Photography going the way of HiFi?

[Chris Dodkin]

This topic has surfaced before - noting that there are many hifi buffs who spend their days convincing themselves that xyz will improve the sound of their systems, and will defend their positions against all logic.

Well, I think that photography, or should I say certain photography forums, are heading the same way.

If you hang-out for any time on sites like DPReview, you'll see numerous posts, best described as pixel peeking.

People who spend their days taking photos of Dollar bills, of rulers at certain angles, of lens calibration charts - and then analyzing the images at 100% magnification or even higher.

There's an intense amount of naval gazing around chromatic aberration, edge sharpness, read noise of camera sensors, shadow noise in images - people are getting all bent out of shape about 'issues' which even pro users wouldn't care about.

These people rarely post photos of anything to do with real life, I suspect they rarely take photos for the pleasure of taking photos.

It's all about the quest for imperfection - a never ending loop of negativity.

There's a whole language that's developed around it - I see 'bad copy of a lens' referenced many many times, as if it's an epidemic of failed QA from the lens manufacturers.

Sure, the InterWebs give people with issues a forum to post to everyone - so we all know about Joe's failed widget, and the 20 images that prove it.

But really, where did all of these poorly manufactured lenses and cameras suddenly come from?

Have to say that I've had it with that crowd - and I'm constantly refreshed to see that it hasn't permeated to RPF.

Long may it continue!

 

[Hamish Gill]

Im not interested in that aspect of photography ...
"Gear heads" are what our mate Larry calls them ... people who care to a rediculas extent about the kit and nothing for the process of actually taking and enjoying photography!
I doubt that sort of the will permeate this forum really as my response will always be "who really gives a ****, why dont you go out and take a photo and stop worrying about stuff that really doesnt matter!"
Im more than happy for everyone else he to take that stance should we have people join and start arguing about that sort of thing!

I'm sure that it does matter on some levels, but there is definitely far to much of it about the web ...

This forum/ezine is a website for "Real Photographers" not "gear heads"
If people wish to comment and compare on lenses in real life situations then thats fine but if anything is said that cant be backed up with real life examples etc then i really couldnt give a monkeys about it!

Real life lens comparisons are interesting, but anally retentive "analysis" and pixel peeping is not for me!
As you say, most of it is just not relevant!
I pay a certain about for a bit of kit and expect that cost to be reflected in what i get ... id never expect any lens to be perfect!
take my new 16-35 ... you can read everywhere about its barrel distortion at 16mm... takes 2 seconds to correct in lightroom
same goes for chromatic aberations ... they occur, i fix them in pp ... takes no time at all!

leave the analysis to the big reviewers like dpreview and photozone ... after that make you choice, pay your money, and live with the compromises, thay will always be there, but will never be any issues that cant be fixed for real life photos!

 

[john clarke]

Personally I see little point of over analysis, this applies to photography and hi-fi. Inquests are not always needed. Much better to just enjoy what you have and not be over-critical. In photography and hi-fi there is a lot of b******t and b******s going on and I would hope that ('though I know it's not true) people should try and be satisfied (as best they can) with stuff, because over-obsessing will only lead, ultimately, to disappointment. There is not 'best' camera or 'best' hi-fi. Just a lot of over-priced, over-hyped products imo. There will always be cheap imports, but it's probably best to buy the highest quality affordable and from reputable companies and dealers.
John

 

[Hamish Gill]

Agreed...
I buy kit that i feel will introduce the least limitations within my budget...

I had a private reply from someone on a yahoo group after i had recommended a lens i had no experience of

the guy was asking what lens/combo of lenses the group thought would be best for his nikon d700
his brief was that he wanted a lens for studio portraiture

the obvious answer was 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8
combined you are looking at clear of £3000

i backed that up with the comment that if that was not a palatable budget the nikon 24-120 f/4 would likely cover all bases for a lot less money (£900) ... i commented that a trial of this lens might be worth while as i had not used one

i was asked how i could recommend a lens i had not used

my answer, in short was "its the logical choice - it covers much of the 85-135mm ideal focal range for portraiture at a fraction of the cost of the 2 other lenses" ... but how did i know it would be good enough if id not used one?
the answer is based on pure assumption ... "it costs £900 and is made by nikon... its not very likely to be crap"

this really should be as complicated as it needs to be ... but its just not good enough for a lot of people!
Experience is the greatest source of knowledge for recommendation ... where it is lacking, there is no problem with just applying a bit of logic!

 

[Paul Lange]

I read the reviews every now again some of which show resolution and noise tests etc but I have yet to see any explanation in these review what the result means and how it might effect the final image in comparison with another camera in real world situations. Technical tests are all well and good but when abstracted and taken out of context they are just a set of results that tell you nothing that might actually be of use to you. I see the distinction as those who are very happy because their camera produces the best set of results technically and those who just are happy with the performance and look to themselves for how they might get more from their camera.

 

[Larry Bolch]

Macro lenses test very well, because for the most part they are flat field and so are the resolution charts. Lenses for general photography generally focus on a curved field which works well in a real three dimensional world, but not so good with test charts. Focus in the middle and the point of focus will be somewhat in front of the corners. Of course, corners improve as you stop down—you are increasing depth of field. Yet people obsess.

 

[Larry Bolch]

I have an interesting friend. Very much a techie, but fascinated with art—or more accurately—media. He has been an avid member of the AnimationSIG here since I met him more than two decades ago. He has at least two very expensive 3D animation programs, but has never once shown any animation—nor even a single rendered frame. All this time he has been talking about a project modeling and rendering a monorail. No one has seen it.

He has stacks of synthesizers and I have suggested we make music. He finds excuses. The worst groaner was the he has no interest in the music other people write—he plays his own! (Which no one has heard.) The implication was that it was not worth wasting time with inferior music by amateurs like Beethoven and Mozart. Of course, he also has a suite of top notch music software.

And a full-frame Canon with a rack of lenses. Rarely carries, and never shows. A really great guy and a very good friend. Just loves to have the latest in creative tools. Always a journey but never a destination.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Macro lenses test very well, because for the most part they are flat field and so are the resolution charts. Lenses for general photography generally focus on a curved field which works well in a real three dimensional world, but not so good with test charts. Focus in the middle and the point of focus will be somewhat in front of the corners. Of course, corners improve as you stop down—you are increasing depth of field. Yet people obsess.

I was trying to get my head round this at one point ... i wrote it off as not worth thinking about, but actually it does make sense doesn't it?!

the thought process that got me to thinking about this was a mulling over if the new 70-200vr was worth the upgrade from the the old one. A question i was asked by a customer in the shop...
I did a bit of research and found that under tests corner sharpness was better ...
my response to the customer was that no, it wasn't worth the upgrade as how often is your subject in the corner when shooting with a long lens??
It was the customer who said something along the lines of "things in the corners are at a different distance than things in the centre anyway", he went on to clarify that this wasn't as relevant to long lenses really but he mentioned it because corner sharpness had never been something he worried so much about anyway ... suffice to say, as far as i know he still has the mk1 70-200 (like i do).
It did leave me with this confusion over the subject that has now been somewhat cleared up ...

 

[Hamish Gill]

I have an interesting friend. Very much a techie, but fascinated with art—or more accurately—media. He has been an avid member of the AnimationSIG here since I met him more than two decades ago. He has at least two very expensive 3D animation programs, but has never once shown any animation—nor even a single rendered frame. All this time he has been talking about a project modeling and rendering a monorail. No one has seen it.

He has stacks of synthesizers and I have suggested we make music. He finds excuses. The worst groaner was the he has no interest in the music other people write—he plays his own! (Which no one has heard.) The implication was that it was not worth wasting time with inferior music by amateurs like Beethoven and Mozart. Of course, he also has a suite of top notch music software.

And a full-frame Canon with a rack of lenses. Rarely carries, and never shows. A really great guy and a very good friend. Just loves to have the latest in creative tools. Always a journey but never a destination.

I suppose we have to accept that for some people the journey is mealy the enjoyment of the products and experiencing the advancements in tech ... its just a shame they have to spend so much time arguing about it on the internet

 

[Mark Grant]

I was once a gear head, now just happy to have something that does what I want rather than worrying if the new model just out is slightly better

In my lens collection, I once owned all at the same time:

Canon 85mm F1.8
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-85mm-f1-8-usm-lens/p12816

A Canon 100mm f2
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-100mm-f2-usm-lens/p12817

and a 100 mm f2.8 macro,
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-100mm-f2-8-usm-macro-lens/p12862

All three in similar focal lengths at the same time, I would worry which lens to take with me on a day out etc...

I am cured now, sold some of them and just kept the 100mm f2.8 macro.

Went through similar 'phases' with 24mm f2.8
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-24mm-f2-8-lens/p12808
Canon 35mm f2
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-35mm-f2-lens/p12812
and Canon 24-105 f4 L
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-canon-ef-24-105mm-f4-l-is-usm-lens/p1010308

All owned at the same time.

I eventuality sold the wide primes and kept the 24-105 f4 L for the wide end.

it does become an addiction once you start spending on lenses, just like hifi and the never ending upgrades.

I still have a Canon 10-22 that I dont use, but never can make myself sell it, not used it for nearly 2 years.....

 

[Larry Bolch]

[video=youtube;7fJmmDkvQyc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fJmmDkvQyc[/video]

Nothing new in the world. Flanders and Swann from 1957.

 

[Ralph Thornton]

You all make very good points and I agree. I have purchased the best my budget can afford and spend my time trying to capture images of the Montana landscapes that please my eye as well as my customers. I need to spend all the time I have improving my skill and not analyzing the microproperties [might have invented a new word here] of my gear. What I have come to like about RPF is that folks here are sharing there wide variety of techniques and styles. I've learned quite a few things that add to my photography even though I might have gleaned that info from a photographic style I do not use.

BTW: I've been away for a while. My summers are very busy with trips in the wilderness far from things like electricity, computers, and bathrooms. ; )

 

[Pete Askew]

Microproperties! I like it. Sounds like my house!!

 

[Mike Milton]

So, first, I *love* Flanders and Swann and even managed to see them live in Toronto years ago.

This is an amusing thread. I used to be an audiophile type and I certainly have an interest in knowing what photo gear I'm buying but, today, in both cases, the technology is not the limiting factor.

Several things are quite amusing on threads on other forums:
- posters talk with authority about items they have never used and argue with folk who are speaking based on experience
- posters seem focussed on rationalizing their own decisions
- posters who agonize over 'IQ' probably do not use a tripod

I have a *lot* of gear for all my interests. It is always bought based on the answer to the question: "does this let me do something that, otherwise, is impossible or difficult to the point of missing shots?"

I rarely upgrade gear unless it actually dies (like my 85F1.2, which CPS declared dead even though it was on their fixed rate repair list).

I'd be interested in hearing what all your decision points are.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I buy my main gear mostly on the basis reducing possible limitations - fastest, fastest, fastest is usually key
Where I don't see limitations I won't upgrade ...

That said, I also buy gear on material desire, but this really only applies to vintage kit...

 

[Mike Milton]

yes, vintage Cameras (or any collectables) are a whole different thing and not driven by function at all

 

[Larry Bolch]

I was a working photographer, so purchases all had to be justified based upon rate of return. When I found myself frustrated time and time again, being unable to produce the best possible photograph, the problem was clearly defined. Then it was a matter of finding the best solution based upon what the new equipment would empower me to do for the most reasonable price.

An example was a need for wide-angle equipment to do both architectural work and environmental portraiture. An 18mm lens on a 35mm camera would do it, but detail would be microscopic on the film. I got a good deal on a used 1950s Brooks VeriWide100—a simple camera with a stunning 47mm SuperAngulon lens over a 6×10 format on 120 film. It served me well for the rest of my career, and sold for way more than I had paid for it. It is still in use. It generated a lot of published work as well as prints for some quite prominent architects and developers.

For those who feel they must flaunt high-end equipment to impress clients, the Brooks looked like a typical 1950s roll-film camera. Focus by guess-and-by-gosh, not even a rangefinder. Viewfinder slipped into the hot-shoe. Lots of chrome, totally looked its age. My portfolio shots got the gigs, and no one paid the least attention to the old camera.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I think the problem with the way technology goes these days for us photographers is that the manufacturers keep raising the bar...
My d3 takes photos fairly happily at 3200 iso, 6400 is still pretty good 12800 is a bit to fuzzy ...
The d3s is happy at 12800 ... Ross takes wedding shots at 12800 iso
I'd love to be able to do that, before the d3s came along I wouldn't have thought it was possible
What will the next gen bring?
Useable shots at 51,200iso?? Maybe...
Would I like to be able to use a camera comfortably at that sort of iso?
Of course I would, and I would be once again less limited if I had one ...

This is one of the painful differences between digital and film, the 'film' is integral to the camera ...as it gets better a new camera is required to take advantage of it ...
Really, the manufactures have us by the balls to a much greater extent than they used to

 

[Larry Bolch]

I just took delivery of a vastly upgraded graphics machine. With the old machine, as I filled hard-drives with photographs, I added another and another, so they were scattered across three drives. Now they are consolidated on a nice 1TB drive that will last for a while. Moving them broke the ACDSee database, so I am having to rebuild it from scratch.

I started with the present year's photos and am working backward. Seeing everything I shot over the past dozen years is actually a positive experience, and makes me appreciate the cameras I now have even more. As I go back each generation, I recall how I had to struggle to get that level of quality. Now—with the D700 and X100—I can concentrate so much more on content and much less on camera operation, and it shows.

I just had a print in hand, shot at ISO12,800 with the D700. It is on letter-size paper, and if someone told me it was film, I would guess it was shot with a 35mm camera using colour negative film in the ISO400-800 range. At the transition point, we would have considered this as quite fine-grain film. For web, I find ISO25,600 highly acceptable. Please review my gallery of available darkness shots at

http://larry-bolch.com/available-darkness/

As a control, see my biker-bar essay shot on Kodak SO2475 Recording film at ISO3200.

http://www.larry-bolch.com/bike-week/

Even at tiny web-sized images, grain is quite profound.

 

[Brian Moore]

I think digital photography is going the way of the hifi. But if you go back to the basics I think not. Fundamentally the camera is just a box with a hole in one end to let light in. (C'mon,...let's all go back to film and manual cameras OK?