The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Gear & Our Art: 2011?

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I think that the camera review industry (despite many honest and conscientious reviewers) is a load of old bollocks.

I'm a scientist by training, and I think that there are simply too many variables involved in the use of a camera for one to be able to come to useful conclusions.
....

ALL THE KIT IS FINE.
....

A day spent anguishing about gear is a day wasted
A day spent taking pictures is a day enjoyed.
I'm also a scientist by training and in fact still make a living that way.

What gripes me is the bad science done in the hopes of being understandable to average folks who just want to get the best camera they can almost afford... The worst tendency is the DxO-style attempt to achieve this breathtaking simplicity by reducing everything to a single number, or a "feature vector" of numbers. Some of the numbers seem meaningful, some (DxO's treatment of blur, for example) look suspiciously like garbage to me. I think this may underestimate the intelligence of the photo enthusiast public; at least it is sure not helping to improve it. Sean Reid errs way to the other side by releasing reams of standard methodologied facts, and then reaching almost no conclusions. It makes for slow, painful reading, but at least the facts are there to consider.

scott:deadhorse:
 

mediumcool

Active member
methodologied?

I know that US English is famous for turning nouns into adjectives and adverbs, but this is truly astonishing!

;)
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Whatdayathink?
I think one needs to consider the source more carefully when reading the net :D

First off, neither Llloyd nor Mark make their living from photography in the same way YOU do. I know Lloyd personally, he is a local and regularly bounces things off me. He tests with scientific method and usually very thoroughly, so he usually finds the warts if they're there to be found. And when he finds them, he discloses them, but -- and this is an important point -- only after he's reconfirmed them. By contrast Mark Dubovoy, also a scientist by training, is primarily a landscape photographer and has more the artist's mentality when it comes to gear; they are tools that allow him to achieve his artistic goals. He shoots his camera in the field once or twice and draws his conclusions from that initial experience for his type images. If his first run is positive, he'll write it that way; if it's bad, then he'll say that.

That said, Guy and I tested the S2 too, and we found focus accuracy suspect FOR SOME SUBJECTS. Specifically, people at intermediate distances while using the more open apertures. However, stop it down to f11 and shoot landscapes with it, it was awesome. Open it up to f4 and focus on a model's eye at 8 feet, and you may be disappointed that her earlobe or eyebrow is sharp and the eye is not.

Bottom line is I believe the best approach is find out for yourself. I think the gear needs to be used by the photographer the way they plan to use it before it can be approved. This is where a workshop that has the gear on hand or a dealer that can demo the gear for you comes into major importance.

Bottom line is there are a lot of reviewers out there, and yet some of the absolute best reviews I've ever read I've gleaned from discussions like the ones we have on this site --- where several folks that have all used the gear share their likes and dislikes. And yes, even that data is spread in a normal bell-shaped distribution between the lovers on one end and the haters at the other, but from that range of data, it is usually pretty easy to make an educated call about whether you'll like something or not.

In the end it's just stuff, and normally if it doesn't suit it can usually be sold pretty easily if there's a decent user base. Unfortunately when it comes to the S2 the base possibly isn't well enough established yet...

Cheers,
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
methodologied?

I know that US English is famous for turning nouns into adjectives and adverbs, but this is truly astonishing!

;)
Sure it's a spur of the moment invention, maybe never to appear again, but I meant to suggest facts squeezed slowly out from between two enormous rollers of slowly turning methodology. OK?

scott
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I review anything I do with gear by feel and it's all about shooting it and seeing end results that I am looking for and that is what I share. Bottom line is I am not a engineer nor scientist and never pretend to be. I go by my experience of shooting as a Pro for many years. I go by my eyes and that is what I trust the most. I try not to make absolute conclusions because of the variables . To me reviews lime Jack and I do are more valuable because we actually shoot real things and give folks our opinions but also provide the raws so folks can view on there own systems and software to make concise decisions for themselves . Frankly anything else is suspect to variables. I try to knock them out.

iPhone spell correct sucks. Sorry
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
ooohhh... I'm going through this mental combat with myself as we speak. What do you do if you are an person who keeps feet in both the right and left brains?

I have a such a love/hate relationship with my canon gear, but I have to admit that having the cloud of gear available with the system is lovely. I LOVE having wireless TTL flash via flextt5. In combo with wireless high-speed sync, I can get shallow DoF with flash on location untestered to my flashes... much like using higher speed sync with MF (not EXACTLY, but much the same in MY situation... shooting people at the end of the day mostly). The ZE lenses are, in many cases fantastic, as are a FEW of the canon optics.... I'm going to San Francisco this summer for a baroque trumpet workshop with the American Bach Soloists, and they're going to have me shoot promo/headshots for them... including video. I'll be taking Canon 5Dii's, some fast primes, a 24 ts-e ii, a ZE 100/2, and a few longer zooms for performance work maybe.

video?

I could go on and on... yet the total IQ is often lacking unless everything converges perfectly. I like the a900 better SOOC... MF? OF course IQ is better... but I can "studio" shoot musician headshots in high iso situations with a two light set-up with my current gear (wireless ttl) in 5 minutes with a couple of small flashes on stands with brolly boxes.. triggered wirelessly. In MY current situation, that's golden.

So... here I am after years of searching, still considering staying with my 5dii's and just increasing a small stable of really high-end glass (and better tripod/head, etc...), and (yes) waiting on the market to get better for MF. It really is a wonderful time to be a photographer. I'm able to do things with these cameras that are just insane. The MF cameras, as far as IQ, just take things further, but at a usability cost for me.

What's really funny, though, is exactly what everyone says above... referring to people as "more artistic" or "more technical". I read LLoyd and Mark and I see them as both just finding what works best for them.

In the end, it's a big game of compromises... but I think we're all winning by the great number of outstanding choices available.

2011... I just see it as another great year of hard choices brought about by the preponderance of great gear available to all of us. :)
 

mediumcool

Active member
It really is a wonderful time to be a photographer.
I pulled this quote out because it’s so easily forgotten. Thank you, Shelby.

Photography is in a Golden Age (I’ve been around — started in the early ’60s as an amateur and went pro in 1976).

Every digital camera is its own Polaroid! I used to bracket exposure, stop down for safety’s sake, etc., and now we can do so much in less time than was possible not too many years ago. Fastest film I ever shot for business was 400 neg, and I made sure I exposed it fully so that there would be detail.

And the crap everyone went through with scanning! I’ve come back to photography and am loving it!

There is too much kibitzing I think, but then there always was! :)
 

mediumcool

Active member
I
... Guy and I tested the S2 too, and we found focus accuracy suspect FOR SOME SUBJECTS.
I think that a lot of folks, including people like me who will never buy an S2, wonder at the price and shortcomings such as unreliable autofocus (BTW, my GF1 focuses more reliably than my Pentax SLR, and is cheaper).

I use Mamiya digital now, and used both 645s and RBs in the film days—some of the lenses were great, some were average, but they were never priced at Hasselblad, Leica or Rollei levels.

So I believe that Leica really has to put up or shut up, if they want to justify their pricing, and sell more kit, as the poms say.
 
Last edited:

David Schneider

New member
Point is I think and it's something that I've always fervently believed in, only you can make the decision based on how you use a camera. A landscapers take on AF is not going to count for wedding photography neither is a wedding photographers opinion of any use to a football photographer. This applies to ergonomics, ease of use, IQ, etc, etc. I would also add and I hope I don't get flamed for it, a pro has different requirements from even an extremely skilled amatuer, equipment has to work, first time every time for a pro otherwise they are in big trouble.
Pretty much my feeling when I read comments by reviewers or on forums.

I'm a portrait studio owner. I look at what, for example, a landscape photographer says (and certainly images displayed) with less interest than a photographer who makes a living photographing people. And during any year I will do a few weddings, will photography a number of sporting events, etc. I can't stand reviewers who don't say what kind of photography they do or show test images that are seem to have little to do with their review or are just out of context.

I am no expert on lens resolution vs the number of possible pixels. I do know that virtually every image I take of a woman I have to take all that detail and trash it as I soften skin. (Yes, I am finding mf helps speed up retouching and that helps balance time lost processing larger files than I generally need for a salable product.) But I truly appreciate the evolution of camera capabilities when I have to photograph a family of 14. Nice to have the right tool for the right job, something I got drilled into me by my father.

My first digital camera cost $12,500 in 1998 or 1999. It dropped $3,000 in price 45 days later. That taught me a lesson and now I just don't run out and purchase the latest and greatest (which often needs a firmware update or has files that can't be used by some program anyway).

What I have seen is that there is always some new camera that's coming out. Always. Always. And there's always someone reviewing the new gear, someone justifying the gear they just purchased, early bleeding edge consumers who will buy anything their peers do not yet own, and always someone who has old gear who can outperform what I can do even if I had the latest greatest most expensive camera and lenses.
 

Mike M

New member
I've never read a better summation, ever. A big fat dose of much needed clarity. Thanks for risking the heat I'm sure this post will trigger ... I am grateful no end.

-Marc
Thanks Marc

BTW - you've got some sweet gear...That's some serious firepower for a retired dude :D


I'm working at the moment in fashion with a big one. So, international campaigns, models Bundchen, Kurkova, Erin Wasson, Rafaeli, Andersen etc...really good stylists, celebs etc...

I'm not kidding to what I'm saying: I've never ever heard just once, somebody talking about gear, focusing issues (there are not), lightning issues (there are not either) and softwares and pp. Yes in pp they are talking about the artistic style they want to acheive, never about tech issues. It's been about 6 months now and never just once gear conversation, even backstage.
The lack of conversation is similar to my experience too. Congrats on the job...that's a great way to learn production.


So I ask this question: why is this gear endless topics all over the internet?
and more importantly: who is pushing them?
I never could make much sense out of it until reading parts of Das Kapital...My understanding is that a lot of it has nothing to do with photography and is actually "commodity fetishism." It's worth noting that much of recent explosion in photography enthusiasts coincides with easy access to credit which makes it possible for them to go into debt to acquire gear that previously only money-making professionals would consider owning.

Another by-product of late capitalism is the cultural impact of mass production and reproduction on the fine arts. For example, most people now cannot really tell the difference between art and advertising to the extent that fine art (in the classical sense) may not even exist. Back in the 90s, I was present when a sculptor complained about Herb Ritts photographs on display by saying "what the **** are those tabloid photographs doing in here?" Although I personally enjoy Herb Ritts work...I still think that sculptor summed up the situation pretty well lol
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Puttin' my money where my mouth is... shot this "freebie" in 5 minutes after a student concert here at LSU. One of my fellow trumpet players needed a "studio" headshot for something kind of last minute. We shot this in the concert hall after it had been cleared. I wish I'd played the lighting ratios a bit differently as far as the kicker (bit too hot) and I'll need to retouch some speculars on the nose (and been a bit more sensitive about the wardrobe... messy collar/tie), but such is life, lol! :D

Not the pinnacle of IQ... but got the job done for me in a very short amount of time. I can foresee when traveling for baroque trumpet jobs, in the future, setting up promo/headshot sessions in my concert destination towns... and this ease of set-up in combination with high IQ is great. I'd love to shoot this with MF, but I can't get the total utility (at present with my budget) out of what I could afford.

That's what is so great about being a photographer at the end of 2010! Choices and capability at multiple pricing levels!

 
G

GASC

Guest
Thanks Marc

BTW - you've got some sweet gear...That's some serious firepower for a retired dude :D




The lack of conversation is similar to my experience too. Congrats on the job...that's a great way to learn production.




I never could make much sense out of it until reading parts of Das Kapital...My understanding is that a lot of it has nothing to do with photography and is actually "commodity fetishism." It's worth noting that much of recent explosion in photography enthusiasts coincides with easy access to credit which makes it possible for them to go into debt to acquire gear that previously only money-making professionals would consider owning.

Another by-product of late capitalism is the cultural impact of mass production and reproduction on the fine arts. For example, most people now cannot really tell the difference between art and advertising to the extent that fine art (in the classical sense) may not even exist. Back in the 90s, I was present when a sculptor complained about Herb Ritts photographs on display by saying "what the **** are those tabloid photographs doing in here?" Although I personally enjoy Herb Ritts work...I still think that sculptor summed up the situation pretty well lol
Thanks for the kind words Mike. Yes it's a damn good learning school.

Well I join totaly your points on the fetishism and the cultural analysis you are making. This is now a mass culture with all the package that corresponds.

Maybe that is why we have often those threads on high-end gear. What happen is that people with reasonable skills do not understand that those are cameras for pros and aimed to make money, so they feel offended not having access to this kind of equipment and try to deny it in those 35mm vs MF.

But hey, there is a difference if you make movies between the 4000 euros 1DMK4 and the 2000euros 5DMK2. Even if the 5D is a FF. Basically in operation because I think we have reached a point where minimum quality is there whatever equipment. There is no surprise in this world. High-end quality costs time and money.
It's like filming with the 5d or filming with the Red or the Arri. Big difference. But if I'm doing a few movies from time to time for the fun or to upload pics in internet, do I need the Arri?

But talent is free and everybody can have it, even with a 50 $ Holga.
 

ggriswold

New member
Maybe part of the gear obsession is that when you buy a digital camera you are buying an imaging system. With film it was a body and lenses that you paired with the imaging system: your film of choice. Simple but true.
 

GMB

Active member
I cannot respond meaningfully to this post (the entire post, not just this snippet) other than to say "BRAVO".
+ 1!

I recently came across (and bought) a book of Todd Hido "A road dived" and then checked him out on the net. He shoots with a 4x5 film camera, often at night. The pictures of his latest book were shot through a car window, sometimes with snow flakes or raindrops on them. (Who on a gear forum discussing what is the sharpest lens would shoot with a view camera through a dirty windscreen :ROTFL:) But the results are magic -- high class art IMHO. I hope to see prints in a gallery later this week.

The other comment I want to make relates to an article in the recent edition of the "Economist" on how too much choice can kill the choice. Indeed, choosing one system inevitably means a decision against other system and there always is the angst that the other system might have been the better choice. (Even for the few for which money is no issue, a choice has been made as you wont carry 5 systems with you when going out to shoot.) I already noted that with my M outfit as I often have difficulty to decide which lens to take with me--I did not have that problem in the beginning when I started with the 35 and 90 mm. Interestingly, I made some of the best pictures this year on the few occasions that I went out with one lens only--no choices while shooting--and I now often go out with 2 lenses only and then look for subjects that fit the lenses.

My inability to choose--and my angst to say no to the things I do not choose--is also the reason why I have not moved into MFD although I was decided to do so at the beginning of the year. I now think it's time to apply the Nike slogan--Just do it!--and I am ready to take the plunge and go for the S2 and 3 lenses. I think the versatility and the relative ease of use will allow me to get the most (fun) out of it. May there are situations where a 65+ on an Arca Swiss would have been better:wtf:. Still better to use one system than no system at all.

Needless to add that I am not making my living shooting and do not have to please any paying clients. If I had to, I would probaly not even have enough cash to pay for my internet connection to surf on gear fora:LOL:-

Cheers and a belated Merry Christmas to all of you.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Maybe part of the gear obsession is that when you buy a digital camera you are buying an imaging system. With film it was a body and lenses that you paired with the imaging system: your film of choice. Simple but true.
I don't think I ever thought of film as being an imaging system. It's the capture medium with specific characteristics (DR , grain, spectral response, etc).

Raw workflow is closer to the film experience in that you disregard most of the cameras' built-in imaging processing. Then the body becomes more like what a film camera body was, although the 'film' is an embedded part of the body and has certain characteristics that only change by changing bodies.

There's no perfect analog.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Indeed, choosing one system inevitably means a decision against other system and there always is the angst that the other system might have been the better choice.
This is a matter of perception... and one born out of (IMHO) western, capitalistic thought. In attempting to not judge against those equipment choices that others have made, I truly feel that my choice is based out of what works for me at this moment... not what doesn't. Would I like "better"? Sure....

What is better? What will 2011 bring, gear-wise, that meets this?

In my life, angst over what could have been (and I have some non-photographic situations to which this applies in a pretty harrowing manner) has almost always lead to a crippling of my artistic output. Along these lines, although 2011 brings a multitude of choices, I no longer find it to be limiting... in that my images are being born from intent that drives what I shoot with, not from what my gear is capable of.

This is where, on one level, the whole MF/35mm "pay for high quality" ideal rings false to me. I can, indeed, readily see the difference between an H-something, or S-something, and my own 35mm gear. Indeed, I'd LOVE a MF camera and think I could make it sing. BUT, in this day and age, what we have at our disposal... even with the lowly 5dii... is all so capable of high quality that the bar now has little to do with gear and mp IF compared to what was acceptable even 5 years ago in professional circles. I know arri primes are better... I know HC glass is probably better.... but what does it get me for my output. That's the big question.

So, 2011, for me (and gear) is about making better images... my gear still has plenty of capacity for that. I actually bet that with nicer glass and a few other mods, my images will be better than ever this year... which will be a success IMO. I find that many of the images here that are oohhh'd anf ahhhh'd over and draw me in seem compelling due to such careful use of the capabilities of the cameras (bit depth, sharpness, etc...)... but if the same images are often not burned into my memory as memorable as the content of these images seems to be lacking.

THAT, of course, is a personal assessment... and nothing meant personal as I surely turn out my share of artistic failures and many here put out great stuff week after week.

I guess what I'm saying is that all this talk of backfocus, bit-depth, and drawing style has a place... but it largely has superseded the content of the images with which it is often associated.

To tie this back onto the original topic... I'd love to see some discussion as to how this great 2011 gear is going to help one see better, or capture image that otherwise would have been compromised with other equipment (whatever that means to you).
 

Valentin

New member
The problem is ..... $40K.

When you spend that kind of money, your expectations are much greater than when you spend $4k (and rightly so).

No system is perfect (as everybody knows; or should know). The question is what's acceptable to you.

If I would spend that kind of money in a system, I better have no doubts about that gear and unless I screw up big time, the results should be matching that price point.

I don't have any experience with the S2, but it seems that the AF problem could be resulted from the larger AF points (the area used for focusing is too big and can pick up something in the background). I really doubt that it can be fixed with firmware.

I recently started using MF again (with film for now) and at my first "real" shoot I did, I had a couple of instance where the AF picked up on the background ruining the shot. I had a couple other ones that were good, but it's something that I am learning to live with. I only spent $2k and I don't like it. Imagine if I spent $40k. :)
 

Dolce Moda

New member
All I can say is great photographs are less about the camera that takes the photo and more about everything else that goes into it.

Far greater photographs have been taken with less sophisticated cameras than are available today.

I am sure if Henri Cartier-Bresson were alive today he would tell you:

"IQ is a bourgeous concept"
 
Top