit that goes far beyond their needs.
Buying new gear because it will give better image quality (assuming your previous camera had sufficient megapixels for the size you printed) is often just an excuse for wanting more electronic heroin...
Take SLR lenses. Excepting the very cheapest, the sharpness of lenses made in the last 3-4 decades is good enough for anyone. Make that 20 years if you want autofocus. Yes, there are minor differences - but the acid test is: will these be noticeable in the final image (whether on a website or as a print)? If not, then having bought the newer, "better" camera or lens or whatever hasn't improved your photographs, only your bragging rights. No one needs a £3000 Zeiss Otus because of image quality - if I showed large prints taken with that and my 30-year-old, £50 second-hand Nikon lens, I doubt few could tell them apart, and if they did, it would be because of inconsequential differences in appearance not variation in quality.
I take my photography seriously. But I just don't get this obsession with gear (except to ensure it'll do what I need it to). When shooting digitally, I use a Nikon D800E because I print large - but I couldn't care less about lenses (excepting the lowest quality "consumer-grade" ones, which I do avoid; but even those, I suspect, would be good enough for most of my work - even for my large gallery prints costing £1000). My lenses are cheap and cheerful, from the 1970s to 1990s. Would new lenses be sharper with less distortion? Without doubt. Would using them improve my photographs? Only in a sense akin to considering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin: my images using "obsolete" lenses are already sharp and distortion free, so additional image quality is pointless - but I would of course gain bragging rights.
I despair of people who must have the latest tech or jump on the current gadget bandwagon (aka mirrorless cameras) without needing it - especially if it's clear they couldn't use what they had before properly. Those who must have the latest phone, console or other gadget, camping outside Apple shops to be the first to buy one ... they're gullible fools sucking up the spew of rampant consumerism! The camera industry epitomises this malaise in Western capitalism.
Do you really need "better" images? If you're a pro, would your clients notice the difference?
Get off the technological treadmill!
goamules
Well-known
I believe that was the point of the author in the article. So I guess you agree with him.
Kwesi
Well-known
The phone camera really is a new beast.
Perhaps the 110/126/Disk Camera user of yore would best fit the current user profile.
emraphoto
Veteran
having seen nord and sud kivu with my own eyes, i have the same mindset as RichardC however i usually keep it to myself as my ability to be polite left a few years back
Pioneer
Veteran
Experiences like that do tend to mold your perspective on what is really important. Were you able to get pictures?
Sparrow
Veteran
Bill Pierce
Well-known
John E Earley
Tuol Sleng S21-0174
Excellent article and, despite some snark, some excellent replies.
In my photographic lifetime spanning nearly 50 years, most of the times I went off the rails were those occasions when I put the gear before the vision, the cameras before the art, the material before the ephemeral.
In my photographic lifetime spanning nearly 50 years, most of the times I went off the rails were those occasions when I put the gear before the vision, the cameras before the art, the material before the ephemeral.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
My 2 Cents
My 2 Cents
2 Cents. Did you know the phrase actually referred to a two cent piece?
Same with pixel count.
I agree completely with the article. I own full frame digitals. I own old timey 6 meg/pixel cameras with the better bigger individual pixel sensors too. I would NEVER sell the older cameras off because of pixel count. What sells newer cameras are features.
Hey, I'm and old guy who still shoots a IIIf and uses a hand held light meter too. I don't need the 'features'.
The only things that I would add to the article is that SLR cameras, because of the added distance from sensor to lens for the sake of flipping mirror, ALWAYS have more compromised vignetting and distortion in wider angle lenses than a range finder, or some of the mirror-less (I said some).
Therefore, the 4/3 cameras have a better go of it. Corners a problem? Well, chop 'em off.
And, in my experience, and to my mind, and for the best return on digital images, my choice is the Leica Monochrome. Black and white (not mentioned) is no compromise to me.
I hope my Canon 5D isn't listening, but if getting to the shot counts more than carrying an artillery piece to the shoot, stick with a 4/3 camera!
ANY camera is a professional camera. Being at the right time and place WITH A CAMERA, ANY CAMERA is everything to a photographer with skill.
My 2 Cents
2 Cents. Did you know the phrase actually referred to a two cent piece?
Same with pixel count.
I agree completely with the article. I own full frame digitals. I own old timey 6 meg/pixel cameras with the better bigger individual pixel sensors too. I would NEVER sell the older cameras off because of pixel count. What sells newer cameras are features.
Hey, I'm and old guy who still shoots a IIIf and uses a hand held light meter too. I don't need the 'features'.
The only things that I would add to the article is that SLR cameras, because of the added distance from sensor to lens for the sake of flipping mirror, ALWAYS have more compromised vignetting and distortion in wider angle lenses than a range finder, or some of the mirror-less (I said some).
Therefore, the 4/3 cameras have a better go of it. Corners a problem? Well, chop 'em off.
And, in my experience, and to my mind, and for the best return on digital images, my choice is the Leica Monochrome. Black and white (not mentioned) is no compromise to me.
I hope my Canon 5D isn't listening, but if getting to the shot counts more than carrying an artillery piece to the shoot, stick with a 4/3 camera!
ANY camera is a professional camera. Being at the right time and place WITH A CAMERA, ANY CAMERA is everything to a photographer with skill.
emraphoto
Veteran
indeed. reason for the visit
uhoh7
Veteran
"With the ever declining budgets and the ever diminishing use in print media you really have to ask yourself, as a business person, "do my clients really deserve THE BEST of all camera gear?" If we were in the pizza delivery business I think the analogy would be: Do my drivers need to be driving late model Porsches? The pizza could get there quicker and the customers would be most impressed....."
The pizza analogy sinks the argument in my mind. The car has nothing to do with it. It's the quality of the pizza that's gona make the business rep. Delivery method is down the list from that.
The "camera" in the pizza business is the ingredients and the kitchen.
I don't see great evolution in mozzarella, so the whole analogy is silly.
The D3s or Mk3s are not "Porsches", and anyone who has shot a wedding knows why people who shoot a ton of events often use those rigs.
The blogger does have a point about "the business" and how it's getting crazy tough, but ask actors, ski instructors, lawyers or any number of workers in what used to be decent paying jobs, ask them how their pay, corrected for inflation, compares to that work 20 years ago, you will get a similar story.
The gear arguments are there for those who are interested--many of whom don't end up buying "the latest".
But old hands often don't like new games, which means they have to study to know what they are talking about, again.
For those not interested in upgrades, or the new gear, easy enough to ignore the hoopla.
But I've got little empathy for the "uninterested" who drive by the threads and tell everyone to forget the gear and use whatever they have. Maybe they should be able to forget the gear threads and be happy, no?
The pizza analogy sinks the argument in my mind. The car has nothing to do with it. It's the quality of the pizza that's gona make the business rep. Delivery method is down the list from that.
The "camera" in the pizza business is the ingredients and the kitchen.
I don't see great evolution in mozzarella, so the whole analogy is silly.
The D3s or Mk3s are not "Porsches", and anyone who has shot a wedding knows why people who shoot a ton of events often use those rigs.
The blogger does have a point about "the business" and how it's getting crazy tough, but ask actors, ski instructors, lawyers or any number of workers in what used to be decent paying jobs, ask them how their pay, corrected for inflation, compares to that work 20 years ago, you will get a similar story.
The gear arguments are there for those who are interested--many of whom don't end up buying "the latest".
But old hands often don't like new games, which means they have to study to know what they are talking about, again.
For those not interested in upgrades, or the new gear, easy enough to ignore the hoopla.
But I've got little empathy for the "uninterested" who drive by the threads and tell everyone to forget the gear and use whatever they have. Maybe they should be able to forget the gear threads and be happy, no?
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
I don't think so. The ingredients and the kitchen are the subject and the lighting.
The camera might be the chef's knife: a good one can make the job go a bit faster, or make the presentation just a tiny bit prettier, and knife (or camera) skills are unquestionably a mark of professional aptitude.
But pretty though a top-quality knife may be, it almost never makes the food taste better.
So it is with cameras.
pgk
Well-known
Which in turn dictates far more than one might at first imagine. If you have no specialist needs then the choice is wide and numerous 'systems' might be suitable. But as soon as there is any specialist requirement (shift lens, macro lens, fast lens, whatever), the gear choice rapidly reduces. Gear is an essential component of photography and its choice can still be critical.
My own choices are based on a number of requirements, some obvious, some not, and I run two systems, for very specific reasons and requirements. FWIW neither fits my absolute requirements perfectly either, nor does any other 'choice' I might have made. Equipment is a compromise but I have to say that we have never had it so good in terms of the ability of modern equipment to deliver outstandingly good results.
And also FWIW how does one now define 'professional' in terms of photography now - I've made my living from 'photography' for the last 25 years, but its taken me down some unexpected paths such as publishing books, writing and others. I suspect that those who make their living from solely taking images are fewer than they were when we all shot on film despite the advances in image taking technology.
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Thoughtful comments from pgk.
I shot this a couple of days ago. Anyone want to guess the camera and lens?
I shot this a couple of days ago. Anyone want to guess the camera and lens?