Why Your Camera Does Not Matter...

Not sure if what you want to post fits in the other forums? Post it here!
pixmike

Why Your Camera Does Not Matter...

Postby pixmike » Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:23 pm

Hi everybody,

Here's a very interesting article for you to read.

How many times we hear (or read) people say that they wish they had a better camera, more pixels, etc... Just read the article (by Ken Rockwell), you'll be surprised... A more expensive camera with all the bells and whistles can sure help, but it's not an absolute must...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Carpe diem.
Mike :wink:

ProShow Hall of Fame
User avatar
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby DickK » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:23 pm

While I disagree with some of the details (and the guy's attitude), he's right:

"..Photographers make photos, not cameras..."

So true. Sad but true :wink:

Dick
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle ((PSG, PSE & Fuji HS20 user)) Presentation Impact Blog

images-that-move

Postby images-that-move » Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:06 am

He sounds like he is angry......

And that he likes to setup strawman to argue against.... not sure folks would deny that you have to have an "eye" for photography.... but your equipment will help you capture what your vision sees.... I wonder why Ansel didn't just grab a little box camera to make his photos.... could you imagine Ansel with a cell phone camera.... Sure you need to have vision but you also need the equipment to capture it.... (I guess that is why Indy drivers don't go to car dealers)....

I'm probably reacting more to his tone and attitude..... I agree with 'photogs make photos....' but I would modify it a bit and say 'photogs make photos with cameras".....

But interesting (kind of)

Esteemed Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Missouri

Postby JC » Sat Jun 02, 2007 5:12 am

Two thoughts:

1. I do woodworking too. Even if they sit on the shelf, knowing, buying and owning (and talking about) tools is part of the fun of the hobby.

2. The violin is part of the performance. Itzhak doesn't use a high school rental.

Jeff

ProShow Hall of Fame
User avatar
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby DickK » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:10 am

images-that-move wrote:(I guess that is why Indy drivers don't go to car dealers)....

Ahh... but his point is that an Indy/NASCAR/F1 driver in a Honda Accord would drive rings around a typical driver in a Porsche/Corvette, etc.

images-that-move wrote:I'm probably reacting more to his tone and attitude..... I agree with 'photogs make photos....' but I would modify it a bit and say 'photogs make photos with cameras".....
But interesting (kind of)

I agree that his manner of making the argument is over-the-top. But I see all too many of my acquaintances and relatives buying expensive cameras like Nikon DSLRs and wondering why their pictures didn't suddenly get dramatically better. Then I watch their eyes glaze over as I ask about composition, depth-of-field, f-stops and shutter lag.

The point that I know he's after is simply that the equipment is so rarely the limiting factor for a typical person taking pictures that it can be ignored (for most people, most of the time). That much I believe firmly.

Dick
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle ((PSG, PSE & Fuji HS20 user)) Presentation Impact Blog

Valued Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:28 am

Postby Sigrid » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:37 am

:)
I for one completely agree with the guy. There are and have been a vast number of photographers whose "products" could not even be rescued by Photoshop & Co. Why? Because neither composition, etc. meant anything to them. Autofocus? Can't think of a better way of loosing control.
Just my 2 cents

images-that-move

Postby images-that-move » Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:31 am

I don't think Ken really had a point.... it just sounds angry like he can't get the next best camera so he needed to rant....

Equipment matters and can make the difference everytime it is used correctly.... there will always be those that don't know how to use stuff (gosh you should see me use photoshop next to Matt Kloskowski)... but maybe better equipment makes them a better "lousy" photographer.... (or just makes them feel good).... I guess I'm wonder why care?

If equipment didn't matter then there wouldn't be a push for improvement (especially by those who know how to use it).... There will always be a skill gap between professionals / hobbiests and everything in between....

My point on the Indy drivers not going to car dealers is not that they would compared to typical drivers but to another Indy driver... that is why equipment matters.... It simply doesn't make sense to compare Ansel Adams to a weekend warrior.... compare Ansel to other "Ansels" of even up and coming "Ansels".... compare weekend warriors to other weekend warriors.... and equipment will matter.... I just really think this Ken guy set up an easy strawman so he could knock it down.... He should be fair and try to compare apples with apples... so what if the hobbiest wants to go out a spend huge amounts of money... (compared to other same level hobbiest it may make them a better photog... maybe not...)... Man I've sure spent a lot of money on equipment and software that I had no busy owning because of my skill level... but it help make me a better photog/photoshoper (although not that good yet)....

For the typcial person autofocus is going to be better than manual..... fully automatic is going to be better than manual..... faster lenses will be better than slower ones.... yeah they may be poor photogs and stink at compositions but some of these advances in equipment may give them a better possibility of capturing a good photo ... at least in focus... or exposed correctly....

Anyway... probably shouldn't have spent this much time on something like this.... (but I typed it so I might as well post it...)

Mike S.

Postby Mike S. » Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:03 pm

Ken is forgetting several major differences between a point & shoot and a $5000 (or even a $1000) DSLR. One is the flash that separates a pro's DSLR photos from the guest's P&S photos.

With a DSLR with flash sync, an external flash can be mounted on a bracket attached to the camera which puts it far away from the lens thus eliminating red eye. OK, red eye can be fixed in Photoshop but it takes a lot of time to do it right. Average folks don't even know how to fix red eye and I don't mean the funky "auto red eye correction" by software. And pardon my French but auto red eye correction by software really "sucks"! Plus the flash being way up high puts the light is a different perspective than when it is an inch or two away from the lens.

The external flash can be pointed upward to get a bounce flash for really good looking shots that are impossible to achieve using a P&S with a built in flash. The external flash can be on a handle completely separate from the camera to get the flash unit way up high or off to one side. The external flash can have different diffusers to soften the light.

I hope the manufacturers wake up and put an external flash sync connector on their high end P&S cameras. But that may not happen as they know that it would cut into their DSLR sales if they did.

$.02
Back to editing... :wink:

Valued Member
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 7:28 am

Postby Sigrid » Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:18 am

:oops:
What an odd creature I must be, having in the past used an old twin-lens reflex camera with rollfilm, no flash, but with excellent results (manual metering!) and now I am learning that topgrade gear at least gives correct exposure and focus.
Ken's message is clear but obviously hits at our lazy digital approach.
Or is is not that we all love moving pictures such as ProShow produce because the bulk of the images are just not good "standalones" anymore? And those embellishments that DJ products offer. What are they for? Making 2nd grade commercials?

ProShow Hall of Fame
User avatar
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:42 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby DickK » Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:02 am

Mike S. wrote:Ken is forgetting several major differences between a point & shoot and a $5000 (or even a $1000) DSLR. One is the flash that separates a pro's DSLR photos from the guest's P&S photos...
---snip---
I hope the manufacturers wake up and put an external flash sync connector on their high end P&S cameras. But that may not happen as they know that it would cut into their DSLR sales if they did.

One of the reasons I use the Fuji9100 is for the hot shoe and sych connector, so it isn't 100% true that the non-DSLR's lack that. And the flash gear I used with the 35mm SLRs I owned works just fine. Don't often end up using the bracket or a tripod mounted 2nd flash but it's one of the nice-to-know-it's-there capabilities.

Never mind Ken and whatever his point(s) were or weren't. The heart of the issue, for me, still comes back to the fact that the typical photographer (I'm in the group, maybe just off a little to one end of the bell curve) isn't limited by the equipment they have, they're limited in their ability to "see" the picture and then capture it and in their ability to use the equipment to the full extent of it's capabilities. I believe that nearly all of us who shoot pictures would get better results by improving our ability to

-- "see" the picture
-- use our existing equipment to better capture the image

l'm not saying that we aren't limited in many ways by the equipment, but I am saying that most of us blame the equipment (or credit the equipment) far too quickly. I know of a number of times when someone has told me they can't take a picture of "x" or in "y" circumstances but the real case was they simply didn't know how. In many instances, I think the equipment can get in the way by either being overly complex and all the automation can really be an obstacle to learning what's going on with taking a picture.

I really learned a lot with my old film-based, match-needles SLRs. I've loved my digital cameras from the first simple one to the current, anything-but-simple one. But I know that for me (and in my experience, 99% of others) the limitation in my pictures isn't the box but the guy behind the box.

Dick
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle ((PSG, PSE & Fuji HS20 user)) Presentation Impact Blog

Esteemed Member
Posts: 209
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:36 am
Location: Missouri

Postby JC » Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:19 am

Each project has a certain minimum (or let's say reasonable) threshold specification for equipment to do the job. That's as far as reason and logic can go in explaining what's occurring. Beyond that, there are other drivers. Does anyone really need a 2007 BMW to get to the office when a ten year old Ford will do the trick?

Tools, cars, barbecues, iPods, golf clubs, lap tops, tennis shoes, software, 5hp Kitchen Aide.........who doesn't crave the latest and the greatest? Except for the handful who claim they don't, the rest of us just see it as the American way.

Don't you just love marketing???? It really works!

Jeff

PS: Don't try to apply reason and logic where there wasn't any initially

Mike S.

Postby Mike S. » Sun Jun 03, 2007 11:42 am

DickK wrote: One of the reasons I use the Fuji9100 is for the hot shoe and sych connector, so it isn't 100% true that the non-DSLR's lack that. And the flash gear I used with the 35mm SLRs I owned works just fine. Don't often end up using the bracket or a tripod mounted 2nd flash but it's one of the nice-to-know-it's-there capabilities.

Good point. There is the class of "bridge" cameras between the typical point & shoot and the DSLR, like the Fugifilm S-9100, that do have hot shoes. The S-9100 is about the same size and form factor as a DSLR but with a lower price and if it had optical image stabilization I would be very tempted to buy one.

I hope Fujifilm comes out with a bridge camera with:
- Hot shoe
- Optical image stabilization
- Long zoom of 10x - 15x
- Double photos with and without flash
- Face detection
- Live histogram
- Low noise at higher ISOs

Fujifilm already has most of those features but not all in one camera. I would buy one today if it existed. The Fujifilm Finepix S6000fd has all of those features except the hot shoe and optical image stabilization. Just a tweak more is needed :)

Thanks,
Mike S.

cfeather

Pro advice

Postby cfeather » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:54 am

Years ago a professional photographer told me not to buy equipment unless it did one of two things for me:

1. Would help me make more money;
2. Would solve a problem.

I've found that following this is very good advice. As our photo skills advance, we realize we need more equipment or more versatile equipment. Example: A photographer starts out using the built-in flash, realizes it is very limiting in power and positioning. He buys a hot shoe flash. Now he can bounce it, but it still gives boring light. Then he buys a cord and takes it off the camera. Wow. Better images, greater modeling, but rather harsh. He buys an umbrella and stand, plus gets a slave. Much better, but he needs fill. So he buys a reflector. Better, but not versatile. Meanwhile, he realizes the light slave is rather limiting. He buys a Pocket Wizard. Now he can control more than one flash. He buys another PW and and another strobe. Now he can do main and fill light shots. But the background is boring, so he buys a third flash and PW. But he can't control exposure off the camera. So he buys a DSLR with iTTL and CLS, as well as four strobes. Now he's cooking with light. He can do multiple remote lightings, his images look distinct from those being produced by others. He can backlight, he put gels on the strobes and, with the addition of a commander unit, do macro lighting.

Hopefully, his clients notice there's a difference about his work and they are willing to pay more for it. Otherwise, he's not accomplished anything except made the camera manufacturers better off.

Solving problems: I have built my business over the past five years purchasing gear that makes it easier for me to my job. I like having efficient, creative, happy employees (me), and I know the way to do that is to make their job easier by giving them (me) the tools I need. After every wedding or job, I analyze it to see what I could have used to make things go better, to get a shot I couldn't get. For example, after doing several weddings where I needed to shoot the interior of a limo with all the party in it, I sprung for a $600 fisheye lens for my Nikon. I use for 2 or 3 shots per wedding, but having it makes the difference, and I love using it sparingly.

I also analyze what I didn't use and slough it off the next time I go out so I'm not so loaded with gear I spend my entire managing equipment. At the very least, it stays in the trunk until I need it.

Ken Rockwell has great insights and I usually agree with him. He's right on the money with the D200 and D80 assessments; most people really don't need the D2X. But I'm not going to deny the guy who does need one. Cost/return on the gear has to be measured, and for the pro, it may make more sense buying two D200s rather than one D2X, for example.

cfeather

Pro advice

Postby cfeather » Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:00 am

Years ago a professional photographer told me not to buy equipment unless it did one of two things for me:

1. Would help me make more money;
2. Would solve a problem.

I've found that following this is very good advice. As our photo skills advance, we realize we need more equipment or more versatile equipment. Example: A photographer starts out using the built-in flash, realizes it is very limiting in power and positioning. He buys a hot shoe flash. Now he can bounce it, but it still gives boring light. Then he buys a cord and takes it off the camera. Wow. Better images, greater modeling, but rather harsh. He buys an umbrella and stand, plus gets a slave. Much better, but he needs fill. So he buys a reflector. Better, but not versatile. Meanwhile, he realizes the light slave is rather limiting. He buys a Pocket Wizard. Now he can control more than one flash. He buys another PW and and another strobe. Now he can do main and fill light shots. But the background is boring, so he buys a third flash and PW. But he can't control exposure off the camera. So he buys a DSLR with iTTL and CLS, as well as four strobes. Now he's cooking with light. He can do multiple remote lightings, his images look distinct from those being produced by others. He can backlight, he put gels on the strobes and, with the addition of a commander unit, do macro lighting.

Hopefully, his clients notice there's a difference about his work and they are willing to pay more for it. Otherwise, he's not accomplished anything except made the camera manufacturers better off.

Solving problems: I have built my business over the past five years purchasing gear that makes it easier for me to my job. I like having efficient, creative, happy employees (me), and I know the way to do that is to make their job easier by giving them (me) the tools I need. After every wedding or job, I analyze it to see what I could have used to make things go better, to get a shot I couldn't get. For example, after doing several weddings where I needed to shoot the interior of a limo with all the party in it, I sprung for a $600 fisheye lens for my Nikon. I use for 2 or 3 shots per wedding, but having it makes the difference, and I love using it sparingly.

I also analyze what I didn't use and slough it off the next time I go out so I'm not so loaded with gear I spend my entire managing equipment. At the very least, it stays in the trunk until I need it.

Ken Rockwell has great insights and I usually agree with him. He's right on the money with the D200 and D80 assessments; most people really don't need the D2X. But I'm not going to deny the guy who does need one. Cost/return on the gear has to be measured, and for the pro, it may make more sense buying two D200s rather than one D2X, for example.

jpculver

Postby jpculver » Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:16 am

I stopped reading the referenced article's drivel with the statement that it's illegal to take a new exactly placed picture of a copyrighted picture (Mr Adams). You know what I mean. That's simply a load of the smelly stuff and Kenboy doesn't know what he's talking about. It's impossible to duplicate or violate copyright law by taking a new picture no matter how carefully you time and position your shot. And yes, Ken is a very angry person and loses credibility with his angst. So all you PSG'rs out there, snap away with whatever you have, Polaroids, 120's, Instamatics, or Canon EOSs. The only thing that matters is what you think. Even if you had the Professor's Way Back machine, two camera's can't occupy the same spot at the same time. There's something in the laws of physics which prevent that though I can't remember exactly what. :lol:

PS. Did anyone else notice the "Help Ken Rockwell" button? Reminds me of street corner beggar.

Next

Return to Odds & Ends

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests