dan_south Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 There are two ways if looking at this. In normal highway driving, a race car driver can handle a Honda Civic better than the average driver. The driver's skills are the limiting factor in this scenario. However, if the race car driver took that Honda Civic to the Daytona 500, he's not going to win te race unless every other driver crashes into the wall. A Honda Civic cannot keep pace with a field of NASCAR race cars. The equipment is the limiting factor in this case. When the D3 came out Nikon promoted a photo of a dimly lit motorcycle race taken at ISO 6400. It was the dawn of the new age of high-ISO performance, and it was very impressive. Could they have taken the shot with a D2X? Yes and no. With the right high-speed flash rigging, they could have taken a comparable or even sharper photo with the older camera. The skill of the photographer would be the limiting factor in this case. But without adding flash the older camera could not have captured the image that the D3 capture, because gear does have limitations, and one cannot directly exceed those limitations regardless of skill level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 <p>You know, this statement from a Nikon tweeter, which Nikon itself now undoubtedly regrets*, really is not worth serious discussion as to its "point." C'mon. This is getting silly. Even sillier than the statement itself.</p> <p>Dan</p> <p>* The exception to the "Nikon regret" notion could only be based on the debatable idea that any publicity is good publicity.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 <p>OK so I have an old Zorki C with one scratched up lens thats so bad it creates a glow around every bright area in the image. I can use the lens for it's effect and create art like a holga user, thats wonderful. However I want to create a sharp image without all the glow, it just won't happen with that lens unless I want to stick too photographing a black dog in a coal shed. I could be clever and use the lens to it's advantage and say equipment doesn't matter or I could just buy another lens.<br> Sports photographers could go back to shooting with a Nikon F3 and trying to push B&W film to get the high ISOs that they may need for dimly lit events. They could all argue that equipment does not matter and take advantage of the gritty, grain high contrast look, most of them don't, most of them choose a D3s or a similarly specified Canon. I often wonder why that is the case, after all the equipment does not matter, a good photographer is not limited by their equipment.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 <p>First of all, photography is not a competition, so comparisons to auto racing are just plain ridiculous.<br /> <br />Second, the quote is not about taking every photo. The fact is that a photographer will find a way, a camera user will think it's the equipment.</p> <p>A good example is <a href="http://mirroreyes.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/phantompunch/">here. </a> This is generally considered one of the greatest boxing photos of all time. Leifer didn't have a camera that could focus and shoot as fast as anything people shoot with today, but he took a photo that is still better than anything taken with modern equipment. I shoot fights for publication. My first fights were shot with a very early dSLR, it focused slowly and had tons of noise at the ISO I had to shoot at. I got a magazine cover and a full page ad from fight photos with that camera. I could still get photos published with it if I had it today (I sold it because I couldn't read the menus on the back without glasses, a real problem in the middle of a fight) because I know how to take interesting photos, not because I have the right equipment. I can't get every shot, but no Nikon lens can do what I can do with my $99 pinhole camera either.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 <blockquote> <p>First of all, photography is not a competition</p> </blockquote> <p>Now he tells us!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johne37179 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 <p>Jeff: Thanks for the memories. I remember Neil when he was working for SI. We were both covering the Reno air races for different publications. I had been shooting aviation photos for a long time and it was Neil's first (and maybe last trip to the air races -- I never saw him there again). Most of the regulars had medium telephotos - the short lenses couldn't capture the detail and the really long lenses could never be put on a plane in time to take the picture. I remember being out on one of the pylons shooting planes as they came round the pylon. Neil was in a position no one else had thought of looking back at a much more encompassing shot. I'd have to go look to see if his shots from those races (I think in 1970) were ever published. Neil simply had a different eye than the rest of us -- which is probably what made him so good.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zack_zoll Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 <p>Jeff: if you fancy yourself an artist, photography is absolutely a competition. You're competing against yourself and every other photographer that ever existed to create memorable images. But if you don't consider yourself an artist, then no - photography isn't a competition. Unless you want to sell stuff that is.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_ferling Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 <p>The best camera and lens to use is the one you have in your hand when the moment strikes. Camera's are dumb recording tools, some better than others, but only record the image the photographer has already formed in his mind.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_young3 Posted October 1, 2011 Share Posted October 1, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The best camera and lens to use is the one you have in your hand when the moment strikes. Camera's are dumb recording tools, some better than others, but only record the image the photographer has already formed in his mind.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly. And the mind-image he forms matches the gear he holds. Otherwise, he is already doomed to fail. The pucker-lips pinhole worked because the photographer's intention took his gear into account.</p> <p>G.Dan and others, I hardly see the point in lecturing down at anyone here on these simplistic terms. It's clear to me that everyone responding understands why they might endure the hardships of humping 30 lbs of glass and the heavy tripod around rather than simply wave the wife's A570 at ISO 6400 and call it done.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve m smith Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 <blockquote> <p>the studio musician is only as good as the microphone<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>As far as music is concerned, every electric guitarist who uses an amplifier, uses one which is very much technically inferior to what is possible. A guitar through a good (or even an average) hi-fi amplifier sounds terrible.<br /> Because the early amplifiers were simple devices with poor frequency range, high distortion and under powered power supplies which compress the sound, this became the standard rock and roll guitar sound. If 1940s amplifier and speaker technology was equal to what we have now, guitar bands would sound very different.</p> <p>Also many studios get great sounds using old and weird microphones which might not be considered to have any inherent 'good' qualities.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_young3 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 <p>Today, we can apply very sophisticated post processing to produce an almost unlimited range of sounds (or images). We have long been able to clip and distort audio in realtime very inexpensively. It already seems quaint to discard fidelity at the capture end. The photographic equivalent is to select an antique-look processed JPG, rather than RAW.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 It's a real shame that Robert Frank guy used a camera and lens that produced photos that weren't very sharp and contrasty. He could have been somebody if he only had better gear. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 <p>So can anyone tell me how to get a sharp image with no glow from the messed up Industar22 on my Zorki C. SUre the glow is fun but not what I want most of the time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_young3 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 <p>Sure. Get a new lens; you're being held back by your equipment (since it no longer matches your artistic intent). Other possible remedies are to paint the crack area black, to prevent internal flare in that element. Or, a light coat of petroleum jelly over the entire surface of the lens can even out the performance, giving yet another look and interpretation of your surroundings.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel_rafferty Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 <blockquote> <p>The best camera and lens to use is the one you have in your hand when the moment strikes. Camera's are dumb recording tools, some better than others, but only record the image the photographer has already formed in his mind.</p> </blockquote> <p>So if you're a wildlife photographer and you spot a tiny little hummingbird and the lens you happen to have in your hand is an 8mm fisheye, that's the best lens to use? I don't think so.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_young3 Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 <blockquote> <p>So if you're a wildlife photographer and you spot a tiny little hummingbird and the lens you happen to have in your hand is an 8mm fisheye, that's the best lens to use? I don't think so.</p> </blockquote> <p>Assuming that it's on your camera that moment, not just simply in your hand, yes. Duh. For most of us, the camera in hand is the only camera that can shoot <em>this</em> moment. If you want to change the lens, camera, or something else, you'll have to wait for the <em>next</em> moment.</p> <p>What did you not like about the 8mm lens? Is that not an example of being limited by your gear?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 <blockquote> <p>He (Robert Frank) could have been somebody if he only had better gear.</p> </blockquote> <p>One can only imagine how many hummingbird shots he missed because of his equipment.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 <p>I think that the issue is being missed here. The supposed point wasn't about having the "right" gear, it was about have some particular brand of gear. </p> <p>If you need a 400mm lens to make a shot that requires a 400mm lens, then you won't be able to make <em>that</em> shot without the 400mm lens. Duh. (Though many fine photographers would, indeed, find another way to photograph that subject with whatever lens they happened to have. I can't find it right now, but I recall a few months ago seeing some truly brilliant photographs of seagulls made with an ultra wide lens from very close distances.)</p> <p>But I'm hard pressed to imagine a photographic situation in which a Nikon would get the shot but a Canon would "limit" the photographer - or vice versa. That is the implication of the silly Nikon tweet that everyone was noticing. Even beyond that, and let's use Canon as an example, many people far overestimate the extent to which the choice of some lens over some other similar lens might alter or enhance a photograph. To be quite honest, I'll bet that if you found 1000 photographs made by some level of photographer using, say, the Canon 50mm f/1.2 L prime, 1000 photographs made by equivalent level of photographers using the EF 50mm f/1.4, and 1000 photographs made by equally skillful photographers using the 50mm f/1.8... and then you made 3000 12" x 18" prints and started trying to sort them into piles based on what lens you thought was used... you would fail utterly.</p> <p>For reasons that we could discuss at great length, photography seems to attract an inordinate number of people who are more intrigued and/or obsessed by the gear than by the product of using that gear. Many find it much easier to to focus on choices about equipment... but quite difficult to apply the same focus to issues of what makes a good photograph... and even less, in some cases, to apply themselves with the same dedication to the work of developing the skills of making effective and compelling photographs.</p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennisgg Posted October 2, 2011 Author Share Posted October 2, 2011 <blockquote> <p>"So if you're a wildlife photographer and you spot a tiny little hummingbird and the lens you happen to have in your hand is an 8mm fisheye, that's the best lens to use? I don't think so."</p> </blockquote> <p>Funny, when I read this the first thing that came to my mind is I have seen people with hummingbirds that will land on your hand. A fisheye close up could make for a very interesting hummingbird photo. Not that I don't love a good hummingbird photo (I do!), but where is the artistry in that? It is the beauty of the hummingbird and the quality of the photo, art yes, worthy of a gallery? yes, but may not necessarily be artistic. It more has to do with being at the right place at the right time, composing it and shooting at the right moment. The beauty of the bird is where most of the art comes from. I know it needs to have great lighting, tack sharp focus on the eyes, etc. Having the vision to see the possibility of the photo in fisheye if that is what the opportunity hands you - that is artistic vision.<br> It is funny that Dan made the comment too about seagulls with an ultra wide close up. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathangardner Posted October 2, 2011 Share Posted October 2, 2011 Sooo, does that mean I should wait for the 5D mk III? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zack_zoll Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 <blockquote><a name="00ZPc0"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1787762">Steve Smith</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 02, 2011; 08:39 a.m.</blockquote> <blockquote><em>the studio musician is only as good as the microphone</em><br /><br /> As far as music is concerned, every electric guitarist who uses an amplifier, uses one which is very much technically inferior to what is possible. A guitar through a good (or even an average) hi-fi amplifier sounds terrible.<br /> [...] Also many studios get great sounds using old and weird microphones which might not be considered to have any inherent 'good' qualities.</blockquote> <p>Agreed. See my previous comment about Josh Homme and the crazy stuff he did with Gorilla amplifiers and playing through quartz radios.</p> <p>However. That only covers the 'creative' aspects. If you take away Homme's vocal compressor and reverb and give him a PC mic, he'll sound similar, because he's not that great of a singer, and his gear isn't the main limitation. If you record Pavarotti this way, he'll still sound amazing because he's an amazing singer. He'll just be an amazing singer on a terrible recording. If you record David Bowie this way, the results will be awful. Bowie is not a technically good singer, and has relied on compression, reverb, and doubled-tracks - especially in his older age - to provide some punch for vocal lines that are otherwise very thin, especially in the higher registers. Same goes for Chris Cornell.</p> <p>Bowie and Cornell are easily my two favourite rock singers, but the fact is that they are only as good as their equipment lets them be. On the track <em>Heroes</em>, Bowie actually used three mics positioned further and further from him, which added reverb to the louder and higher vocal parts. Each one had the gain turned up higher than the last, and when the signal (his voice) hit a certain level, the mic switched off and the next one came on.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel_rafferty Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 <p>No one disputes the fact that a photographer with skill and vision can produce great art with anything. The point so many people seem to miss (or ignore) is that the <em>intent </em>must be taken into account. The analogies about race cars, music equipment and fisheye lenses are all just trying to illustrate the fact that if you have a <em>specific task </em>in mind, there are some tools that can handle it and some that just can't, no matter how artistic the result. Not all photography is art for art's sake. Some photographers have specific things they need to accomplish, and they need the right tools for the job.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Some photographers have specific things they need to accomplish, and they need the right tools for the job.</p> </blockquote> <p>That has nothing to do with the Nikon post. That's not what they were trying to say in their advertising message, which is the topic of this thread from what I can tell.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel_rafferty Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 <blockquote> <p>Some photographers have specific things they need to accomplish, and they need the right tools for the job.</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>That has nothing to do with the Nikon post. That's not what they were trying to say in their advertising message, which is the topic of this thread from what I can tell.</p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry if I misread, but it seemed to me that that was what the thread had devolved into.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_young3 Posted October 5, 2011 Share Posted October 5, 2011 <p>Having belatedly just now looked at the FB link, it is nothing more than yet another idle, meaningless troll posing as a poll. The statement as posted here in the OP is so generic as to be meaningless. Setting aside artistic intent, how many would seriously argue that more dynamic range and more resolvable detail would not be useful or meaningful? Thankfully, we don't have to visit this question. The "poll" (rhymes with "troll") very narrowly asked how many used Nikkor glass on their Nikon bodies.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now