The Myth of More

[agentlossing]

It's not that there's necessarily an overt message that better gear takes better photos, although you'd have to be silly not to notice the obsession with DXO scores and comparing high-ISO performance, but I think it's an attempt to rationalize our obsession with chasing after newer and better gear. I mean, we're in it to take pictures (right? Maybe?) so constantly dropping cash on fancy gear must be in an effort to take better photos...

... Except it's really not. Lots of us just irrationally enjoy spending our dough on fancy tech because it makes us happy. Nothing wrong with that in moderation, but when it gets obsessive it does get unhealthy, and I think that's the true message of what the article author was trying to convey.

 

[dornblaser]

One of the things that I find refreshing about this board is to watch the threads that folks post about what lenses and bodies to sell and which to keep or purchase. I think that most folks have an idea of what size kit is appropriate for them which is kept in balance by selling off parts of their kit as they acquire new parts or re-evaluate existing pieces. As a result the kit becomes an evolving and morphing thing. We all look at our preferred focal lengths, the weight that we want to carry, our subjects, etc., on a continual basis as they change and are fluid. While I love the article linked to as that is me with my OMD and O17 instead of the X100t, I don't think that it is fair to make the leap of argument that those do not have a minimalistic kit, as glorified by X100, do not have the perfect, well thought out, subject appropriate kit, for the way that they shoot.

 

[jamespetts]

here is my opinion on this and your are free to disagree...

A fine idea or as I may call it an 'interesting image' is rarely ruined these days by poor technical performance of the camera...only by poor performance of the photographer, a lack of understanding how the camera works or unrealistic expectations of the cameras ability...

Is there any difference between an interesting image ruined by poor technical performance of a camera and by a person having unrealistic expectations of the ability of a particular camera, when those would be realistic expectations of another, superior camera that either exists now or might exist in the future?

 

[GnedTheGnome]

The "it's the photographer, not the camera" argument is only true up to a point, imo.

If you gave Michelangelo a paint-by-numbers kit and told him to paint a picture with it, he would undoubtably come up with something amazing. But would it compare to what he could do with his choice of brushes and pallette? And would he finish without throwing a hissy in frustration at the limitations of the media?

A top-of-the-line camera won't make a bad photographer good, but it definitely affects his or her ability to achieve a particular vision, and how easy and/or enjoyable it is to do so.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

Sort of agree ;

I gotta say... it seems disingenuous to be using the very latest iteration of a high dollar camera while saying "gear doesn't matter". ...

Reading between the lines he's never had anything like it before and suddenly has to write that page, without being aware of the previous models and how they do the same stuff cheaper (but with a risk of aperture jamming suicide...).
He is giddy with new love and has a rich man's view of cost/value.

Still, nice article. I liked the pink & green railyard photo.

 

[Itchybiscuit]

One of the things that I find refreshing about this board is to watch the threads that folks post about what lenses and bodies to sell and which to keep or purchase. I think that most folks have an idea of what size kit is appropriate for them which is kept in balance by selling off parts of their kit as they acquire new parts or re-evaluate existing pieces. As a result the kit becomes an evolving and morphing thing. We all look at our preferred focal lengths, the weight that we want to carry, our subjects, etc., on a continual basis as they change and are fluid.

My 'story' kinda follows this idea of yours. I started with the GF1/14-42mm and a lot of legacy glass. Now, I found out that my old legacy glass was valued in the world of the bay so I sold off some of the more popular lenses that I owned. This allowed me to buy a used G2/14-42mm. I continued to buy legacy glass cheaply and sell it on for a profit. This eventually got me to a brand new G5/14-42mm. I sold off the GF1 and bought a 4/3rds Oly 40-150mm which served until I had bought and sold other bits and pieces and could then sell IT and buy the Oly m4/3 40-150mm. I then bought a used GF2 with a 14-42+14mm. Kept the 14mm, sold off the rest for much the same price as I bought it. I still have some fantastic legacy glass (incl my 'Bokina') as well as some lovely m4/3rds lenses which suit my budget/style.

It's all about buying, using, selling, buying 'better' for me.

 

[Petrochemist]

A fine idea or as I may call it an 'interesting image' is rarely ruined these days by poor technical performance of the camera...only by poor performance of the photographer, a lack of understanding how the camera works or unrealistic expectations of the cameras ability.
K

So someone attempting to use a 3 year old camera to capture BIF shots, is not helped by the faster AF on more modern cameras?
Or them trying to take night scenes similar to those they've seen on line, is not helped by improved low light response?

Both are possible with older kit but the challenge is significantly harder. working with static subjects that are reasonably well lit the technical performance of the camera won't make much difference - but with more challenging subjects even the best modern cameras may still see significant improvements. As camera hardware improves the 'unrealistic expectations of the cameras ability' become reasonable and then even commonplace.

I'd like more dynamic range than any camera can produce, I'm sure that would allow me to create some interesting images that are currently impossible.
Further increasing the ISO capabilities might allow low-light action shots with good DOF, there are times when that could be useful...

My current kit is well behind best available in many ways, but other priorities in life dispose of my income before I get tempted too much by the latest kit. Pushing the expectations of the abilities of the cameras I have, has sometimes resulted in good shots, though there's been a lot of dross to delete too.

 

[kevinparis]

So someone attempting to use a 3 year old camera to capture BIF shots, is not helped by the faster AF on more modern cameras?
Or them trying to take night scenes similar to those they've seen on line, is not helped by improved low light response?

Both are possible with older kit but the challenge is significantly harder. working with static subjects that are reasonably well lit the technical performance of the camera won't make much difference - but with more challenging subjects even the best modern cameras may still see significant improvements. As camera hardware improves the 'unrealistic expectations of the cameras ability' become reasonable and then even commonplace.

I'd like more dynamic range than any camera can produce, I'm sure that would allow me to create some interesting images that are currently impossible.
Further increasing the ISO capabilities might allow low-light action shots with good DOF, there are times when that could be useful...

My current kit is well behind best available in many ways, but other priorities in life dispose of my income before I get tempted too much by the latest kit. Pushing the expectations of the abilities of the cameras I have, has sometimes resulted in good shots, though there's been a lot of dross to delete too.

I am not a luddite, and of course welcome and embrace advances in technologies, but changes are incremental, and often the differences touted by manufacturers on spec sheets, turn out in real world terms to be less significant. I seriously doubt that 3 year old tech would be massively out performed in real world useage by the latest and greatest camera in a similar price bracket.

BIF are always going to be tricky... they always have been and probably always will be. Similarly sucessful low light photography isn't just about higher ISO, it involves a knowledge and understanding of the process as well

cheers

K

 

[Petrochemist]

I seriously doubt that 3 year old tech would be massively out performed in real world useage by the latest and greatest camera in a similar price bracket.

Who said anything about a similar price bracket, the discussion is about desiring improved hardware and wether or not that hardware helps your photography.

Yes sometimes the steps are not significant, othertimes they make huge bounds. I knew when I brought my newest DSLR a Pentax K7 that it's replacement the K5 had been out for a few months & it's low light performance was streets ahead (it's dynamic range is also significantly better). I'd have loved to go for the latest model but couldn't justive the extra £500.

 

[kevinparis]

Because price is a very important part of the equation when it comes to choosing a camera, as you indicated. How you allocate your photography budget is a very important part of the decision making process.

 

[Itchybiscuit]

Because price is a very important part of the equation when it comes to choosing a camera, as you indicated. How you allocate your photography budget is a very important part of the decision making process.

Kevin, price is the ONLY factor which counts in my book.

I'm one of those people who don't think (for example) that upgrading my G5 to a GH4 (the most expensive camera I can think of that I'd 'like' to own) would make me a 'better' photographer. In all honesty I'd like a GH4 'cos it has a lot more bells and whistles than the camera I have, while realising it's way out of my price bracket. I'd liken it to driving a Volkswagen Beetle while dreaming of owning a Porsche. One can dream, right?

 

[bye]

People who are seriously into BIF will have the best gear to get the job done as well as serious landscape photographers who need more DR and better noise performance and more megapixels for enlargements. If you have the extra cash floating around that's great. When I was younger with little responsibilities; I've owned pretty much all types of film gear. It was fun. It was great to play with all the toys. Today, I now have adult family responsibilities, so it's not all about me but all about them first. I would buy the gear I need if I have any discretionary income left. Right now, I'm eyeing on the Sony A7 but I can wait till the price drops even more. It would be nice to have nice gear and I had used nice pro gear from my former workplace, so to me it's really about what kind of photography you want to do and how much can you afford. Once you figured that out, most of the 3 years old gear or even 5 years old can do a pretty good job.

 

[Carbonman]

I know the difference between buying toys and buying a tool that will give genuine improvement in finished image quality. I sold camera 'toys' to retail customers for several years and quickly learned to be honest with myself about what I need for better photos and what I just want because it's fun to use. My goals with M43 are to get the best optics I can afford that match my shooting style. An E-M1 would be a great toy, but my E-M10 has as good image quality.
On pixel count: More pixels don't necessarily mean better image quality. It's all about the processing engine. I'm in the security business and see all sorts of digital surveillance cameras, servers and software. It's amazing what image quality some manufacturers can produce with high powered in-camera processing, using the same sensors their competitors use. I suspect this is part of the reason Canon bought Axis Communications, the largest IP video surveillance camera company, and the one that has the largest IP video market share. Axis spends well over $100M USD annually in R&D.

 

[Lcrunyon]

It's funny, but I had just drafted a post for my blog arguing against statements like the article. Much of what I wrote has also been said quite well by others here, so no need to repeat, but I actually think you guys have been kind to the writer of the article. The whole piece is full of fallacies covered in pretty writing...

First he jumps from comparing modern cameras to film, to saying all cameras are better than we need them to be. That's quite a jump...

Then, he says that we can't solve our technical problems with better gear, only to use as his supporting argument (or at least, it was the next thing he said) that people are critiquing him for taking boring pictures of his cat. One's an unspecified technical problem, the other isn't a technical problem at all. Apples to oranges...

To say that if you focus on technology you lose perspective of the art is also a leap. It's a possibility, but hardly a rule. I would argue (and have) that better technology, particularly made with a philosophy like Olympus' can get out of your way to concentrate more on art, and if you ignore the technical aspects of the craft and your gear, you're more likely to miss your chance at capturing that art.

The quotes he then used (however nice in their own right) weren't even talking about the question at hand.

Then, he goes off and talks about how much he loves his camera and lens, how good they are compared to the others he tested, which decries his earlier point that the gear doesn't matter...

He compares it's price point to Leica, which is taking the extreme...

He downplays the X100T as an inferior camera. By whose standards? It makes compromises as all cameras do, but those compromises were made consciously to develop a specific end result with the best tech Fuji could bring to bear. The fact that the camera is so good and easy to use is a modern technological feat, not technological poverty. He even says it later, that Mirrorless tech is the reason he likes it, even though that is a gear evolution/revolution argument...

Then he complains about the filters and whatnot about the camera, saying he doesn't like them because they don't fit his image off what photography should be. That's his opinion and he's entitled to it, but the whole premise of the article is based on that purist viewpoint, and he's using that to tell us we're all succumbing to a myth...

He then adds to it a camera plate from RRS, one of the most expensive manufacturers out there (I know, I buy RRS too)...

I could probably go on, but this is tiring...

 

[Zobeid Zuma]

Consider this image. . .

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This was from our annual Armistice Day anvil shoot, which is held every Nov 11 starting at 5 AM. Obviously this is not pristine image quality. It's rough and noisy. I pushed the E-M5 to its limits, or a little beyond, shooting at ISO 20K in 9 FPS bursts. With a lesser camera I couldn't have got this at all.

However, flipping through my roughly 20,000 image library, I realized there were very few situations like this. Less expensive and lower-specified cameras do just fine under more favorable conditions. The article is right to observe that cameras these days generally produce superb image quality, and a lot of people obsess over it more than is really sensible.

I think there's much to be said for buying what you can afford, packing what you can easily carry, and then seeing what you can do with it. Most of the time the results will be very good. If you miss a shot once in a while, under trying circumstances, then. . . Welcome to photography! It happens.