Wake up Call

[Ray]

"not interested in exploring" does not cover _all_ those points; it ignores the possibility that some _have_ explored and assessed those potential benefits—perhaps by looking at the specs and what others have achieved with the new gear rather than acquiring it themselves—and have decided that the potential benefits are negligible or non-existent for them. As surely as in the film era many of us explored the potential benefits of upsizing from 35mm to 645 or beyond—and decided that the potential benefits were not significant for our purposes.

Your wording seems to confuse carefully considered choices with lack of interest, but perhaps you are just not expressing yourself clearly. For example, would you describe the decision of many quite dedicated photographers to not acquire gear in a larger format than their current one, even as it becomes a bit more affordable, as always being due to their being "not interested in exploring the potential benefits"?

For example, I have explored the potential benefits of a 36x24mm or 44x33mm or 54x40mm format kit and decided that it would be a net "dis-benefit" for my photographic objectives.

On the other hand, the better AF and IBIS of newer models does tempt me!

If you don't acquire the gear and use it, you are not really exploring the 'potential' benefits. Did you miss the word 'potential' in my statement?

It's understood that what interests  one person often does not necessarily interest another person. We are all different, with different motives and purposes. That's fundamental.

There might be sound, practical reasons why the 'perceived' benefits of one particular camera system are overshadowed by 'perceived' disadvantages, and the significance of those 'perceived' disadvantages will vary according the the individual's circumstances and goals, and will therefore affect his/her interest in exploring the potential benefits of that camera system.

The benefits of Medium Format in the film era is a good example that applied to me. The benefits were always apparent, such as more detail and less noise, but the disadvantages of significantly greater price and weight, overshadowed those benefits, until the beginning of the digital era when professionals started dumping their MF film equipment in favour of the new, but ridiculously expensive, digital cameras.

The price of a second-hand MF camera was suddenly very affordable and much cheaper than the first Nikon and Canon APS-C digital cameras, so, for a few years I enjoyed those benefits of better detail, and lower noise. However, the cumbersome weight of the MF system was still a disadvantage, as well as the expense of the film and the expense of processing the film.

When digital APS-C cameras became affordable, I bought one, and there was no turning back because the advantages of unlimited, free film, outweighed  the disadvantages of less detail and more noise.

[Paulo Bizarro]

In Portugal we have a saying:

"either 8 or 80"

Meaning that we can change from one extreme to the other very easily and very fast...

When the author writes that gear is irrelevant, and does not make for better photos, he is simply wrong. Factually wrong, and can be easily demonstrated.

[BJL]

If you don't acquire the gear and use it, you are not really exploring the 'potential' benefits.

I disagree with that sweeping claim; it is rather clear that studying examples of what others have achieved with a certain photographic kit can do and looking at reviews by trusted sourced and technical specifications is in some cases enough to determine that the benefits would not be sufficient to justify acquiring such a kit. If for example I know that my current gear provides more than enough resolution for what I do or aspire to do, including adequate cropping latitude, then I do not need to try a 50MP Canon 5Ds kit (with lenses offering sufficient telephoto reach for my uses), or a 150MP Phase One kit (even surrendering some telephoto reach!) to determine that the additional pixel count would be of negligible benefit to me—even less so do I need to handle such a kit to determine that its greater bulk would be a substantial _disadvantage_ for my purposes.

Dare I note the numerous adverse judgments that you have made of various photographic tools without having acquired and used them?

[Martin Kristiansen]

You can often get an idea of what kit will and won’t suit you but sometimes it’s nice to push yourself out your comfort zone to see how it impacts on how you see and work. I have shot from 8X10 to MF to APSC to 80MP MFDB. All worked in their own way.

I have always used moderate lenses and for my own work a three primes would do it. A 28, 55 and 85 on FF is where it has been for me. Now I’m enjoying using longer lenses and also wider lenses. Sometimes it’s just fun to play with new stuff.

What is odd to me is all the barely used just tested equipment that comes up for sale. Mint condition never touched except with gloves and shutter counts under 1000. There seems to be a constant competition on who is the most fussy and pedantic over methods and equipment as if in preparation for the great day when photography will begin. But first the mission to find the perfect aperture for the perfect lens on the beat tripod with the highest resolution back. Stuff bought and sold and hardly a photo taken. It’s about balance but that’s a deeply personal thing. I would rather be fumbling for a shitty lens in a badly designed camera bag on the side of a hill as the sun comes up than testing perfect kit at home with a lens chart. It’s not that I feel that I’m superior, it’s just that I like being outside taking photos. For those that like to test endlessly and obsess over kit, good on you. I hope you are enjoying it and keep the info coming. It’s all useful.

[Rob C]

In Portugal we have a saying:

"either 8 or 80"

Meaning that we can change from one extreme to the other very easily and very fast...

When the author writes that gear is irrelevant, and does not make for better photos, he is simply wrong. Factually wrong, and can be easily demonstrated.

As with many things, one really can take some of them too literally.

Rob

[Ray]

You can often get an idea of what kit will and won’t suit you but sometimes it’s nice to push yourself out your comfort zone to see how it impacts on how you see and work. I have shot from 8X10 to MF to APSC to 80MP MFDB. All worked in their own way.

I agree. Good point.

[Ray]

Dare I note the numerous adverse judgments that you have made of various photographic tools without having acquired and used them?

I never buy anything without first assessing its features and qualities, and its pros and cons, whether it's a new car, camera, computer, clothes, or house.

Nothing is beyond criticism except that which is perfect.

None of the cameras I've ever owned have been beyond criticism. There is always a trade-off between the perceived benefits and the perceived disadvantages. However, it's probably true that 'fanboys' tend to ignore the disadvantages. 

[Benny Profane]

Well, if your expression revolves around fuzzy little 8x10 prints of obscure subject matter, like the OP seems to enjoy, sure, stick with a level of technology that produces grainy and out of focus little prints. The academics and Boomers in the photo world love them. But, if you want to print large color, and put some value in sharpness and lack of noise at that size, then, buy a new camera. But don't waste your money on a Leica, of all things. Those are for collectors and bloggers.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Well, if your expression revolves around fuzzy little 8x10 prints of obscure subject matter, like the OP seems to enjoy, sure, stick with a level of technology that produces grainy and out of focus little prints. The academics and Boomers in the photo world love them. But, if you want to print large color, and put some value in sharpness and lack of noise at that size, then, buy a new camera. But don't waste your money on a Leica, of all things. Those are for collectors and bloggers.

Actually it’s pretty much just the boomers that seem to like prints at all. Everyone younger seems to have moved on from huge detailed prints. It’s the philosophy of if your photograph is boring make it bigger. The sheer size might impress someone. Not referring to your photography at all. Don’t know your work, just a general grumpy comment.

[KLaban]

As always, match equipment choices to needs.

Simples.

[Martin Kristiansen]

As always, match equipment choices to needs.

Simples.

And there you have it. Simple really.

[Benny Profane]

Actually it’s pretty much just the boomers that seem to like prints at all. Everyone younger seems to have moved on from huge detailed prints. It’s the philosophy of if your photograph is boring make it bigger. The sheer size might impress someone. Not referring to your photography at all. Don’t know your work, just a general grumpy comment.

Then just shoot with your phone. It's always in your pocket. The quality of a Pixel 4 is better than an old Leica, and it's much more versatile. Easy.

[Martin Kristiansen]

Then just shoot with your phone. It's always in your pocket. The quality of a Pixel 4 is better than an old Leica, and it's much more versatile. Easy.

Because I’m 59 and grew up chasing quality in the film days which was not technically very easy. As with most of the older generation of photographers quality is important to me. It’s the newer generation of photographers more likely to use a camera phone because it’s always available and is fairly versatile.  More versatile than the Leica I used for a few shoots in 1985. Not as versatile as my pair of Sony cameras.

[JaapD]

“When the author writes that gear is irrelevant, and does not make for better photos, he is simply wrong. Factually wrong, and can be easily demonstrated”.

It depends what ‘better’ is in the eyes of the observer. Gear is imho indeed relevant but different than you might expect. The latest and greatest is not necessarily the best. Speaking for myself I’ve made my best images with my Mamiya RZ2 and APO lenses, on slidefilm, then scanned. Lots of limitations w.r.t. a fully digital workflow and by far not the latest technology so to speak.

Remember Cibachrome print, printed by a Durst Lambda (for correcting the steep contrast curve)? I haven’t seen anything better since.

Additionally, I wouldn’t push Sally Mann the latest digital camera in her hands and expecting her to create better images.

Regards,
Jaap.

[Rob C]

“When the author writes that gear is irrelevant, and does not make for better photos, he is simply wrong. Factually wrong, and can be easily demonstrated”.

It depends what ‘better’ is in the eyes of the observer. Gear is imho indeed relevant but different than you might expect. The latest and greatest is not necessarily the best. Speaking for myself I’ve made my best images with my Mamiya RZ2 and APO lenses, on slidefilm, then scanned. Lots of limitations w.r.t. a fully digital workflow and by far not the latest technology so to speak.

Remember Cibachrome print, printed by a Durst Lambda (for correcting the steep contrast curve)? I haven’t seen anything better since.

Additionally, I wouldn’t push Sally Mann the latest digital camera in her hands and expecting her to create better images.

Regards,
Jaap.

The remark about Sally M is right on the money. Her pictures are about emotional content as well as stylistic mannerisms. It's what makes a Mann picture often quite easy to identify as hers; from LF down to her early Leica, she uses what suits her mood and emotional state at the time. She seems to have made her wildly famous "Family" photos with LF, yet they don't look stiff... I read her proclaim recently that she sometimes feels like just picking up her little Leica and going out to use it - I suppose for the lightness and difference of modus operandi.

Her photographs work because they come out of her head and are her photographs; whatever camera, the head remains the same, even if some gear makes the fulfilling more difficult than does another.

[Chris Kern]

Interesting how a thread like this can suddenly "wake up" (double entendre intended) after a hiatus of a couple of months. . . .

It seems to me that one of the most important reasons for buying new camera equipment―at least, since the beginning of the digital era―is to find a product that is more intuitive than what you have been using.  This is a subjective judgment, photographer-specific.  I can't adequately put into words how much frustration I've endured, and can't even guess how many good shots I've missed, while I was trying to rapidly wrestle the damn camera into the appropriate configuration.  Even a camera I've been using for an extended period and whose user interface I supposedly know well.  I've never found a menu structure that isn't a pain in the ass and the tiny buttons many manufacturers favor (because they can squeeze so many of them onto the camera body) always seem to elude my fingers until I take my eye away from the viewfinder and hunt for the one I want.  When the little Fuji X cameras popped up on the market I immediately gravitated to them because I could adjust any setting I frequently needed to change with a simple manual control that was easily found by touch, and select the value I wanted from the viewfinder display.

[Rob C]

Interesting how a thread like this can suddenly "wake up" (double entendre intended) after a hiatus of a couple of months. . . .

It seems to me that one of the most important reasons for buying new camera equipment―at least, since the beginning of the digital era―is to find a product that is more intuitive than what you have been using.  This is a subjective judgment, photographer-specific.  I can't adequately put into words how much frustration I've endured, and can't even guess how many good shots I've missed, while I was trying to rapidly wrestle the damn camera into the appropriate configuration.  Even a camera I've been using for an extended period and whose user interface I supposedly know well.  I've never found a menu structure that isn't a pain in the ass and the tiny buttons many manufacturers favor (because they can squeeze so many of them onto the camera body) always seem to elude my fingers until I take my eye away from the viewfinder and hunt for the one I want.  When the little Fuji X cameras popped up on the market I immediately gravitated to them because I could adjust any setting I frequently needed to change with a simple manual control that was easily found by touch, and select the value I wanted from the viewfinder display.

Coming into digital cameras after a working life spent with film ones, my fear was that I would find it all far too confusing and counter-intuitive. To my delight, I discovered via the Internet that one could set them to as close to zero manufacturer-offered inputs as you want, and thus make them pretty damned much the same as film machines. Which was a huge boon for me and my old set-in-stone ways.

Consequently, all the camera is allowed to do by itself is focus (central point) on af lenses, measure exposure via Matrix metering (Nikon bodies) and make use of auto ISO. As remarked, all the rest of the things are dialled back to minimum possible, resulting in nice flat files that I can mostly take wherever I want to take them without going too far astray.

Having done that, the only differences I now note to film cameras is that non-af focussing isn't as good on digital camera screens, and that I don't run out of shots at frame 36. I don't have any buttons set to anything.

[Martin Kristiansen]

I was die hard manual focusing guy until about 4 years ago. AF on the old MFDB systems was not good, I believe it to be much improved, and of course monorail cameras AF was not a compatible concept. The past four years I used more and more AF, always with back button focus as it seemed more intuitive. The last coupe of weeks I found myself wondering what the hell I was doing with that system and now have changed it to focus on the shutter button.  If you have the af system buttoned down and can rapidly switch between different focussing areas, sensitivity, AF-C or AF-S, tracking, eyeAF and so on it works perfectly. No more back button focus. Just take a picture. Very liberating. Didn’t see that coming.

And so equipment evolves and how we use it changes.