Has everyone gone mad?

[PhotoCal]

Everyone has gone mad.
It has nothing to do with photography.

 

[WaltP]

Not me. I'm the only sane person left on this planet. Really. No one else can even see aliens, much less understand their evil intentions. They are all delusional in their rosy little worlds. While the aliens gather their forces and prepare to harvest our innards!! I've been trying to rouse them from the Matrix, but I haven't found The One yet. But I will.

 

[Macroramphosis]

@WaltP - there's a fella in the UK called David Icke. You might want to join his club. He can see aliens really well

 

[Mike Peters]

As for the subject at hand, simply put, I'm not a pro, and I've already wasted a shameful amount of money on this hobby. I do enjoy the recreation of it, and I'm satisfied with the results and get good feedback. Upgrading my kit would just be more money down the drain. I have a hard enough time settling on my preferred lens lineup to change formats. Sometime in the last few years, I went off the rails on gear. Instead, I should be squeezing the most I can out of what I have. I could have bought a new set of golf clubs by now with that money and really been reminded that it's me who sucks and not my equipment!

Indeed, I always find that when I'm let down by my gear it's because of a loose nut. But when I check the cameras and lenses looking for the fault, they're just perfect. What I've discovered is that the loose nut behind the camera is the problem!

 

[richardp]

To tweak the words of John Lennon, "money you've enjoyed wasting on photography hasn't been wasted."
??

 

[Mike Wingate]

The need to upgrade. Not quite yet. Off to the eye hospital, I have a macular hole, pincushion and jaggies. However. Just been photographing a pair of tree fellers tackling a dead willow tree. Started with the iPhone, then FZ82 bridge camera, because it was there. Moved on to the GX80 with P100-300, above 250mm. Got some good photos. Just weighed both contraptions. GX80 and P100-300. 1141gms. FZ82. 735gms. Quite a weight difference, noticable just in the hand. What a FF would weigh and feel like?

 

[shreebles]

The need to upgrade. Not quite yet. Off to the eye hospital, I have a macular hole, pincushion and jaggies. However. Just been photographing a pair of tree fellers tackling a dead willow tree. Started with the iPhone, then FZ82 bridge camera, because it was there. Moved on to the GX80 with P100-300, above 250mm. Got some good photos. Just weighed both contraptions. GX80 and P100-300. 1141gms. FZ82. 735gms. Quite a weight difference, noticable just in the hand. What a FF would weigh and feel like?

Care to share the different pics so we can judge the quality difference (if it's there)?

 

[MichailK]

What a FF would weigh and feel like?

about a dozen iphones glued together

 

[Macroramphosis]

So a quick question for the computer buffs - in what year would a dozen iPhones glued together have been the biggest computer in the world? I'm going to think it would be in the 60's perhaps?

 

[WaltP]

So a quick question for the computer buffs - in what year would a dozen iPhones glued together have been the biggest computer in the world?

1266 A.D.?
600 A.H.?
123 B.C.?

You mean before "they" released the version Fred Flintstone had?

Is he ALWAYS in this mood?

 

[Petrochemist]

So a quick question for the computer buffs - in what year would a dozen iPhones glued together have been the biggest computer in the world? I'm going to think it would be in the 60's perhaps?

In what way Biggest?
I remember recently reading about one of the first computers to have disc drives - it weighed about 8 tons, but would have been less powerful than a single iPhone in every concievable way.
I doubt any of the earlier computers would have been physically smaller than a dozen iPhones, even if ignoring input/output hardware. The teletype machine that I remember from school in the late 70's (not a computer just I/O for a computer miles away) would have been at least 50 iPhones in volume.

I'm far from an expert on supercomputers, but I suspect you'd be into the 80's before the computing power of the best super computer would compete with a dozen iPhones. The answer may well be similar for available memory & storage, but I'd expect a few more years needed for matchingthe graphics abilities.

 

[Brownie]

Indeed, I always find that when I'm let down by my gear it's because of a loose nut. But when I check the cameras and lenses looking for the fault, they're just perfect. What I've discovered is that the loose nut behind the camera is the problem!

"PICNIC"

Problem
In
Chair
Not
In
Camera

 

[Macroramphosis]

In what way Biggest?

You have the right idea, I really meant 'powerful'.. and I think you're on the right track.

 

[doady]

Last night I saw a Robin Wong video where he tried to defend himself and prove that he actually uses Micro Four Thirds, because people were accusing him of using full frame pictures and video to promote Micro Four Thirds, because only full frame was capable of capturing all that.

Some months ago I upgraded from Olympus C-7070WZ to E-M1 mk2 + 12-100mm F4 and recently I started to wonder how much my photography has really improved since then. Maybe it's actually gotten worse. I think if I posted my C-7070WZ photos on this forum, people would actually prefer them over my E-M1 mk2 stuff.

 

[shreebles]

Some months ago I upgraded from Olympus C-7070WZ to E-M1 mk2 + 12-100mm F4 and recently I started to wonder how much my photography has really improved since then. Maybe it's actually gotten worse. I think if I posted my C-7070WZ photos on this forum, people would actually prefer them over my E-M1 mk2 stuff.

I was going to ask whether you were also among the folks gone mad.
I wanted to see what that old camera was actually capable of, so I googled for samples.
I came upon a picture gallery on dpreview by someone named "doady".
What a way to prove me wrong!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63464375

That is a beautiful collection, with great variety. No doubt that camera has served you well, and you have really learnt how to use it.
Certainly the E-M1.2 has its own perks, of great technical prowess and resolution.
But those pictures from the old C-7070WZ have their own aesthetic, each very pretty in their own right. Despite the lower technical spec, they have some fidelity for sure.
How did you post-process them?

 

[MichailK]

it weighed about 8 tons

bua-ha-ha-ha, how about a 200-ton musical synthesizer from 120 years ago ? I wonder how many voices of additive synthesis an iPhone can play at any time... and once upon a time I though what digital miniature marvel the Yamaha QY20 was...

 

[doady]

I was going to ask whether you were also among the folks gone mad.
I wanted to see what that old camera was actually capable of, so I googled for samples.
I came upon a picture gallery on dpreview by someone named "doady".
What a way to prove me wrong!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63464375

That is a beautiful collection, with great variety. No doubt that camera has served you well, and you have really learnt how to use it.
Certainly the E-M1.2 has its own perks, of great technical prowess and resolution.
But those pictures from the old C-7070WZ have their own aesthetic, each very pretty in their own right. Despite the lower technical spec, they have some fidelity for sure.
How did you post-process them?

Wow, I forgot about my photos on DPreview, I didn't think anyone would search for them. Thank you for your kind comments. The photos were very carefully selected from 15 years, so maybe not a fair representation, but maybe you can understand why I might question whether I am actually doing better with E-M1 mk2.

For the very early photos, I shot JPEG but afterwards I shot RAW and processed in Capture One Pro. Problem with this method is C-7070WZ takes 7 seconds to write a RAW file, so E-M1 mk2 is a huge improvement there. Definitely much more convenience with E-M1 mk2, but maybe other things getting in the way of photographing at this time.

I try to think but I'm not sure I do anything special with PP. Just highlights/whites sliders, shadows/blacks, saturation (both positive/negative), curves (R/G/B individually), clarity (positive/negative), and structure (positive). Some selective sharpening/structure occasionally, but that is it I think. Maybe it's the way Capture One renders images, kinda rich and vibrant by default. Sometimes it takes 2-3 tries to get the look that I want for an image, so maybe experimentation is the key.

 

[Jock Elliott]

The National Trust for Scotland was quite happy to use some of my MFT shots for a calendar last year so who needs FF?
. . .

My Lumix gear does everything I need it to do. Enough said.

Exactly. There is such a thing as "good enough." This summer I was fortunate to be published as a nature photographer in the Conservationist -- https://cameraderie.org/threads/aft...hotographer-see-also-patient-endurance.51021/

Notice that all the shots that were published were taken with Panasonic superzooms. Of course, they are not competitive with FF or M43 in terms of technical image quality, but apparently they met the editor's needs, ie good enough.

I discovered long ago that "what I was willing to carry" defined in large part my photographic equipment needs and what I would actually use. Today, in my mid 70s, a Sony RX10 Mk IV meets my needs, but I am in the process of acquiring a used Olympus M43 rig for my "foul weather" camera. But I won't be carrying both at the same time.

Cheers, Jock

 

[Mike Peters]

Hi Mike, I think I should apologise here for awarding you a "funny" for the above photo.
I was under the impression you were just taking a photo of a billboard.
If my brain has now registered this correctly, you took the billboard photo?

Honest mistake, no apologies necessary. I should have been more clear when I posted it. Yes, the photo on the billboard, and the photo of the billboard too. I do it all. Kind of meta, innit?

 

[Brownie]

Hi Mike, I think I should apologise here for awarding you a "funny" for the above photo.
I was under the impression you were just taking a photo of a billboard.
If my brain has now registered this correctly, you took the billboard photo?

You know, you can remove your rating and apply a new one.