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

Barry Kirsten said:
I can't help agreeing with Archiver... Nick has stated very honestly what many of us (myself included) are are in denial about, that analogue photography is dying. It depresses me that photography is heading slowly but surely toward a digital future, where everything is controlled by software algorithms of which most of us have no understanding and the skill involved is not with the hands on a film or print but in knowing how to use a mouse.
Click to expand...

I dont agree, film photography may not be the mainstream choice but it is very much alive, albeit at a smaller, more specialized level. If you look on the current trends of Hollywood celebs you'll see a number of them sporting small contax's and shooting film. It's very on trend. Which will likely convert a lot of younger people to using film.

I see you're from VIC - I know the guys that run hillvale lab in Brunswick just outside Melbourne city and they run flat out developing and scanning film all year round. If I recall they hit their 50,000th roll after 3 years running in 2016 - their customer base is largely younger folks.
 
Is this what we're really all about? Or, am I just not getting it... again?

I read the news today, oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well, I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph

-- John Lennon
 
gavinlg said:
I dont agree, film photography may not be the mainstream choice but it is very much alive, albeit at a smaller, more specialized level. If you look on the current trends of Hollywood celebs you'll see a number of them sporting small contax's and shooting film. It's very on trend. Which will likely convert a lot of younger people to using film.

I see you're from VIC - I know the guys that run hillvale lab in Brunswick just outside Melbourne city and they run flat out developing and scanning film all year round. If I recall they hit their 50,000th roll after 3 years running in 201 - their customer base is largely younger folks.
Click to expand...

Exactly. But anyway, why would I care if film photography is dead or not? If I was the only person in the world doing it, I'd still do it - doesn't affect me what other people do, in fact if everyone suddenly stopped using film that would be more left for me (I'd need to get an extra freezer though). But as a matter of fact, some companies produce film and make a profit, and even if the market should eventually shrink again, I'm sure it would stabilize at a lower level. I don't get the idea that "film is dead" so you have to stop using it.
 
BlackXList said:
They aren't "pants" but they have lagged behind in terms of Dynamic range, and there's a truly embarrassing number of the consumer models that have the same sensor over a period of years while other manufacturers were making improvements.
Click to expand...

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. Facts are facts:

Nikon D850 -- 100
Sony AR7 III -- 100
Sony AR7 II -- 98
Nikon D810 -- 97
Sony RX1R II -- 97
Pentax K1 -- 96
Nikon D800E -- 96
Sony A7 III -- 96
Sony A7R -- 95
Nikon D800 -- 95
Nikon D600 -- 94 (<-- $6-700 USD minty, used. My choice. Reasonably small/light for FF. Weather sealed. Dual slots. U1 and U2 settings. Price/performace leader.)
Nikon D610 -- 94
Nikon D750 -- 93
|
|
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV -- 91 (Highest rated FF Canon sensor on DXO list)
|
|
Leica SL (Type 601) -- 88 (Highest rated FF Leica sensor on DXO list)
|
Leica M10 -- 86 -- (The highest-rated crop sensor is the Nikon D7200, which DXO rates an 87, FWIW)

Ratings based on sensor lab tests weighted average of dynamic range, bit depth, and low-light performance/SN levels.

https://www.dxomark.com/cameras/bra...Options=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo
 
Hmmm (2)

Hmmm (2)

NickTrop said:
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. Facts are facts:

Nikon D850 -- 100
Sony AR7 III -- 100
Sony AR7 II -- 98
Nikon D810 -- 97
Sony RX1R II -- 97
Pentax K1 -- 96
Nikon D800E -- 96
Sony A7 III -- 96
Sony A7R -- 95
Nikon D800 -- 95
Nikon D600 -- 94 (<-- $6-700 USD minty, used. My choice. Reasonably small/light for FF. Weather sealed. Dual slots. U1 and U2 settings. Price/performace leader.)
Nikon D610 -- 94
Nikon D750 -- 93
|
|
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV -- 91 (Highest rated FF Canon sensor on DXO list)
|
|
Leica SL (Type 601) -- 88 (Highest rated FF Leica sensor on DXO list)
|
Leica M10 -- 86 -- (The highest-rated crop sensor is the Nikon D7200, which DXO rates an 87, FWIW)

Ratings based on sensor lab tests weighted average of dynamic range, bit depth, and low-light performance/SN levels.

https://www.dxomark.com/cameras/bra...Options=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo
Click to expand...

But what have numbers got to do with photography?

There are times when I wonder what would happen if all the photos taken with "inferior" cameras were banned, including the historic and classic ones. The banned list would be very interesting...

Regards, David
 
David Hughes said:
But what have numbers got to do with photography?
Click to expand...

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!
 
NickTrop said:
What the numbers have to do with photography, is that photography is taken with imaging gear -- specifically cameras and lenses. Hardware.
Click to expand...

The DSLR-man is a considerate consumer. He weighs his gear options conscientiously in the clean, efficient space of his web-browser. For DSLR-man buying gear is like a game of Tetris. He very much wants to achieve the highest score and tries to do so by filling the gaps in his foam-padded velcro bag with perfectly chosen, sensible pieces. What DSLR-man can't be expected to know is that there are any number of places and situations where his plastic super-soaker hand-canon simply won't do.
 
Actually a FF DSLR is an inferior imaging tool at least compared to the newest Digibacks yo might have pretty big upfront costs but the quality can't be beat. :)

But seriously analogue photography digital photography is like oil and acrylic paint. Most people use acrylic paint because you can get great results and it's not as time intensive and difficult as oil yet there are still painters using oil. Both medium can and do exist side by side the same applies to digital and analogue photography. Many more people use digital but that doesn't render analogue photography obsolete.
 
Ccoppola82 said:
I have this weird way of choosing my gear.
1. Does it take photos that I like? Yes or no
2. Do I enjoy using the camera or lens? Yes or no

If the answer is yes to both, I tend to carry and use it. End result, I take more photos.

That’s it. Pretty simple. Then again I’m not a pro, nor do I enlarge to monstrous sizes.
Click to expand...

+1 Same logic here.

Got some cameras that should be superior (Canon 6d) but most of the time I stick with cameras like Bessa T, Leica LTM and M or Olympus OM's.

If it is fun to use the go. Otherwise, they stay home.

Marcelo
 
NickTrop said:
We are now categorizing individuals based on their sartorial choices? "DSLR-men"? I am giving you a road map -- the one true correct logical path to navigate a sea of confusing choices.

If these choices were programmed into Watson or some other narrow AI Von Neumann box with sophisticated algorithms designed for THE one optimal price/performance solution for gear choice, there is no doubt in my mind its and my own choices would exacty align.

1. APS digital cameras? No. Since when was APS ever any good? Smaller? Even worse. This negates 85% of all gear out there excluding cell phones.

2. Small format film? No. Shoot it for fun. But it's obsolete. (Medium and large format film is stil fine, however.)

3. That leaves you with only full frame cameras. Which ones are best?

4. Answer: the ones with the best sensor specs. And there is great and surprising variance within this realm such as the surprisingly lackluster performance of Canon and Leica sensors according to DXO. That leaves with two vendor choices: Nikon or Sony (and one Pentax) based on impartial published independent evaluation available to all.

5. Sony is eliminated for a host of reasons pertaining to the bodies Sony chose to put their great sensors in. That leaves only Nikon (and a Pentax -- which is a viable contrarian choice...)

6. Which Nikon? The one with the highest price/performance ratio.

... and that clearly is a used Nikon D600 which has been greatly devalued due to some early production problems and associated bad PR by way of blog chatter...

I have applied equally impeccabe rationale to what lenses, what order to purchase them in -- and why. I won't rehash this now.

Nikon D600 with low actuations and the 50/1.4 AF-D. Used. ~ $870. (Add other lenses later...)

This clearly resolves the upper limit of the price/perforance ratio of currently available gear. Hands down. Bar none.

Let's see what Mr. Rockwell has to say about the matter -- for ducks. Well, well, well --

"The Nikon D600 is Nikon's best digital camera ever, at any price. The D600 has better image quality than any of Nikon's professional cameras like the $6,000 D4, and the D600 is the smallest and lightest full-frame digital camera ever from Nikon. The D600 has the best ergonomics and handling of any Nikon DSLR."

-- and he published this before one could be had used for $6-700 bucks. It slightly outperforms the current production D750 (94-93 per DXO) with the same resolution spec of 24MP, more than enough and relevant for some time to come, and bumps up against the top-of-the-line D810 rated at 97.

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d600.htm
Click to expand...

DSLR talk? It’s been a while since I was last on RFF.
I’m assuming Nick is taking the piss, and this is tongue in cheek – and by the end of the post, I think it must be tongue tartare.

While I was doing my quantitative analysis and figuring out my leveraged depreciation (post #9) that guy jumped over the puddle behind Gare St. Lazare. Great! Geez!

Love the Flintstones frame, I wonder if that’s just the trash regular lens or asph?
 
Barry Kirsten said:
I can't help agreeing with Archiver... Nick has stated very honestly what many of us (myself included) are are in denial about, that analogue photography is dying. It depresses me that photography is heading slowly but surely toward a digital future, where everything is controlled by software algorithms of which most of us have no understanding and the skill involved is not with the hands on a film or print but in knowing how to use a mouse.
Click to expand...

People have been calling the death film for almost two decades now. I remember the old photo.net days, around year 2000, when all the blowhards were saying you wouldn't be able to even buy film in a few years.

If anything, that's a reason to shoot film; might as well use it while it is around, because some day you may not have a choice. Although I've come to the conclusion that film will always be around.
 
steveyork said:
If anything, that's a reason to shoot film; might as well use it while it is around, because some day you may not have a choice. Although I've come to the conclusion that film will always be around.
Click to expand...

Film is going to be around long after consumer digicams have faded away.
 
Huss said:
Film is going to be around long after consumer digicams have faded away.
Click to expand...

Film is going to be around as long as there is a monetary viable demand for it exist.

It is the same for painters brushes, oil paint and the like. As far as someone if willing to pay for it/need it, there will be someone willing to produce it/sell it.

If tomorrow people stopped used film at all, it will be the end of it. Period.

Best regards.

Marcelo
 
mpaniagua said:
Film is going to be around as long as there is a monetary viable demand for it exist.

It is the same for painters brushes, oil paint and the like. As far as someone if willing to pay for it/need it, there will be someone willing to produce it/sell it.

If tomorrow people stopped used film at all, it will be the end of it. Period.

Best regards.

Marcelo
Click to expand...

Great because us film users will have nothing to worry about then.

Digicam users on the other hand, yeeeesh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom