white shadow: The X100s is a reasonably good camera for casual use and perhaps for travel. Some like the " Leica look alike" look because they couldn't afford the real McCoy Leica M. It is a fairly good camera to take casual portraits. That's about it.
A full frame DSLR is still the more versatile camera if one is serious about photography despite its heavier weight. It will deliver the goods expected of a professional photographer or for those who engaged them to shoot.
Similar to a Micro 4/3 camera, it will remain a camera for casual use or for collectors who like the look. For practical casual use, the Ricoh GR may be better. For sheer convenience, the Lumix LX7 is surprisingly very useful despite its much smaller sensor especially in low light.
1. I could afford a Leica, but I wanted an X-pro1 instead.
2. What is your definition of versatile? My 5DII wasn't nearly as versatile sitting in my camera bag vs. my X-pro1 which is always with me due to form factor and weight.
3. I hardly consider what I do "casual." There are many pros using the X-system.
To all the haters below...don't worry, I'm sure it's only a matter of time before DPR features your museum quality pictures of babies, sunsets, butterfly macros, and cats...hold tight!
Very cool, but the cost of film is SOOO high.
mcshan: Kim Kardashian could snap a photo and sell it for big money. If she did that some on this forum would refer to her as an artist no matter how mundane the photo.
@Howard: b craw's point? Maybe. I thought the point is that it's silly to think K.K. can take a photo and that be considered art, because to be considered true fine art, the fine art world (museums, collectors, galleries, publications) need to validate it as such. My point is that those on this forum (you!) who just dismiss these images as "simple, anyone can take them..." are at the same time calling museums, collectors, galleries, and publication foolish. But, the reality is that YOU don't really understand what defines "fine art" photography. That's okay, though, it's a difficult concept. If you are truly interested, email me. I'm not trying to be antagonistic here.
Very well said...it's like some people here believe galleries, collectors, and museums are just stupid. If it was up to most here, galleries would primarily hang sunsets, cats, kids, and food shots.
Jeff Seltzer: Well, it's no surprise to read the chorus of "I could do that!" and "This is art??" and "What a bunch of crap!" It's amazing to me you people (yeah, I said it...you people) who come to PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM can not understand and appreciate some of the greatest photographers of all time! Do you even know anything about Gursky?? Have you seen any of his works in-person? Looked at any of his dozens of books?? What you seem to NOT understand is that fine art photography is not about one image, but a body of work, and the importance of that work in the overall medium. You people are the same who walk into a museum, and say "what's with the abstract painting?? It looks like a kid did that!"
Sorry to say, but your images of cats, sunsets, and kids are NOT hanging in museums or on the walls of collectors for a reason. Instead of quickly judging single images, try to do a little research on WHY these images are so sought after.
Somehow, based on your sarcasm, my sense is that you really don't want to engage in a conversation about why Gursky is so important. Try Google.
Well, it's no surprise to read the chorus of "I could do that!" and "This is art??" and "What a bunch of crap!" It's amazing to me you people (yeah, I said it...you people) who come to PHOTOGRAPHY FORUM can not understand and appreciate some of the greatest photographers of all time! Do you even know anything about Gursky?? Have you seen any of his works in-person? Looked at any of his dozens of books?? What you seem to NOT understand is that fine art photography is not about one image, but a body of work, and the importance of that work in the overall medium. You people are the same who walk into a museum, and say "what's with the abstract painting?? It looks like a kid did that!"
Matz03: wow this site is so full of whiners! You don't like adobe don't buy it! $80 upgrade is really that expensive, what a joke. Even $150 for the product is still a steal for what you get, probably more important then other photo gear you'll purchase.
Henry, very well crafted. You are very smart.
Seriously. Some guy below claims Adobe's decision is an assault on his freedom??!! Anyway, it's not like your version 4.x doesn't work anymore. For me, the new features are very much worth it. But, hey, that's me - I'm a big spender, I guess. I'm Mr. Big.
Jeff Seltzer: I have been using and enjoying the Beta version of 5. I think there are some significant feature updates vs. 4. For any of you that have purchased v5, are there are new features not in the beta? ALSO, what's with all the hostility towards Adobe?? It's just software. Lighten up.
Like I said, Lighten up. It's just software. Sorry, I think you are over-reacting. Adobe is not taking away your freedom. Good grief.
I have been using and enjoying the Beta version of 5. I think there are some significant feature updates vs. 4. For any of you that have purchased v5, are there are new features not in the beta? ALSO, what's with all the hostility towards Adobe?? It's just software. Lighten up.
Nothing worries me. If it's worth it, I'll buy. If not, I won't.
Roland Karlsson: This is a famous photo, no doubt. And several here has come to its defence when others claims its the emperors new clothes.
Although it has some charms, I cannot really understand its greatness.
I would be very grateful to anyone that can explain to me why it is so fantastic.
Roland, it's a legit question. To understand why this image is so "great" you need to understand the importance of Eggleston. It's easy to look at this (and the rest of his work) as simple snapshots now, but 40+ years ago, the idea of documenting the "mundane" details around you was new. And, his use of color as a primary focal point in his images was unprecedented - he was basically the first non-advertising photographer to use color in such a way. He was the first to see the beauty that surrounds us with every day objects, and the way he used color as a primary "character" or subject was (is) amazing. His color printing process was also revolutionary. So, like a lot of fine art, you need to understand what the image represents, and not analyze just the image. This image is symbolic of a movement, and is representative of a body of work that revolutionized color photography. If you look at my work, for example, you can see why I appreciate him so much.
Tremolux: Eggleston is vastly overrated.
This attitude reminds me of the people who walk into a modern art museum, look at the abstract or minimalism paintings, and say "what's the big deal, I could do that!" This is called ignorance. The importance of his work is not the technical composition or subject matter, but the unprecedented use of color and printing process. It's easy to look at these images now and say "I could do that" but the truth is, you didn't do it. And doing it now is just copying someone else. There's a reason why collectors and museums value Eggleston, and not "your" pictures of cats, sunsets, sailboats, and kids. Yes, it's easy to take a picture of a a tricycle now, but it's much harder to take a series of pictures with a POV and style that is totally unique to that point. If you can do that, your images will hang in museums, too. Good luck.
BroncoBro: Many comments here remind me of how insular the photography community is. Sorry if I come off sounding elitist, but please consider what I have to say. My background is in painting originally. I came to photography in my 20s while in art school because I thought the images were interesting. Those working in one traditional art media often look at artists working in other media for inspiration. Not so it seems with photographers. With a few commendable exceptions, the comments here are similar to those found in any photographer's forum. There seems to be little awareness of photography beyond the most pedestrian types of work. My guess is that if those at fault would broaden their world view by looking at what is going on in contemporary painting, drawing, installation, video, film, and so on, this discussion about Eggleston would be far different. Taking the time to get out and look at the original physical objects when they come up for exhibition would do a LOT of good.
Totally agree. For a "photography" forum, there is an alarming lack of appreciation for images that are not cats, sunsets, and kids. There's a very troubling "I can do that so why is it special?" attitude. Sad, really.
Jeff Seltzer: A couple of thoughts...
1. In this age of modern digital printing, the notion of "limited editions" is just a marketing scheme. Limited editions used to make sense, but now with digital files, print #100 looks just the same as #1. Creating limited editions huts the artist more than the collector.
2. For all of you slamming the "Tricycle" image...go learn more about what makes an image fine art vs. decorative. Read-up on Eggleston and learn more about why his photography matters. He really started a photographic movement, and the above image is symbolic of that movement. It's an incredibly important image, if not a beautiful or technically complex image. But, do yourselves a favor, and look at his body of work.
@SystemBuilder - very well crafted and thought-out. I liked how your post was even edited after posting, which shows true dedication.
macjonny1: I went out on my back patio, laid on the ground, and took a photo of my kid's bigwheel. Put a bleach bypass filter effect using ColoEfex pro, and looks just like this. Even took it in front of my neighbor's rancher for effect. Granted the bigwheel is plastic but looks the same to me!
Too bad you didn't do it 30 years ago. Easy to make fun of it now, but he was using color in a way no one else was. Maybe instead of poking fun, why don't you do something unique and innovative in photography? Then, maybe you could actually sell a print.
Thinking out loud: Any given object is worth what someone is prepared to pay for it. In the elite world of investment art very rich collectors are more interested in the capital appreciation of their purchases than the "art for art's sake" excuse. Personally I think the Emperor is totally naked - this is snap shot of a kid's toy. The sky is blown out, the composition is clumsy, get a grip on reality. Of all the billions of images out there what makes this one so special? Please educate me, I just do not see anything worth what these collectors, with money to burn, are willing to spend. Are we all buying into the hype, like a bunch of sheep, because the "Art" elites have made a proclamation that it should be so?
This is an interesting read...
Oh, yes. I'm such a sheep for appreciating (and understanding) one of the most important photographers in the modern era. I guess all those museums and collectors are fools, and you are the smart one who simply "isn't impressed" after you googled his images. Nice. Go take some photos of cats or sunsets or something.
It's really sort of sad that you've never even heard or been exposed to his work before. For someone who presumably consider photography a serious hobby, your are very ignorant. Sad.
Get a weekly update of all that's new in the digital
photography world by subscribing to the Digital Photography Review