Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: My camera is crappier than your camera  (Read 2948 times)
Ed B
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« on: March 05, 2014, 08:46:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting read.

http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html
Logged
Mike D. B.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2014, 11:49:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for posting that link, Ed.  I agree with most of Kirk's remarks.  And I wish manufacturers would spend more time with lens innovations like built-in lens hoods and tripod mounts.

Guess I'll stick with my "ancient" 5D untill it dies or I do, whichever comes first.  If I had to buy a new camera today, I'd probably opt for Fujifilm's X-T1.  I like aperture an ring.  I've tried manual focus lenses (Zeiss) on my Canon bodys but found them difficult to focus properly.
Logged

Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2014, 05:18:17 PM »
ReplyReply

His point about tossing away a few thousand pixels when compressing for the web rather ignores the fact that it is better to have 5,000 pixels along the edge to choose from rather than small unalterable set that tends to produce less radiant pictures.

Strikes me that the fellow is sounding off simply because he fancies himself as cool and trendy rather than practical and experienced.
Logged

mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2014, 06:48:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I suppose much of what he writes is tough to argue with. But this..."I'm thinking of a T-shirt. It's got a slogan on the front. It says, "My camera is crappier than your camera."  And on the back it says, "But I'm a better Photographer than you are." And we'll give them out to everyone who is able to make great image (sic) without having to rush out and buy the newest and greatest camera of the moment."... might indicate what's really going on, which might be that he's got an axe to grind with people who have more money for gear than he does, which causes him to denigrate those people. Does expensive gear guarantee good (or bad) images? No. Does crappy gear guarantee bad (or good) images? No.

If I told him I bought a Leica last year, he'd have a reason to hate me, too.

Lather, rinse, repeat. Cheap watches tell time, etc. Very boring.
Kind of like this guy: http://alesserphotographer.com/blog/photographers-and-phashionistas
He's been saying essentially the same stuff since 2010.
Logged
kencameron
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 669



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2014, 07:22:55 PM »
ReplyReply

But this..."I'm thinking of a T-shirt. It's got a slogan on the front. It says, "My camera is crappier than your camera."  And on the back it says, "But I'm a better Photographer than you are." And we'll give them out to everyone who is able to make great image (sic) without having to rush out and buy the newest and greatest camera of the moment."... might indicate what's really going on...
Yes, he rather lost me at that point, if for slightly different reasons. What kind of (deleted) would wear a T-shirt like that. And overall, there probably is some correlation between the quality of the camera and quality of the image it produces simply because people willing to pay more for their camera are also likely to spend more quality time on their photography. Of course, there are plenty of exceptions. On the other hand, it does me no harm to be reminded that at this point, the quality of my cameras is certainly not the limiting factor in relation to my own photography.
Logged

mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2014, 07:50:55 PM »
ReplyReply

On the other hand, it does me no harm to be reminded that at this point, the quality of my cameras is certainly not the limiting factor in relation to my own photography.

Nor mine, Ken...nor mine.  Smiley
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #6 on: March 08, 2014, 09:28:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, I've read the first link, and I find little with which to disagree. I have already stated here somewhere that my printer lies talking to itself 24/24 and costing me money to do that; I have little intention of dumping the D700 and even kept the D200. I pulled out the F3 last night, stuck on a lens, and put in two little batteries. Of course, they didn't switch the thing on: the batteries, though new in their Kodak shrink package, have slept here since 2005.

On holding the camera to my face, the viewfinder was very blurred, which confirmed my findings of a few days ago when I also played with it for a moment. The diopter correction glass was a +0.5. I took it off, found the original one (has no marking) and to my astonishment, it was almost crisp enough to use, and the split-image certainly would have made the camera operable again. I had noticed a while back that since the discovery of my glaucoma and the use of daily eye-drops, I no longer needed reading glasses, my constant hated companions since around '83! So bright sides do exist.

With or without glasses, the viewfinder of the F3 kills that of the D700 ever time. As for the D200...

Rob C
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8357



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2014, 06:04:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Trying to optimize the quality of the results attainable with a given equipment is both interesting and fun. Whether that equipment is cheap or expensive btw.

The value of the underlying thinking process and vision should stay the same and will remain the most important part of photography.

Now this is a bit photographer centric.

If you think of the result from the point of view of the viewer, it seems obvious that, at least for some photographic styles such as landscape, the quality of capturing equipment has typically a large impact on the quality of the viewing experience of the person watching the print.

The whole LoFi thing is charming today for some types of work, but I wonder how well it will withdtand attacks of time.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 899


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2014, 08:06:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I read the article as well and don't disagree either. It's easy to take a sentence out of context and miss Kirk's point.
Like he implies, pick the system that makes you happy.
Here's my take on why I've gone from a 5DII to a 16 mp Fuji. The prints from the Fuji are better those from the Canon at 24 inches wide. I think it's the lenses second and the sensor third, and fourthly having no humungous shutter slamming open and closed (for long shots a 2kg bean bag on the lens/body made a visible difference).
The first reason they are better is that I don't get tired. I'm sharper, make fewer mistakes, have fewer missed opportunities and so have a better hit rate. Add the fact that the prints from the Fuji are at least as detailed does no harm either. And I can leave that bloody bean bag at home.
I'm not doing BIF, or large landscapes, so I suspect I probably could have picked any of the current mirrorless systems and have the same opinion.

Logged

mezzoduomo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 211


« Reply #9 on: March 11, 2014, 06:49:53 AM »
ReplyReply

A slightly different (and to me, a more interesting) take on the same theme.

http://leicaphilia.com/?p=311
« Last Edit: March 11, 2014, 06:53:42 AM by mezzoduomo » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #10 on: March 11, 2014, 10:41:05 AM »
ReplyReply

A slightly different (and to me, a more interesting) take on the same theme.

http://leicaphilia.com/?p=311


I think the piece on the lllg is also telling: my uncle had one, but all he shot was castles and three dogs. However, seeing early ads for it in Life and similar magazines was, for me, an early stimulant to photographic interest: it just looked so beautiful and purposeful to someone who had a box brownie and then later a brownie reflex.

But yes, on the broader theme, I do agree that digital has altered the photographic landscape's points of reference. It has also had the result of putting into the photo world a lot of people for whom photography isn't really about photography at all, and these have become amongst the most tiresome people on the Internet. Unfortunately, it seems they never have stopped to ask themselves where their priorities really lie. But I don't see the camera makers weep.

Rob C
Logged

WalterEG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1157


« Reply #11 on: March 11, 2014, 12:32:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Like Rob, perhaps, I read not only thew linked article but also the preceding one on the iiig and found them both like like the variations in an 8 part harmony choral score the difference being that where I read Leica or iiig my part read Linhof Technika or Sinar.

Photography is a rich anthem enhanced by the combination of many parts but a single purpose: the communication of visual opinions and musings to others, either now or in a later time.  The choice of the means of expression is yet another telling factor inextricably linked to the content or subject of a photograph which conveys HOW I chose to see WHAT I chose to see.

Cheers,

W
Logged
powerslave12r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117



WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2014, 10:26:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's one innovation I would like to see. Lens coatings that prevent fogging up. (Yeah, laws of physics and all that, excuses. Cheesy).


I am sure something like this already exists, but I don't think any of the equipment I own has it.
Logged

http://www.flickr.com/garagenoise
DP2M | X-M1 | 6D | TS-E24IIL | EF24-105L
Johnny_Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 141


« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2014, 10:30:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's one innovation I would like to see. Lens coatings that prevent fogging up. (Yeah, laws of physics and all that, excuses. Cheesy).


I am sure something like this already exists, but I don't think any of the equipment I own has it.

I use a product called Cat Crap (I'm serious) on my eye glasses. I haven't tried it on my camera lenses though.

Later,
Johnny
Logged

------------------
Johnny Johnson
Cleveland, GA
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5171


« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2014, 10:57:25 AM »
ReplyReply

... I wish manufacturers would spend more time with lens innovations like built-in lens hoods and tripod mounts.
That's a good start for a wish-list of easily-attainable improvements once we look beyond the sensor arms race. Let me add:
a bayonet mount for filters instead of the anachronistic screw-ins (which were wisely abandoned for lenses decades ago).  Even if only polarizers and ND filters matter anymore.
Logged
powerslave12r
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117



WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2014, 11:03:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I use a product called Cat Crap (I'm serious) on my eye glasses. I haven't tried it on my camera lenses though.

Later,
Johnny
Looks like it might work! A cheap way to try it out might be to use it on a lens filter. Which makes me wonder if any filters exist that prevent fogging.
Logged

http://www.flickr.com/garagenoise
DP2M | X-M1 | 6D | TS-E24IIL | EF24-105L
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1041


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2014, 11:13:36 AM »
ReplyReply

That's a good start for a wish-list of easily-attainable improvements once we look beyond the sensor arms race. Let me add:
a bayonet mount for filters instead of the anachronistic screw-ins (which were wisely abandoned for lenses decades ago).  Even if only polarizers and ND filters matter anymore.

I'm not so sure, at least filter and tripod mounts are a universal fit if rather dated in design.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad