go go dslr!

It hasn't made anyone a better photographer though, it has helped them get better results in those use cases; but it hasn't made them 'better' at photography (there is a subtle distinction)

I don't believe that there is any distinction at all. So far as I'm concerned, one man's wonderful photographer is another man's worthless dabbler and, of course, vice versa.
 
Important difference to be made here.

For art, spray and pray is crude. Like throwing paint at 100 canvases and choosing the best.

For a newspaper, the job is to get a good shot, spray and pray is incredibly helpful.
 
I don't understand why some think that people who use dslr's don't know what they are doing and instantly assume that they are using a spray and pray technique. That to me is being ignorant.
 
I regularly encounter experienced photographers who have been using their cameras with "less than optimal" settings. Same with computers and software. Not that you have to be a wizard but after spending thousands plus devoting many hours... Why not read the instructions?

Even the old F100 did pretty good tracking.

Most people have been logging in 10-80 hours per week at their computers for 20-plus years now... You think they'd learn the basics but no....
 
I don't understand why some think that people who use dslr's don't know what they are doing and instantly assume that they are using a spray and pray technique. That to me is being ignorant.

Well said. A DSLR is all about productivity. When I'm using my 1Ds mark II I still take the time to compose and wait for that moment just like my film cameras.
And I take lots of photos because I can and I thoroughly enjoy it.

And to my surprise I'm using more film now than ever. I shoot everyday. Digital or film and often both.
 
I don't believe that there is any distinction at all. So far as I'm concerned, one man's wonderful photographer is another man's worthless dabbler and, of course, vice versa.

So you think higher frame rates equal a better photographer? So if someone goes to do a job and takes 10,000 images to get one magazine image and another takes just one to nail it the camera has made the first a better photographer?

No there is a huge distinction, the technology has levelled the playing field but the high frame rate hasn't made the first a better photographer!
 
Well, if the Nikon shooter was shooting a D4 he'd be kicking the Canon's butt in every performance area period. This stuff and sports are the D4's kingdom. Also as a Nikon shooter when I get a new body the very first thing I do is to go in menu and shut off the focus confirmation beep and focus assist light as they aren't necessary.
I don't own a D4 but have shot them in sports but do own 2 D800/e's but if one is a real working professional with a real knowledge and background you'd have to screw up badly with these bodies to screw up an assignment no matter the venue.
For small format the Nikon bodies are a dream and are like a Swiss Army knife, they do it all.
The guy could have wrapped a town around to buffer the sound but then again maybe hyper sensitives ears were at work too. I've never had any complaints from anyone in any venue be it in church or wherever with any of my camera bodies.
 
So you think higher frame rates equal a better photographer? So if someone goes to do a job and takes 10,000 images to get one magazine image and another takes just one to nail it the camera has made the first a better photographer?

Wow! Where did you get that from what I wrote? 🙄
 
I'm no fan of spray and pray, I've seen wedding photographers do 5000 mediocre photos and I think that's ridiculous. But, all things considered, in a sports-wildlife-dance or other action situation, knowing when to start firing a burst of continuous frames utilizes exactly the same skillset it took to capture the single frame on film 50 years ago.

Let me know who is hiring these magic all-knowing photo editors that are processing thousands of remotely transmitted shots behind the scenes? It maybe technically possible but the economics of still photos and editorial photography pretty much preclude it short of the prime Olympic events, royal weddings, and ? Not even Sports Illustrated is doing that kind of production these days.

Oh yeah Newsweek lol
 
For "Work" I use a big DSLR, and there are times when I'm grateful for 10fps.

I'm often shooting in very low light, with unpredictable subjects, and the the difference between say frame 3 and 4 can be something as subtle as the position of a hand, that gives the photo a better visual flow.

It's true that a high frame rate can mean it's more likely to get that shot, it can't help you recognise the one that works though, or how to anticipate movement etc.

It's no good going "look I've got 10fps of perfect (yeah right) shots of this person, if an object in the background makes your subject look like they have a pole growing out of their head, or something distracting in the edge of the frame.

Plus, there are a whole bunch of extra parameters, I'm not claiming that I have them all mastered, but in low light at high ISO, your exposure compensation is more important, and your colour profile in the camera has way more of an effect than you'd think too.

There are plenty of times when I've overridden the AF, just to change the shot slightly, so manual focus skill does come in just as handy.

Day to day I shoot film, and honestly the main difference is just the FPS.
The camera doesn't magically do more, it just does exactly the same thing more often, it's still completely open to user cock ups.

All that said though AF confirm beep is always always off.
 
Back
Top Bottom