All the cameras are better than you are...

sarah_fox · March 15, 2014

And some people cannot imagine anything more.

Brad_ · March 15, 2014

Ouch, rush me to the burn unit.

Still, a cute bit of morning snark...

dhbebb · March 15, 2014

Footnote to the "limitations of cameras" debate - this: http://www.gettyimagesgallery.com/picture-library/image.aspx?id=5025 is a classic image by Bert Hardy, the great British photojournalist. This pic is from a feature shot for the "Picture Post" mag using a box camera to "prove" that "it's the photographer, not the camera that counts".

BH was highly skilled and knew that the lens of his box camera was fixed at a focus of 12 to 15 feet, so placed his subject at this distance, and that in bright sunshine he would get a good exposure at the fixed setting of around 1/25 @ f11 even with a light yellow filter. Equipment with extreme limitations, photographer with the skill to work effectively within these.

Norma Desmond · March 15, 2014

Rarely is an issue fully one-sided and rarely does a good craftsman or artist not have different experiences and a variety of feelings and opinions about certain subjects.

This seems to be the case with Bert Hardy, who did express some disappointments with his equipment at least on some occasions. Obviously there were also times when he didn't complain and made the best of what he had.

From The Life and Times of Bert Hardy, by Graham Harrison:

During the Second World War British army photographers were issued with the Zeiss Super Ikonta, a heavy folding camera with a non-interchangable f2.8 lens.

Made in Germany, the Super Ikonta produced eleven pictures on a roll of 120 film, its top speed was only 1/250 of a second, and winding the film between frames took two to three seconds. Not allowed to use his own cameras, Hardy complained the Ikonta was slow, awkward and annoying.

The British Army, it seemed, was issuing its photographers with German equipment inappropriate for war photography.

</blockquote>

My own experience tells me that passion for picture-making and passion for better equipment or for accomplishing things that can't be done given the limitations of some equipment are not mutually exclusive.

A lot of passion revolves around a sense of longing and incompletion. Desire is a strong and motivating passion and is usually about wanting to achieve something not yet achieved and even felt to be unachievable or unreachable. It is not unusual for artists to long for things and even some things they know they can or will never have.

Ansel Adams is not my favorite photographer by a long shot, but he said something worth recounting and considering here relative to equipment and newer technology.

"I eagerly await new concepts and processes. I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them." —Ansel Adams

</blockquote>

Allen Herbert · March 15, 2014

The bottom line to all this rhetoric is that a creative person will be creative regardless of the era they have lived in or the technology available at the time.

Technology might allow them to explore new opportunities but with or without it they will be creative.

You only have to understand the history of Art or Photography to understand that.

Allen Herbert · March 15, 2014

And they will not be a lesser creative person because they are limited by technology... they will always find away to express themselves regardless of any technology.

Landrum Kelly · March 15, 2014

Even so, Allen, sometimes when one realizes that a shot could have been better with better technology, one might be impelled by a desire to get that better shot.

Not all of us who try a lot of different cameras and lenses sit around and fondle our gear. Sometimes we simply want a better picture. Although that does not mean that we are necessarily going to be more creative with a new body or lens, it does mean that technological issues are not strictly factorable from aspirations to produce something worthy or memorable--or simply something that gives us meaning or gives us the means to better realize our own creative vision.

In my own case, my increasing passion for low-light photography has impelled me to buy gear that favors low-light photography. I cannot speak for anyone else.

Kirk Tuck says, "There really are people who want to shoot in super low light just to say they could."

Perhaps, but I suspect that there are many more of us who want to shoot in super low light for many better reasons. I loved Olympus, but I knew when Olympus went the Four-Thirds route that I would have to change brands to get the pictures that I wanted. Micro Four-Thirds has, however, sufficiently closed the gap that I would today have to give it a second look--and I have, and I am impressed, but not enough to change brands again or to add another specialty camera to what I have.

My first Canon EOS body was the 5D. I was impressed with it. I was even more impressed by the 5D II, etc. I have no apologies to make for upgrading. I am still sorry that I had to part with all of my Canon gear when I was fired for insubordination back in the fall of 2011, but not only would I still protest administrative pressures to pass students who flunked and never came to class, I would also still buy the gear I have subsequently bought, with the exception of my failed foray into MF film photography. (Does anyone want some decent Hasselblad and Bronica gear--cheap?)

--Lannie

MichaelChang · March 15, 2014

No one seems to question the purchase of high-powered computers to accomplish basic tasks, so why is it anyone's business what cameras others own or use?

laur1 · March 16, 2014

In my own case, my increasing passion for low-light photography has impelled me to buy gear that favors low-light photography. I cannot speak for anyone else.

</blockquote>

I fully sympathize with that, but I read Kirk's post to refer to the moment after such technology has become widely available.

Look at the cameras he's mentioning (my emphasis below):

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>

All of those cameras would perform great in low light. He is talking about people that are not even happy with the capabilities of these cameras - not "low light" needs but "super low light" needs. And I sympathize with that - I don't go over ISO 1600 on my MFT cameras unless I want to show what they can do at those settings - I have no reason.

cyanatic · March 16, 2014

The article has both elements that I agree with, and intentionally polarizing elements that have succeeded in generating a lot of discussion and argument in this thread.

No one has to apologize or justify why they may desire a camera that gives them a capability, or an enhanced capability, that their existing camera does not have. My desires (in regard to the desired results I want a given photograph to achieve in certain situations) are not much different than Sarah's. I do a lot of documentary and performance photography in low light situations. At a particular festival, I do a lot of photographing from a balcony and utilize a telephoto lens that gives me f5.6 at its furthest reach. To freeze dance movements I need shutter speeds anywhere from 1/125 to 1/250 depending the the speed of the dancer's movements. For a few years I used a Pentax K10D which tops out at ISO 1600. I can live with, and appreciate, a certain amount of noise/grain. But when pushed too far, or when pushing the shadows in LR, the grid pattern would show up in the shadows. That was not acceptable to me. Since I'm already invested in a Pentax system, I purchased a K5 about a year and a half ago. Now I can use higher ISO with better resolution/less noise. Why on earth would I have wanted to compensate or compromise with the K10D? I don't want to lug around a tripod, off camera lighting (bounce off a flash at most performances and see how quickly you are escorted to the nearest exit), or mess around with selective noise reduction in post. I don't need anyone's approval or feel the need to "prove myself" by forcing myself to use a camera with a lower ISO range. One might just as well preface such nonsense with the words "Real men use X!". Just how far does one take that argument? If one is a "real" photographer, they'll figure out a way to set up a tripod with a cherrywood field camera and still "get the shot". Just so much photographic-macho bovine manure as far as I'm concerned.

As for natural light, or sneering remarks about "New York lighting" -- same thing applies. I like natural lighting, I want natural lighting, and if someone thinks less of me as a photographer for that, so what?. I'm not photographing to please them. If and when I want to take the kind of photographs that I feel are suitable for artificial lighting, then I will do so. Real men (and women) are not afraid of natural light or noise. Right, Sarah? ;-)

Michael Chang: No one seems to question the purchase of high-powered computers to accomplish basic tasks, so why is it anyone's business what cameras others own or use?

</blockquote>

Real computer users know how to work within the 256k limitations of an Apple IIc, Michael.

laur1 · March 16, 2014

For a few years I used a Pentax K10D which tops out at ISO 1600. I can live with, and appreciate, a certain amount of noise/grain. But when pushed too far, or when pushing the shadows in LR, the grid pattern would show up in the shadows. That was not acceptable to me. Since I'm already invested in a Pentax system, I purchased a K5 about a year and a half ago. Now I can use higher ISO with better resolution/less noise. Why on earth would I have wanted to compensate or compromise with the K10D?

</blockquote>

What exactly in that blog post encourages you to have kept using your K10D? Have you seen the comment I made just before yours? He is talking about post K-5 technology and about performance being good enough! He is talking about people that upgrade each year and still are not happy:

Wouldn't it be cool if we collectively decided that everything we have is already good enough for what we want it for and we all stopped buying cameras for a year?

</blockquote>

Sounds like your cameras have been purchased several years apart, so why would you think he is talking about your purchases needing justification?

Also, later, he says:

If you shoot at ISO 100, 200, 400 or even 800 just about any interchangeable camera on the market will do a really good job making images.

</blockquote>

Your K10D and Sarah's 5D are no longer on the market. They may be on the used market still, but that's not the market he's talking about.

This is hilarious. It also reminds me of the French saying: <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/qui%20s'excuse%20s'accuse">Qui s'excuse, s'accuse</a>. Some people seem to take this post very personally.

cyanatic · March 16, 2014

In my experience, women named Mindy tend to be a touch zaftig and possessed of dark hair and sultry eyes.

Landrum Kelly · March 17, 2014

Sure, ISO 800 ought to be enough for anybody,

and "640k ought to be enough for anybody."

(Kirk Tuck is a first-class reactionary.)

A Model T ought to be enough for anybody. I mean, if you want basic transportation, it will get you were you want to go.

I say, a mule-driven wagon ought to be enough for anybody. A pinhole camera ought to be enough for anybody.

Bring back the old ice boxes and ice houses. Who needs a refrigerator?

I grew up down South and in Akron, Ohio. The earliest South I knew was a South mostly without air conditioning. We made it without AC. So can you.

Therefore, the South without air conditioning ought to be good enough for EVERYBODY!

So there.

The logic of Kirk Tuck's argument is overwhelming.

--Lannie

unangelino · March 17, 2014

I fully sympathize with that, but I read Kirk's post to refer to the moment after such technology has become widely available.

</blockquote>

That's really the essence of the post's failing. His is a simple and arbitrary rhetoric. His point is that now gear is good enough, but that argument could be made (or could have been made) anytime else along the way. But, in the end, people will want and most surely continue to get better and better gear as time goes by. As long as I'm composing the shot, I'll always be better than my camera.

The only part of his post I found truly though provoking (because I don't know if he's correct but I agree that he could be) is his assertion that better high iso performance has led to the misuse of natural light when some kind of flash was needed. That's an interesting assertion that would have been far more compelling if he had some examples.

laur1 · March 17, 2014

His point is that now gear is good enough, but that argument could be made (or could have been made) anytime else along the way.

</blockquote>

Not really, because digital sensor technology was visibly improving year after year and that happened right until the last 2-3 years. Since the Pentax K-5, there has been no significant improvement in sensor performance for APS-C. And that performance is very good. That same technology has eventually reached FF in the D800 and MFT in the E-M5. Today, if you look at dpreview's sample shots and compare images across all systems at whatever ISO you care about, you'll find minimal differences between them. It is easier to make the argument today than it was in the past.

I still have the Pentax K10D that Steve mentioned - it is obvious after comparing it with other cameras from that era, that its sensor was not state of the art at higher ISO settings. It was obvious that a better one could have been built in its time, even with no technological advances, just by using the best technology of the day. Steve's already old K5, however, is still state of the art today - there is no point for him to upgrade. Sure, there might be other aspects he might want, like better AF, but these kinds of improvements are becoming much less important than those we were trying to obtain 5 years ago.

And for film, I would argue that HCB already made this argument over 50 years ago. With digital it can be made little more than a decade after the first consumer DSLR was produced - not that bad.

laur1 · March 17, 2014

Sure, ISO 800 ought to be enough for anybody

...

The logic of Kirk Tuck's argument is overwhelming.

</blockquote>

It certainly looks like it overwhelmed you. Except he never stated that "ISO 800 ought to be enough for anybody". His statement was simply that you cannot see much difference between modern cameras when used up to ISO 800. That doesn't imply you should not use higher ISOs - at most it implies that he may not like your results. You are shooting down your own strawman argument.

unangelino · March 17, 2014

Not really, because digital sensor technology was visibly improving year after year and that happened right until the last 2-3 years. Since the Pentax K-5, there has been no significant improvement in sensor performance for APS-C.

</blockquote>

Assuming you're correct, and I think this is still quite arguable, would you be willing to predict that one or two years from now we won't see visible sensor improvements?

Progress is always relative. This particular blogger thinks gear has now become good enough. By any measure, others will differ.

Landrum Kelly · March 17, 2014

It certainly looks like it [his logic] overwhelmed you.

</blockquote>

One has to affirm again that personal attacks are definitely OUT OF BOUNDS.

Laurentiu, I teach philosophy at the college level, including logic. I know spurious argumentation when I see it in anyone's writing. I see it all over Kirk Tuck's writing.

What Tuck does is say that some people do need the extra powers of this or that piece of gear, but then he slips the knife (the personal attack) in before he is finished:

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.

</blockquote>

Just to say we could? No, we need it to get the shots we want in the varying situations in which we find ourselves. With tripods, one would not typically need that kind of high ISO power, but tripods are not always going to be available, allowed, or even safe for the situation (which may require one to get in and out fast). Keep in mind that, apart from those of us who shoot in near darkness, there are those who like to be able to boost ISO simply in order to boost shutter speeds in, say, event or sports photography. To me this is self-evident, as it is to anyone who knows a thing about how the three exposure variables are interrelated.

What Tuck has done is to begin by sounding very reasonable, but before he is through with the sentence, he has (in the bold-faced portion above) made an assertion which effectively says that people who need to shoot at high ISO do not REALLY need to at high ISO at all: they are are doing so "just because they can," not because they need to.

Can you not see what he has done here? It is totally transparent to me.

This is his style of writing. It hardly bowls me over. It is bad writing, and it is not logical writing.

If after these many words, one cannot see just how bad this style of writing is, then one is not likely to see it if the thread goes ten times its present length.

"These days I tend to use Olympus MFT cameras"--from your bio page. One wonders to what extent defending a choice of gear is what this thread has been about all along. You may shoot what you want, but that is not going to be good enough for all applications, and it is not simply because some of us want to shoot something "just to show that we can."

We actually need improvements in order to better realize our photographic goals.

--Lannie

mdc002 · March 18, 2014

I agree with the article.

laur1 · March 18, 2014

Assuming you're correct, and I think this is still quite arguable, would you be willing to predict that one or two years from now we won't see visible sensor improvements?

</blockquote>

Depends on what you mean by "visible" - some people can see differences where I see none.

But I can tell you that we won't see "significant" sensor improvements anymore - user hype aside. If I'd have to put a number on it, I'd say that in 2 years, cameras won't gain more than 1/4Ev improvement in dxomark High ISO scores, if they even manage to get that. I can also tell you that no matter what new technology will appear, ISO 1600 will still be worse than ISO 800 and so on. I can tell you that today, if you use the IQ bar that dxomark uses for their scoring, most cameras score under ISO 1600, basically supporting Kirk's comment on good ISO performance up to ISO 800 (his IQ bar seems to match dxomark's). Only FF cameras score over ISO 1600 but still not over ISO 3200 - Nikon D4S got to 3074.

One has to affirm again that personal attacks are definitely OUT OF BOUNDS.

</blockquote>

What personal attack? You were sarcastic and I responded with the same coin! Sarcasm is not a personal attack and if you don't like it, then don't dish it to others.

If after these many words, one cannot see just how bad this style of writing is

</blockquote>

His style of writing may be bad, but that doesn't justify your sarcasm and misconstruction of his arguments. Make your point against the style if you have one.

These days I tend to use Olympus MFT cameras"--from your bio page. One wonders to what extent defending a choice of gear is what this thread has been about all along.

</blockquote>

Now, this is indeed an attempt at a personal attack. What does it matter what gear I use? And how does this article justify my collection of gear? On the contrary, my collection of gear should make me criticize this article in an attempt to justify why I went through so many cameras, rather than agree with it and defending it! Where is the logic of your argument?

You felt sensitive to the "just to say they could" part and you can indeed mount a better argument against that. But saying that "ISO 800 ought to be enough for anybody" ain't it. And even though now you articulated a better argument, it is still not enough for you - you had to try and dig something about me to formulate a personal attack. Why do you need that if you have a good point already? Think about it and about what it says about you.

We actually need improvements in order to better realize our photographic goals.

</blockquote>

Yes, but those improvements are not needed just in cameras. That is the point. If your goals rely only on technology improvements, one can wonder if they are worthy of achieving in the first place. Everyone wants better cameras, but no one wants to be a better photographer - that is how you sound like when you keep whining about how equipment is restricting your goals.

Landrum Kelly · March 18, 2014

Laurentiu, apparently you were responding to at least two different people. In any case, no sarcasm toward you was intended.

--Lannie

Brad_ · March 18, 2014

>>> If your goals rely only on technology improvements, one can wonder if they are worthy of achieving

in the first place.

For sure. I can think up an endless number of photographic challenges that would tax current as well as

any near-future technology. But apart from those situations being technical challenges that

would appeal to my engineering background and inner geek, they would not be photos I would really

care about, or result in me making my own epic "Ali vs. Liston" type photograph. At best they’d be

technical challenges, and at worst, kitsch.

That said, if someone wants to make the epic Golden Gate Bridge night photograph capturing

humpback whales, sea lions, and otters splashing together in harmonious togetherness rendered

resplendent in magnificent sharpness, that is fine by me. God speed on the righteous journey to ISO

4M, and/or being able to harness the power of a few megawatt-seconds of AlienBees goodness from

your dSLR!

Landrum Kelly · March 18, 2014

Everyone waur own stnts better cameras, but no one wants to be a better photographer

Now you are defeating yo

raw man, Laurentiu. Better photographic skills and better technology are hardly mutually exclusive.

</blockquote>

When logic leaves the discussion, so do I. 'Bye.

--Lannie

sarah_fox · March 18, 2014

If your goals rely only on technology improvements, one can wonder if they are worthy of achieving in the first place.

</blockquote>

Technological improvements beyond what? The Daguerrotype?

Landrum Kelly · March 18, 2014

My last post mangled some words. This is how the post should have read:

"Everyone wants better cameras, but no one wants to be a better photographer." --LC

"Now you are defeating your own straw man, Laurentiu. Better photographic skills and better technology are hardly mutually exclusive." --LK

--Lannie

Sign In

All the cameras are better than you are...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in