chikubi
Established
Appreciate the detailed reply. I'll try to address it as best as possible.
You seem to have misinterpreted my meaning, which may be partly my fault due to trying to keep it brief. When I was referring to being able to tailor my camera to my liking I was referring only to customization of the physical operating controls, not the output. This means things like the function mapping of buttons and dials, metering preferences and offset, AF preferences, bracketing setup and the like. In other words solely customizing the way I interact and work with the camera to take my photos. And while I can appreciate and often enjoy shooting with a simple camera, the fact of the matter is that using and understanding the complex technology in an advanced camera allows me to customize it in such a way that I can often work better and more efficiently. In other words, it makes it simpler, thus 'simplicty is often born from complexity'. That's all I meant and nothing more.
As for image quality, I shoot RAW and do all my own post-production on a calibrated workflow and with calibrated camera profiles. The only thing I expect of the camera is that it reasonably mimicks my typical output for preview purposes and the occasional times I'm required to use the .jpg engine. Otherwise, I don't fuss too much about in-camera output.
In this sense we are exactly alike, as I expect the same from my gear. I've shot my D3 for 4.5 years now and I can shoot it with my eyes shut basically. I know what it excels and also sucks at, and to me it's no more difficult to use than my K1000 or little Vito B. I mean, I don't know what your experience is, but modern pro level cameras are actually fairly stripped down. They trade the majority of automation found on consumer cameras for extreme ability to customize the interface, plus consistency, durability and reliability. In many ways, they're very old-fashioned in my opinion. Quite honestly, for the amount of control and consistency you seem to like, you'd probably feel fairly at home with one.
Not my cup of tea either, I'd rather watch paint dry. I do pay attention to it when a new camera is released in order to guage whether it may have problems or not, but otherwise, meh. I prefer to find some RAW samples and play with them on my own over anything else to determine if something meets my needs.
Here's where we differ it seems. Firstly, I do understand where you're coming from with this, but at the same time my question is, "So what?". There's nothing wrong with people who don't care about "photography" using whatever they like to take pictures, it's their prerogative. As pros and enthusiasts, sometimes I feel that many seem to forget that most people - the vast majority - aren't into image making per se, but simply want a means to record their lives and memories to share with others and enjoy again later in life. That's cool - it's a fine reason. And those folks will go for whatever they feel will allow them to do that at a level they're happy with. Some demand a higher level and buy expensive gear, and some use a cell phone. There's no arguing though, that the expensive gear will generally provide better results, even on full auto, so if someone is willing to spend the cash for that and can see the difference, then more power to them. Has no direct effect on you or me and our enjoyment of the art, although it could be argued that the constant demand and push for gear provides funding and motivation for R&D into better and more useful cameras, lenses, and accessories.
Besides, the consumer market is nothing new - not now or ever, it's always been like this. And the flood of photos is mainly due to the internet, otherwise they'd just be in shoeboxes under the bed like before. I can't view every single photo that exists anyway, and neither can you, so I selectively view what I think is worth my time and the rest of the dross floats on down the river without any effort required on my part.
Well, if you know what works for you, than that's the way you should go. Having never used an X-P1 I can't say how easy or difficult it is to use short of that from most reports it seems a fairly quirky, though capable, camera. If those quirks were what you were running into, then I can understand where you're frustration could come from.
My only real beef with your sentiments in general is that, and it may just be your tone, you come across as very condescending when discussing anything where full-on manual isn't a factor. In other words, it sounds like, "If a camera isn't full manual, or you don't shoot full manual only, or God forbid you might use a bit of some kind of automation when it suits your needs, you're not a 'true' photographer, or at least not a very skilled one." Maybe that's not your intent, but that's how it sounds. And if it is your intent, well then it's crap - manual anything in photography is just a tool in the tool box. It has pros and cons, and many times there are other, better methods, and other times not. It's not a badge of honor, a lifestyle, or anything else really. Understanding exposure and its creative aspects isn't rocket science, so once you get past the point where it's second-nature it doesn't matter what or how you shoot because the conceptual knowledge is there to guide you towards making the right decisions. It then just becomes a matter of choosing and learning the gear well enough to put that knowledge to purpose and nothing more, and learning gear is the easy part.
I agree with you about what makes images worthwhile, but the true harsh reality of technology in photography is that there is undeniably gear out there that will allow you to do things that you simply can't with other gear. And that's not a film vs. digital thing either - a 35mm negative will never approach the quality of an 8x10 negative, and my D200 physically can't shoot indoor soccer in crappy light while my D3 can. And no amount of mad skillz will change those facts. A skilled photog might be able to at least make something passible if forced to, but another photog with better gear and the knowledge to use it will win every time.
Maybe on an iPad not, but in a gallery print yes. Or maybe the photo only exists because the gear used was capable of taking it. It doesn't matter in either case because there is no excuse ever to not present your work to the best of your ability, regardless of the final output medium. Whether we like it or not, there is always going to be a leap of faith somewhere in the chain because it's impossible to micromanage every aspect of every shot put up for public cosumption. The only thing you can do is to put out your best effort and hope that others recognize it. A good photo is a good photo, and most people will usually know it when they see one.
I think we expect nothing less, so keep striving. And I also hope my comments are taken in the sense of well intentioned and meaningful discussion.
You seem to have misinterpreted my meaning, which may be partly my fault due to trying to keep it brief. When I was referring to being able to tailor my camera to my liking I was referring only to customization of the physical operating controls, not the output. This means things like the function mapping of buttons and dials, metering preferences and offset, AF preferences, bracketing setup and the like. In other words solely customizing the way I interact and work with the camera to take my photos. And while I can appreciate and often enjoy shooting with a simple camera, the fact of the matter is that using and understanding the complex technology in an advanced camera allows me to customize it in such a way that I can often work better and more efficiently. In other words, it makes it simpler, thus 'simplicty is often born from complexity'. That's all I meant and nothing more.
As for image quality, I shoot RAW and do all my own post-production on a calibrated workflow and with calibrated camera profiles. The only thing I expect of the camera is that it reasonably mimicks my typical output for preview purposes and the occasional times I'm required to use the .jpg engine. Otherwise, I don't fuss too much about in-camera output.
In this sense we are exactly alike, as I expect the same from my gear. I've shot my D3 for 4.5 years now and I can shoot it with my eyes shut basically. I know what it excels and also sucks at, and to me it's no more difficult to use than my K1000 or little Vito B. I mean, I don't know what your experience is, but modern pro level cameras are actually fairly stripped down. They trade the majority of automation found on consumer cameras for extreme ability to customize the interface, plus consistency, durability and reliability. In many ways, they're very old-fashioned in my opinion. Quite honestly, for the amount of control and consistency you seem to like, you'd probably feel fairly at home with one.
Not my cup of tea either, I'd rather watch paint dry. I do pay attention to it when a new camera is released in order to guage whether it may have problems or not, but otherwise, meh. I prefer to find some RAW samples and play with them on my own over anything else to determine if something meets my needs.
Here's where we differ it seems. Firstly, I do understand where you're coming from with this, but at the same time my question is, "So what?". There's nothing wrong with people who don't care about "photography" using whatever they like to take pictures, it's their prerogative. As pros and enthusiasts, sometimes I feel that many seem to forget that most people - the vast majority - aren't into image making per se, but simply want a means to record their lives and memories to share with others and enjoy again later in life. That's cool - it's a fine reason. And those folks will go for whatever they feel will allow them to do that at a level they're happy with. Some demand a higher level and buy expensive gear, and some use a cell phone. There's no arguing though, that the expensive gear will generally provide better results, even on full auto, so if someone is willing to spend the cash for that and can see the difference, then more power to them. Has no direct effect on you or me and our enjoyment of the art, although it could be argued that the constant demand and push for gear provides funding and motivation for R&D into better and more useful cameras, lenses, and accessories.
Besides, the consumer market is nothing new - not now or ever, it's always been like this. And the flood of photos is mainly due to the internet, otherwise they'd just be in shoeboxes under the bed like before. I can't view every single photo that exists anyway, and neither can you, so I selectively view what I think is worth my time and the rest of the dross floats on down the river without any effort required on my part.
Well, if you know what works for you, than that's the way you should go. Having never used an X-P1 I can't say how easy or difficult it is to use short of that from most reports it seems a fairly quirky, though capable, camera. If those quirks were what you were running into, then I can understand where you're frustration could come from.
My only real beef with your sentiments in general is that, and it may just be your tone, you come across as very condescending when discussing anything where full-on manual isn't a factor. In other words, it sounds like, "If a camera isn't full manual, or you don't shoot full manual only, or God forbid you might use a bit of some kind of automation when it suits your needs, you're not a 'true' photographer, or at least not a very skilled one." Maybe that's not your intent, but that's how it sounds. And if it is your intent, well then it's crap - manual anything in photography is just a tool in the tool box. It has pros and cons, and many times there are other, better methods, and other times not. It's not a badge of honor, a lifestyle, or anything else really. Understanding exposure and its creative aspects isn't rocket science, so once you get past the point where it's second-nature it doesn't matter what or how you shoot because the conceptual knowledge is there to guide you towards making the right decisions. It then just becomes a matter of choosing and learning the gear well enough to put that knowledge to purpose and nothing more, and learning gear is the easy part.
I agree with you about what makes images worthwhile, but the true harsh reality of technology in photography is that there is undeniably gear out there that will allow you to do things that you simply can't with other gear. And that's not a film vs. digital thing either - a 35mm negative will never approach the quality of an 8x10 negative, and my D200 physically can't shoot indoor soccer in crappy light while my D3 can. And no amount of mad skillz will change those facts. A skilled photog might be able to at least make something passible if forced to, but another photog with better gear and the knowledge to use it will win every time.
Maybe on an iPad not, but in a gallery print yes. Or maybe the photo only exists because the gear used was capable of taking it. It doesn't matter in either case because there is no excuse ever to not present your work to the best of your ability, regardless of the final output medium. Whether we like it or not, there is always going to be a leap of faith somewhere in the chain because it's impossible to micromanage every aspect of every shot put up for public cosumption. The only thing you can do is to put out your best effort and hope that others recognize it. A good photo is a good photo, and most people will usually know it when they see one.
I think we expect nothing less, so keep striving. And I also hope my comments are taken in the sense of well intentioned and meaningful discussion.
