All the cameras are better than you are...

<p>A good post:<br>

<a href="http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html">Kirk Tuck: All the cameras are better than you are...</a></p>

 

<p>I can't say I agree with his blog post. Some future latest/greatest camera might have features I'm never likely to utilize, such as improved 64 point servo AF with 32 cross points and a frame rate of 20 fps continuously. That would be pretty snazzy, but I'm not a sports photographer. I'd have no interest in it. But I do shoot a lot of candid photos in the dark, where it's not feasible to use a flash (and I'm NOT being lazy). If that camera will give me a clean ISO 102,400, then I want it. I might not use the ISO 102,400 often, but I might regularly use 25,600 and even lift the shadows quite a lot.</p>

<p>This is not even mentioning that sometimes I pass up a photographic opportunity because it's not even an opportunity -- because no modern camera would be capable of capturing the image. That's frustrating. I can assure you that as cameras get more and more sensitive, I will be photographing more and more things.</p>

<p>Not every photographer has cutting edge needs. In fact most people probably don't. Most people just shoot snapshots for posting to the web. But it would be a pity if the camera manufacturers proclaimed "mission accomplished" and went to the pub to celebrate the end of their need to push forward with new innovations. There will always be photographers (quite a few of them) who will exploit those innovations to expand their work into new territory.</p>

<p>To me, a camera is a tool. When you need a monkey wrench, just how snazzy and up-to-the-minute does it need to be? Yes, some photogs will take the new stuff over the moon but most folks just need a pretty good camera. It seems to me that too many people get their underwear in a twist because Mr. Jones has a camera with one more alleged MP than they do. Or because they can't leave the house without Designer Name Brands plastered on their tutus or hanging around their necks.</p>

<p>I compare his thoughts to those who drive cars. Almost as old as photography and cameras, the internal combustion engine car evolves and becomes more performing with time. To some it is still wanting, to others it is perfect and more than perfect for their needs. If my only interest was to drive between different burgs within my city I would not need a very elaborate machine. Almost any car would do the trick and be better than I would need. If I was a Rallyist or someone living in extreme weather I would need a car that would cope with that and give me specific features, some of which can be still perfected.</p>

<p>The article should be read in its probable context. It is likely written for anyone who uses a camera, most of whom, even serious hobbyists, probably have one for casual use and do not need every quality that an advanced camera can yield. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The post is interesting, all right. But Gary has it pegged; a cameral is nothing but an instrumentality of the photographer who uses it. With all due respect to Mr. Tuck, the fact that a camera's capabilities may exceed the abilities of some photographers doesn't establish his conclusion, which is a sweeping generalization.</p>

<p>It's not the wand, but the magician who waves it.</p>

<p>Although he wanders a bit, I agree with the spirit of the article. I would hasten to add "all lenses are better than...." another area of perverse over emphasis for many hobbyist photographers.</p>

<p>Of course "many" photographers" aren't "every" photographer. And although he writes, in a rather sarcastic voice, about some that do try to maximize image quality, I would predict many of his regular readership, as well as quite a few of the membership here, would fall into that "one reader out of a hundred" category.</p>

<p>Frankly, I'm a bit surprised by the rant-ish tone. This should be nothing new to a photographer of his tenure. The perils of equipment-centric thinking, well oiled by professional camera marketing machinery, was well expressed throughout the years by Herbert Keppler, Ansel Adams and others. It's just now we have digital specific components added to the mix. It's the same old whine...in a brand new bottle.</p>

<p>Our expectations change based on the age we live in and more crucially what we can achieve. There is only a finite amount that I could personally spend on equipment. This made me look at ancient equipment. I started to look at the potential of what old technology could provide to suit my budget. Then again, each of your circumstances are very different. I rather liked the blog.</p>

My eye, imagination, ability to compose, and post-process is better than any camera's.

<p>The part that I think is most important is Tuck's assertion that all decent modern cameras produce files that are equal UNLESS you are making huge prints. This I believe. The obsession with the mystical Eye-Cue is a lot of what drives the incessant system switches and 'upgrades'.</p>

<p>Good article, pretty accurate!</p>

<p>Yes, Kirk is right in that when I am in studio, I am at optimum iso, custom color balanced, with the exposure nailed and usually a controlled, narrower dynamic range fitting my sensor's capabilities. However, when I head out the door, my vision often exceeds the camera's limited dynamic range and iso capabilities. That's when the lights come out and I don't accept that "NY lighting." Of course they also come out whenever the light needs to be tweaked to my vision. Now with 1/13,500 flash duration, 6 pops per second, flat line white balance, total control from camera, my lights come closer to exceeding my needs than my camera. I agree with Brad. Set a camera on a tripod, press the timer button and it will make a sharp, well exposed image. No imagination, no creativity, no truly good light. Kinda what most photographers barely improve upon. The most negative comment I could give to a photographer is their image is sharp and well exposed. The mindless camera can produce a sharp image of a fuzzy idea. (Ansel) Was reading a photo book yesterday, with many photos taken with a d2x. Looked good to me. </p>

<p>No respect for the blog from this quarter.</p>

<p>Reminds a little of the old Family Circus (e.g., <a href="http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/11/11/family-circus_footsteps_wide-5728b2e29f79dad321bd09d0c1acaa867e16052c-s6-c30.jpg">link</a>) - whenever the cartoonist couldn't think of anything for this week, he'd do the dotted line showing where the kid wandered when on an errand...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I do shoot a lot of candid photos in the dark, where it's not feasible to use a flash (and I'm NOT being lazy). If that camera will give me a clean ISO 102,400, then I want it. I might not use the ISO 102,400 often, but I might regularly use 25,600 and even lift the shadows quite a lot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An example would help. I can understand that you would benefit from less noise at high ISO, but will your photos really get better? Or would they just look better to people that obsess about technical details over content? I'd really like to see a good photo whose valuable content was ruined just by noise.</p>

<p>Meh... I'll take advancement over stagnation.</p>

<p>The idea that somehow all this technological advancement results in better photos, except technically in some situations, is really nonsense. It's not just that the article is right about the typical hobbyist, it's that it's true in the bigger scheme, because, as Brad points out, there are things that make far more difference.</p>

<p><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/983741/original.jpg">This</a> may be the greatest and most iconic sports image of all time. Some people prefer <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/imageBank/m/Muhammad%20Ali%20vs.%20Sonny%20Liston.jpg">this one </a>by the same photographer. Both were taken with a camera that did not have autofocus and could shoot three frames a minute with enough work. The reason these are so much better known than anything taken with a 10fps 64-point AF camera is that the photographer could see and think better than anyone since. No camera makes up for the inability to see things the way he did.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'd really like to see a good photo whose valuable content was ruined just by noise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It would also be interesting to see what someone can see when that high ISO is required. I shoot at 6400 at times, and it's often too dark to see and too dark to focus, manually or with AF. Maybe for a static security camera, that's where I see a good application.</p>

<p>Let me also add that while the title of the post is making a very decisive statement, the content is tempered in several places by observations such as:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For every use other than critical work at huge sizes<br /> ...<br /> The only group not included here is fine art photographers<br /> ...<br /> Now, that doesn't apply to all of you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The author is well aware that there are exceptions. We can criticize the style and some of the statements, but the general idea is solid.</p>

<p>The ending covers some exceptions too:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are outliers. There really are people who love to shoot sports. There really are people who want to shoot in super low light just to say they could. And there are people who want to carry around the latest big camera because it's generally cheaper than buying a really cool car and more portable too.<br>

But I am not one of them and I'm pretty happy with what we've got now.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have about twenty framed large prints that I have taken over the past twenty years hanging in my home.. The oldest was taken in 1994 with a Bronica on Red Square in Moscow in favorable light and is undistinguishable from my digital prints. Subsequently, I have used several eos film bodies, a 6MP Canon D60, a 10 MP XTI, a 12MP 5D, a 7D, a 70D, and a Sony 16MP NEX 5N. I defy anyone to identify which camera took which picture displayed in my home. The D60 produced three ribbon winners including one second place in an art show to the disdain of many of the real artists. I also photograph regional swim meets with the 7D and 70D that sometimes call for ISO 3200 and apertures of 2.8 and 3.2 in order to get shutter speeds that are acceptable. I have to watch dof carefully. A better ISO 6400 would help. However LR takes care of the noise pretty well. I appreciate the advances in technology over the past twenty years. Digital processing and advances in photoshop and in the last few years and advances in Lightroom have made my processing much more efficient and have saved untold hours of my time. Remember I had my own dark room. I have a 70-200 2.8L that is sixteen years old. I use it for swim meets as it fulfills requirements for prints and the web. I am also enthralled with technology as that was my profession for forty years so I frankly admit I like studying and getting excited over new products. So I think these last 20 years have been damn interesting in my small world of photography. I have no complaints although having done weddings in the late nineties with much less capable gear I realize that good pictures and not sophisticated gear make happy brides. All technology reaches the upper percentiles of advancement and improvements become harder, more expensive, and produce smaller changes as they enter the mature stages of their development, i.e, increase in MPs., as an example. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>It would also be interesting to see what someone can see when that high ISO is required. I shoot at 6400 at times, and it's often too dark to see and too dark to focus, manually or with AF. Maybe for a static security camera, that's where I see a good application.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is why I asked for an example. I normally don't need more than ISO 1600. Sure, I found myself in situations where I had to push ISO to 25600, but it wasn't the noise that made my results insignificant - it's the fact that I did not catch some important moment anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>An example would help. I can understand that you would benefit from less noise at high ISO, but will your photos really get better?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure, that's fair. OK, using real numbers, here's an example: We're water people where I live. It's really a cool thing when the people come out at night and hang out on the Yorktown waterfront, with the lighted bridge and possibly moonlight in the background, with lovely ripples in the water and small waves splashing up on the beach. So let's say I want to photograph a couple gazing out over the romantic water scene. I'd like to use maybe f/11 for enough depth of field to get everything reasonably in focus from, say, 10 ft to infinity. And then the light chop on the water (which has a gorgeous texture) is moving rather rapidly. So let's say I'd want maybe 1/60 sec to freeze these motions. But damn, there's not enough light for that, even if I accept it's going to be a pretty low-key shot! I'd need something like ISO 102,400, even lifting the shadows. Hmmmm... So do I nuke it with a flash? (Am I lazy, according to this guy, because I want to use natural light?)</p>

<p>So this is when I start making compromises. Maybe I can make do with f/8. Maybe I can drop back to 1/15 s and get "some" of the texture of the choppy water reflecting in the bridge lights. But to do that, I still need something like ISO 12,800. Well, YOU might have that capability on your camera, but I don't (yet). So I take my best shot at ISO 3200, f/8, 1/4s, and the ripples are muddy and uninteresting. And even if I did have a camera that could do a pretty clean ISO 12,800, that would still not give me the aperture and speed I'd really wanted in the first place.</p>

<p>I of course realize ISO 102,400 is now possible, so I could take the above shot, with the right camera, at the desired settings. But how clean would that 102,400 be? Would there be room for improvement? Sure. So I hope the manufacturers don't start twiddling their thumbs. </p>

<p>Cameras can always be made better. Maybe someday I'll be able to take a sharp photo of a kid running along the beach at night, splashing water, with the in-reasonable-focus bridge lights in the background. But that will take more than ISO 102,400. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>If the gist of the article is meant to say "cameras are better than they need to be", then we might apply a similar argument to any number of evolving technologies and quickly see the argument fall apart, unless your needs never go beyond existing camera limitations. </p>

<p> </p>

If only Robert Frank's "The Americans" photos were made with better cameras/lenses/emulsions. He

could have gone far if his photographs were rendered sharper and with better contrast.

 

Personally, I prefer to make photographs rather than blame my tools. But then I have little interest in making picture-perfect Kodak Moment photos.

<p>I have boxes of film from 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5 cameras. I love the prints that I have made from scanned 6x7 and 4x5, but prints from 35mm are usually disappointing. </p>

<p>I shot with a D700 for a couple of years. It wasn't a bad camera. It was a lot better than my D70. But when I bought a 5D Mark II, the output was much more impressive. I didn't suddenly wake up with new skills when I bought the Canon. It simply did a better job than the Nikon did for my kind of shooting. </p>

<p>Gear does a difference. Obviously, skills, taste, subjects, and light are all critical factors in the making of any image, but a good lens and a good sensor help maximize the quality of what we capture.</p>

<p>I'll understand if you don't agree with me. It's okay. Lots of people don't agree. Many of those people use the 'cameras' that are built into their mobile telephones. Every day, I see their soft, grainy, noisy, poorly-focused photos and videos on social media and wonder why most of my friends have elected to choose convenience over quality - and whether they're going to regret that choice one day when they look back at their fuzzy snapshots.</p>

Quoting from Mr. Tuck's article...

<blockquote>

 

What I am essentially trying to say here is that all of the cameras I've come across in the last two years, from the Nikon D800 to the Olympus EP-5 to the Fuji EX2 to the Sony Nex-6 and Nex-7 and, yes, even the Pentax K-01, can deliver results that are nearly always better than the technique and capabilities of the person holding them.

</blockquote>

Just wished he'ld got around to defining what better is and distinguish it from improved camera technology over how that makes one photographer better in their technique and capabilities over another's.

 

Is there some kind of holy grail a photographer is suppose to achieve in technique and capabilities that shows up in an image that is expected to rise above the capabilities of the hardware?

 

I still use a 6MP camera I bought for under $600 7 years ago and am continuously giddy over what I can create handheld and in low light and in post over what I was stuck with shooting 35mm film and a Yashica SLR and 50mm prime.

<p>Tim, I think Tucker's article ignores a host of variables that constitutes perception including how the eye sees physiologically, the psychology of visual perception, and ones intended result when acquiring an image. This video describes but a small fraction of those variables:<br>

<a href="

- what is the resolution of the eye </p>