No, No, No! Your Gear is ALL Wrong!

[Dogman]

I don't have a crystal ball. I was taken completely off guard at the rate of digital camera's acceptance by the general public and the decline in film use.

But I expect film will be around for many years to come. In some form or another. Limited and very expensive forms, I expect. Niche items are like that.

At what point does cost make it impractical and unfeasible?

I've read interviews with Stephen Shore in which he reported he has limited his use of his 8x10 camera due to the cost of color film and processing. He now shoots mostly digital. My bet is there are others feeling the same. Some of my photo heroes who were firmly set in their film and darkroom ways have turned to digital use. Or at least added digital cameras and inkjet printing to their more traditional methods.

Costs will continue to rise. Environmental regulations will push up prices and limit availability of materials. But film will still be around.

 

[mpaniagua]

On the other hand, amateur/enthusiast level digital cameras are facing the onslaught from mobile phones.

If anything, I see amateur/enthusiast dslr heading the niche road. Pity, because there are lots of fun cameras on this segment.



Regards

Marcelo

 

[LCSmith]

I want -- for my hardly earned dollars, technically, the very best available camera with which to take pictures for the least dollars spent. I've posted many pictures here, as you see I need all the help I can get!

Nick,

All joking aside -- if, as you say, it is your desire to become a better photographer and not simply to own all the equipment you might need for every possible situation in the most cost-effective way possible (a dubious endeavor), I might suggest a digital (or film) M, a 50mm Summicron, and a 28mm Elmarit ASPH. Learn how to compose and to read light, and be prepared for perhaps years of failure as you slowly develop your "voice". If you are not interested in years of failure then I might suggest the possibility that you are not interested in becoming a better photographer. Compiling "the ultimate kit" for shooting "every possible situation" will not improve your photography. Simplifying and being patient will.

 

[gavinlg]

Not bashing Canon -- at all. They have the lion's share of the overall camera market and seem to be what most pros use (not sure why this is...), and their cameras -- I'm sure, are fine. However, if you're looking for the camera with the best sensor specs in terms of low light, DR, and bit depth Nikon and Sony are the current leaders. Nikon (stands to reason) because they use Sony (and Tower Jazz) sensors.

It's the color, the lenses, and the video.

 

[mpaniagua]

Also, Canon pro service is doing a pretty job I had heard. Many pro photographers (those that make a live out of photography and literally depend on their equipment for eating) stick with Canon for their support.

Like gavinlg says, I really like the colors that my Canon 6d produce. Love night shooting with it.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[shane_goguen]

Posts like this make me hate photo forums.

 

[mpaniagua]

why? people seems to be civil enough 🙂 Don't really share OP points of view but respect his point and he seems respectful enough.

Best regards

Marcelo

 

[creenus]

I think at this point my brain hurts!

 

[Contarama]

Dxomark whatever = caca

 

[CMur12]

Dxomark whatever = caca

Any technical equipment review is potentially "caca."

We still need to know what we want/need from our equipment and we need to know how to make use of the data in such reviews. I don't think the problem is that the data are flawed; they just aren't the whole picture. Still a good resource though in their own paradigm.

(I'm pretty sure that Nick knows this too and that he opened this thread to start a discussion. He succeeded and he is clearly not the fool some make him out to be.)

- Murray

 

[dmr]

Dxomark whatever = caca

If your favorite genre is photographing test charts, then Dxomark is quite relevant. 🙂

 

[Contarama]

If your favorite genre is photographing test charts, then Dxomark is quite relevant. 🙂

Bill and Roger while on the pot are much better. lol

 

[RichC]

Better gear can help you take better pictures ... I want ... technically, the very best available camera with which to take pictures for the least dollars spent.

Absolutely with Nick. Half of photography is technology - the better engineered your camera, the better your photographs. Fact. Once, cameras were chemical-mechanical, and their technology unchanging. Today, cameras are electronic, and their technology rapidly advancing. Digital cameras are essentially disposable, soon obsolete - despite what Leica would have you think. A digital camera is no different from a computer or phone... chuck it and replace every few years.

I did a similar calculation to Nick (with less emphasis on value for money, more on image quality). This meant a Nikon D800E, with the world’s best sensor at the time - Sony’s 36 MP. Medium format is even better but unaffordable.

6 years later... Technology has advanced, so my Nikon is obsolete. Time to replace it with a camera that takes better photos. Sony sensors still thrash everyone elses. So, Nikon or Sony are the only contenders.

This time I went for Sony - an A7R II. As a new model comes out like clockwork every 2 years, they are fantastic value bought used - mine cost just $1500 as its paintwork was scuffed. You can still buy it new for $2500! The current A7R III model with exactly the same sensor costs $3500!

Why not another Nikon? A case of meeting my needs. Mainly, I wanted an electronic viewfinder, which are now very, very good. Optical viewfinders will soon be history. Electronic viewfinders do everything better - except perhaps fast-moving subjects (not my thing!), but that’ll be fixed in the next-generation of viewfinders.

Electronic viewfinders show me exactly how my photo will appear. What I hate about film is its “mystique” of waiting for an image to develop. Sod that! I want to see my picture... now! That’s what’s so great about digital. Similarly, I’ve always hated optical viewfinders - they make me imagine what my photo will look like!

Now on to this... the other half of photography. The craft or artistic side.

[If] it is your desire to become a better photographer and not simply to own all the equipment you might need for every possible situation in the most cost-effective way possible (a dubious endeavor) ... Learn how to compose and to read light, and be prepared for perhaps years of failure as you slowly develop your "voice". If you are not interested in years of failure then I might suggest the possibility that you are not interested in becoming a better photographer. Compiling "the ultimate kit" for shooting "every possible situation" will not improve your photography. Simplifying and being patient will.

Yes, of course do what LCSmith says also. But ignore his last couple of sentences: get the technically best camera you can afford too. I don’t recall Nick Trop (the OP) saying photography is only about gear...! It’s clearly not! But gear inarguably improves the quality of photographs.

I started out by joining the local camera club, which taught to use a camera and compose. I then went to university to learn more, gaining a master’s degree in photography - one of the best decisions I’ve made. (Bonus: I’m in the UK, not the USA, so the government subsidises education - my MA degree only cost $5500!)

 

[David Hughes]

What the numbers have to do with photography, is that photography is taken with imaging gear -- specifically cameras and lenses. Hardware. This hardware can be objectively evaluated technically, rated, and ranked. Better gear can help you take better pictures. A camera that performs better in low light will result in cleaner images in available light shooting. Likewise better dynamic range and bit-depth can result in a technically better image. This popular RAW editor maker, DXO, does the legwork in a lab, evaluates sensors and lenses, plunks them in a database for public access. Mighty sporting of them.

I want -- for my hardly earned dollars, technically, the very best available camera with which to take pictures for the least dollars spent. I've posted many pictures here, as you see I need all the help I can get!

But is the help you want mechanical, meaning you have nothing to do with it, or a matter of technique, which is entirely up to you and how you use the thing? A lot of people have for decades been getting a lot out of cameras that wouldn't even make halfway up your list of wonders...

Regards, David

 

[Axel]

I think it´s only one phase on someones photographic way to believe that gear like a sensor is soo important.

 

[airfrogusmc]

It's not about buying the technically best gear you can afford but it is and should be about having equipment that best matches the way that you see and work.

 

[NickTrop]

But is the help you want mechanical, meaning you have nothing to do with it, or a matter of technique, which is entirely up to you and how you use the thing? A lot of people have for decades been getting a lot out of cameras that wouldn't even make halfway up your list of wonders...

Regards, David

Right -- but your technique, eye for composition, ability to light or use natural lighting and the skills you may possess are aided by better gear. If you were a great painter, you might be able to make a great painting with a $5.00 kids paint brush kit from Woolworths. But you would likely make a better painting, or prefer to paint with a -better- tool set. In the former case you are using your skill to overcome an obstacle, in the latter case your tools are aiding you.

My argument, however, is that there is a price/performance sweet spot. If viewed on a graph, it would represent that point where the gear that is technically a little better is not really a "difference maker" but that uptick in technical specs is truly a case of diminishing returns. Further, some name brands in the photographic market are -- or border on, being Veblen goods whose performance is actually inferior technically, to their mass produced counterparts but nonetheless command a price premium. Further, further -- some goods prices are artificially inflated for reasons having nothing to do with utility, and conversely some goods have prices that have been artificially deflated for reasons having nothing to do with utility -- such as bad PR and rumors.

I have attempted to point out that price/performance "sweet spot" on the imaginary graph -- a used Nikon D600 and the various lenses I recommended and reasons why. All of zero cachet and on the low (or lowest) end of the cost scale relative to comparable goods but tested to be of superior performance and can be categorized, therefore, as being high value proposition choices. The opposite of "Veblen" goods.

 

[MaxElmar]

Hi, Nick -

First I'd like to say I'm a "first-time caller/long-time listener." I love your show!

I shoot most days with almost exactly the rig you describe to earn my living. Funny thing is, when I get home, I don't want to touch that stuff. For me - to make the images I like - family, friends, places, weird light I see here and there - I just like working in old-fashioned analog media. I actually like the way it looks. I like the way it feels. I like not worrying about batteries. It's different.

I know yours is the "right" way to do it. But it's all just going to wind up on some crappy web site with bad color management and tons of compression anyway. Can I just make what I like in my spare time?

Is there something wrong with me? Perhaps some medication will help?

Thank you for taking my call, and I will take your answer off the air.

 

[David Hughes]

Right -- but your technique, eye for composition, ability to light or use natural lighting and the skills you may possess are aided by better gear. If you were a great painter, you might be able to make a great painting with a $5.00 kids paint brush kit from Woolworths. But you would likely make a better painting, or prefer to paint with a -better- tool set. In the former case you are using your skill to overcome an obstacle, in the latter case your tools are aiding you...

But, no matter what I spend on brushes it will not make me a better painter. Although I agree there's a point where the sweet spot means I don't have to spend any more to stop blaming the brush...

But with photograph my eye - or lack of it - for a good photo has nothing to do with the camera and the fortune I ought to spend on it. And most people can't see beyond the subject matter; so I don't think it matters so much.

The relationship is like that of a pen or pencil to spelling.

Regards, David

 

[emraphoto]

But, no matter what I spend on brushes it will not make me a better painter. Although I agree there's a point where the sweet spot means I don't have to spend any more to stop blaming the brush...

But with photograph my eye - or lack of it - for a good photo has nothing to do with the camera and the fortune I ought to spend on it. And most people can't see beyond the subject matter; so I don't think it matters so much.

The relationship is like that of a pen or pencil to spelling.

Regards, David

There is wisdom and logic in what Nick has posted yet for some folks, myself included, it is unimportant. Issues such as trust, storytelling, composition and many others trump all of it.

This realization had a profound impact on my photography career.