Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 07-09-2018   #121
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,481
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #122
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua's Avatar
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 46
Posts: 1,075
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #123
LCSmith
arbiter elegentiae
 
LCSmith's Avatar
 
LCSmith is offline
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 158
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #124
gavinlg
Registered User
 
gavinlg's Avatar
 
gavinlg is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Wellington NZ
Posts: 5,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
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.
__________________
NO PRAISE
@gavinlagrange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #125
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua's Avatar
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 46
Posts: 1,075
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #126
shane_goguen
Registered User
 
shane_goguen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Age: 39
Posts: 76
Posts like this make me hate photo forums.
__________________
Website
Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #127
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua's Avatar
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 46
Posts: 1,075
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #128
creenus
Registered User
 
creenus is offline
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 154
I think at this point my brain hurts!
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #129
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,249
Dxomark whatever = caca
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #130
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 67
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarama View Post
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
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #131
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contarama View Post
Dxomark whatever = caca
If your favorite genre is photographing test charts, then Dxomark is quite relevant.
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #132
Contarama
Registered User
 
Contarama is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Tulsa
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
If your favorite genre is photographing test charts, then Dxomark is quite relevant.
Bill and Roger while on the pot are much better. lol
__________________
Art is the ability to make something...even if it is a big mess...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-09-2018   #133
RichC
Registered User
 
RichC is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brighton, UK
Posts: 1,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LCSmith View Post
[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!)
__________________

-=Rich=-


Portfolio: www.richcutler.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #134
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #135
Axel
Registered User
 
Axel's Avatar
 
Axel is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 602
I think it´s only one phase on someones photographic way to believe that gear like a sensor is soo important.
__________________
my photos here
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #136
airfrogusmc
Registered User
 
airfrogusmc is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,632
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #137
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is online now
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #138
MaxElmar
Registered User
 
MaxElmar's Avatar
 
MaxElmar is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 588
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.
__________________
Chris L.

Still Photographically Uncool
https://www.flickr.com/photos/xenotar/


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #139
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #140
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
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.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #141
Axel
Registered User
 
Axel's Avatar
 
Axel is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Germany, north
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
...
The relationship is like that of a pen or pencil to spelling...
I agree. This measurements doesn´t matter in general.
And this thread is about photography in general.

Nothing new here. All the years we have digital photography now people in
internet forums tried to atomize various technical data again and again.
And the result was and is always - nothing.

All the nice photographs we have in the gallery here, according to the title
of this thread, the most are made with "wrong gear"
__________________
my photos here
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #142
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxElmar View Post
Hi, Nick -....
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.
Interesting perspective, my father was a photographer for Kodak for most of his life. For him, the fun was out of photography. He enjoyed it when we both went out to cover a softball game or something, but doing it in the off hours wasn't for him. He enjoyed helping others out by taking pictures they needed, but it was the helping he enjoyed, not so much the photography.

I don't think it's medication that will help, my suggestion is to move as far away from your work kit as you can. Maybe a Baby Speed Graphic with an Ektar lens and a roll film back. Perhaps a Fujifilm GS645W (and only that version) would be a slightly smaller package with enough difference.

I like the idea of not dragging along a Domke F2 full-o-stuff that I did when I was younger and in better aerobic shape. Perhaps that is part of my problem...... But a good mirrorless camera with a couple of lenses backed up with an iPhone 7 seems like a great kit. If I want to experiment with some found glass I can, but then again I'm not making a living at with it. I was lucky enough to have a father who pushed me to other things I loved (computers). Come to think of it, I feel the same way when I get home. I don't want to deal with stuff, I just want it to work, why we have Macintoshes. I get yelled at enough when I am testing a new (to me) printer and trying to get it on the network. My youngest and I move between osX, Windows, and Linux well enough (he does better). I tried my wife on a Windows laptop years back and will never do that again.

Unlike others who have posted on this thread, I love these sorts of things as they cause me to think outside of the box I've drawn. Perhaps I change, perhaps I will stay the same, but either way I come out stronger for thinking things through.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #143
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
 
nukecoke's Avatar
 
nukecoke is offline
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Sweden/China
Posts: 1,013
This sounds like DigitalRev, somehow
__________________
tumblr

flickr(abandoned)

About Film Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #144
nightfly
Registered User
 
nightfly is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,906
I don't think Stephen Shore is a good argument in favor of digital as his new work is terrible. I say this as a big fan of stuff from the 70's.

His stuff on Instagram and his photos of the sidewalk with the digital Hassy are real crap.

If you didnt' know who shot it, you'd think it was a angsty teenager with a iPhone.

Back to your regularly scheduled DSLR discussion...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #145
BlackXList
Registered User
 
BlackXList is offline
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 756
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillBingham2 View Post
I like the idea of not dragging along a Domke F2 full-o-stuff that I did when I was younger and in better aerobic shape.
I WISH my work bag was that small
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #146
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by emraphoto View Post
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.
I thought sometime back that, trying to get that concept across has become a waste of my time. There are some who get it, and a lot that don't. I think, to my mind, the interest simply isn't in photography. It's in related things. Nothing is going to change this for most people. There are exceptions. Icebear comes to mind.

I've cited Matt Black's work before in this argument (argument used as in Math). Matt, for his most recent project, used a little Sony X100 camera for most of his photos. He also has a digital Leica for some photos. Pretty minimal equipment for a huge project. My guess is, the major costs for the project were logging and auto fuel.

Square format shots are the X100

https://www.instagram.com/mattblack_blackmatt/?hl=en

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUXYDtbWu0E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8OybGqUNsA

Erich Hartman

https://pro.magnumphotos.com/C.aspx?...D=2K7O3R1VUF5N

http://pro.magnumphotos.com/Catalogu...y-NN15678.html

https://shootfilmridesteel.com/jumpi...rich-hartmann/

.
.
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #147
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,481
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackXList View Post
I WISH my work bag was that small
You'll wish it a lot more when you're 70 and your back and neck are shot to hell and a thick book feels too heavy to lift sometimes. Ask me how I know.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #148
Thardy
Registered User
 
Thardy is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,180
The original post was 3 days ago. Seems more like three years ago. Nothing’s changed here. 😛
__________________
Thomas

Flickr

Tumblr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #149
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
I thought sometime back that, trying to get that concept across has become a waste of my time. There are some who get it, and a lot that don't. I think, to my mind, the interest simply isn't in photography. It's in related things. Nothing is going to change this for most people. There are exceptions. Icebear comes to mind....
Well , ... I guess it's in the open now
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2018   #150
David Hughes
David Hughes
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,463
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
I thought sometime back that, trying to get that concept across has become a waste of my time. There are some who get it, and a lot that don't...
Hi,

I don't want to split hairs but I don't see this as a concept that some get and some don't; it implies the wise and the stupid...

Some of us get it and think it's wrong; simple as that.

F'instance, I don't think any lens is perfect or near perfect all the time. Most of them are excellent at just one or, perhaps, two apertures and when focused at a certain distance.

I also think that most of the concepts that are praised so highly are ignored or not even noticed by most people. Most of the time they just notice the subject...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #151
robert blu
quiet photographer
 
robert blu's Avatar
 
robert blu is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Italy
Age: 70
Posts: 5,835
@ PKR: thanks for the interesting links you provide, bookmarked. I think when there is a strong idea in our project gear is not so important...(of course there could be special need in special cases).

robert
__________________
Remember: today is the Day !
from Ruth Bernhard recipe for a long and happy life

my quiet photographer's blog

My RFF photos and my albums on RFF
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #152
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

I don't want to split hairs but I don't see this as a concept that some get and some don't; it implies the wise and the stupid...

Some of us get it and think it's wrong; simple as that.

F'instance, I don't think any lens is perfect or near perfect all the time. Most of them are excellent at just one or, perhaps, two apertures and when focussed at a certain distance.

I also think that most of the concepts that are praised so highly are ignored or not even noticed by most people. Most of the time they just notice the subject...

Regards, David
Well this is exactly what is holding people back and keeps them making -mildly put- "less interesting" photographs that in some way or another only represent the subject that they saw. As this doesn't lead to any improvement but is going around in circles, they try to alleviate the problem by buying new gear and start reasoning their personal best choice with some obscure rating figures.

In principle there is nothing wrong with that type of photography but once you see the light and not only the subject itself, you will quickly notice how much more is there to photograph and how little it actually matters what gear you use, as long as you are comfortable using it and it does what you want it to do.
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #153
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post

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.
Just so we all know, Nick used to shoot APSC and had similar threads telling us we were dumb for not using a Nikon D5XXX with 35mm 1.8DX lens (due to price / performance ratio). Once the FF came down to his price point, then of course APSC isnt good enough anymore. I`m a proud APSC user because I think it is a great balance between IQ and size. I do not like big cameras and modern APSC is great. You cannot compare it to APSC film... it is not anywhere near the same thing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #154
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,901
Quote:
Originally Posted by geetist View Post
I stopped reading after Point 1.
Not sure if this is a troll. but...
Film cameras do make you a better photographer.
Mary Ellen Mark and Elliot Erwitt agreed as well.
Learning to see, how to compose, and what content is compelling makes you a better photographer... the camera is a framing device more or less. MEM and EE are great, but great photography has always been done, and will continue to be done, with all types of equipment.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #155
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is online now
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Just so we all know, Nick used to shoot APSC and had similar threads telling us we were dumb for not using a Nikon D5XXX with 35mm 1.8DX lens (due to price / performance ratio). Once the FF came down to his price point, then of course APSC isnt good enough anymore. I`m a proud APSC user because I think it is a great balance between IQ and size. I do not like big cameras and modern APSC is great. You cannot compare it to APSC film... it is not anywhere near the same thing.
I don't recall such posts but don't doubt I may have made one. Your attempt at "whataboutism" is a variant of the tu quoque fallacy and on shaky rhetorical grounds. I stand behind the comments I am alleged to have made. Although intended to show hypocrisy, your comment fails. As prices have dropped, performance improved, and with high quality used full frame cameras infiltrating when once they did not (as film cameras have) the variables have changed.

When variables change in the function, so does the output. The output has now changed from "that" (then, when the variables were "this") to "this" now, and "that" at some later point. No inconsistency, however, in the function.

As a result of these changing variables, I sold off all of my small-sensor "amateur photo system" digital gear to offset part of the cost of moving to a FF digital system. Ceteris paribus I would have still been shooting the APS digital camera.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #156
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,932
Quiet down folks. Otherwise guys like Michael Kenna and David Burnett will find out they shouldn’t taken all those published photos with a Holga. What were they thinking?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #157
emraphoto
Registered User
 
emraphoto's Avatar
 
emraphoto is offline
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,647
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Hughes View Post
Hi,

I don't want to split hairs but I don't see this as a concept that some get and some don't; it implies the wise and the stupid...

Some of us get it and think it's wrong; simple as that.

F'instance, I don't think any lens is perfect or near perfect all the time. Most of them are excellent at just one or, perhaps, two apertures and when focussed at a certain distance.

I also think that most of the concepts that are praised so highly are ignored or not even noticed by most people. Most of the time they just notice the subject...

Regards, David
Im curious David... What do you think is wrong about the concept? With the concept being that for a lot of photographers interested in photojournalism/documentary/street the gear, megapixels, full frame narrative is a distraction at best.
__________________
www.johndensky.ca
@eastofadelaide
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #158
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
Luckily most of humans are not (yet) equipped with AI, so choices are consequently a little more varied
Be fair. Depressingly few are equipped with genuine (non-artificial) intelligence either.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #159
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by icebear View Post
Well this is exactly what is holding people back and keeps them making -mildly put- "less interesting" photographs that in some way or another only represent the subject that they saw. As this doesn't lead to any improvement but is going around in circles, they try to alleviate the problem by buying new gear and start reasoning their personal best choice with some obscure rating figures.

In principle there is nothing wrong with that type of photography but once you see the light and not only the subject itself, you will quickly notice how much more is there to photograph and how little it actually matters what gear you use, as long as you are comfortable using it and it does what you want it to do.
Dear Klaus,

YES!

We just had some friends around for lunch. He shoots 5x7 inch wet-plate (none of this wimpish film stuff). I gave him a "new" lens: a 99-year-old 300/3.5 Tessar. I'm looking forward to seeing the results.

Anyone who thinks that aesthetics are quantifiable is not only barking up the wrong tree: they're not even sure what a tree looks like.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-11-2018   #160
icebear
Registered User
 
icebear's Avatar
 
icebear is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: just west of the big apple
Posts: 2,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Be fair. Depressingly few are equipped with genuine (non-artificial) intelligence either.

Cheers,

R.

I didn't want to be too blunt and spill the beans right away but you are right
__________________
Klaus
You have to see the light.
M9, MM & a bunch of glass, Q

my gallery:http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...d=6650&showall
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:53.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.