Reading mode: Light Dark

Please DON'T buy the new Sony A700!

Go to last post
D

Dave163

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Location
West Midlands, UK
One of the things I've really appreciated about this forum over the last year of owning an A100 as compared to being on the Canon or Nikon forums is that real experts have been forced to use the same entry level camera as newbies like me and knowing just what my camera is capable of has given me hope that one day my shots might just end up better than they presently are. Please don't ruin it for me by all rushing out to get the A700 as that way we'll end up with the pros all using a souped-up camera and the few remaining A100 shots posted on the forum will be the sort of naff shots I'm currently coming up with and it will make me think that it's my camera and not my technique that needs upgrading!
 
Heh :) well A100 is a fine dSLR ... and not everyone is going to jump on another expensive piece at launch . SO dont worry Iäm sure we will see pleny of good pictures beeing taken with A100 in the future!
 
Dave163 said:
One of the things I've really appreciated about this forum over the
last year of owning an A100 as compared to being on the Canon or
Nikon forums is that real experts have been forced to use the same
entry level camera as newbies like me and knowing just what my camera
is capable of has given me hope that one day my shots might just end
up better than they presently are. Please don't ruin it for me by all
rushing out to get the A700 as that way we'll end up with the pros
all using a souped-up camera and the few remaining A100 shots posted
on the forum will be the sort of naff shots I'm currently coming up
with and it will make me think that it's my camera and not my
technique that needs upgrading!
Click to expand...
The best solution is to have two bodies.. I am keeping my 5D
------------
Ken - KM 5D
http://www.cascadephotoworks.com
 
Suck it up princess and get a life. Some photographers are better than you and some cameras are better than yours. How does that affect your ability to take a photograph, besides revealing your lethal inferiority complex? News flash, your camera will work exactly the same the day after the A700 is released as it does today.

Sony is finally bringing out a higher end body over a year after the A100, giving Sony and KM photographers an upgrade path. Stagnation is death.

--
The avalanche has begun. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
 
Dave163 said:
One of the things I've really appreciated about this forum over the
last year of owning an A100 as compared to being on the Canon or
Nikon forums is that real experts have been forced to use the same
entry level camera as newbies like me and knowing just what my camera
is capable of has given me hope that one day my shots might just end
up better than they presently are. Please don't ruin it for me by all
rushing out to get the A700 as that way we'll end up with the pros
all using a souped-up camera and the few remaining A100 shots posted
on the forum will be the sort of naff shots I'm currently coming up
with and it will make me think that it's my camera and not my
technique that needs upgrading!
Click to expand...
Despite what you might hear from a few jerks, we've all been beginners. You should celebrate both that you have an upgrade path and that the new camera(s) will bring those with greater experience to the forum. They can help you. I'm no expert, but I try to help the new people where I can.

The price is that you'll see a few posts - hopefully not too many - from idiots who think they are experts and that you're not worth their time. Please just ignore them.
 
Folks, remember the camera's the tool, not the person pressing the button!
 
Of all the arguments contributing to the quality of a photograph, camera is the least important. Controlling light, composition and purpose of a photograph is much-much more important to master. camera is a tool... a hummer, and no hummer yet turned ba carpenter into good one.
--
ZeevK
http://www.pbase.com/zeevk
 
I was reading - again - Andreas Feininger's book "That's photography" (or something like this, in German it's called "Grosse Fotoschule"). There is a section that precisely describes the dilemma.

Professional gear indeed does allow photographers to create technically correct images more easily than with non-professional gear. "Technically correct" means that the image is correctly exposed, and the focus point is set correctly. Nothing more, nothing less.

The problem is, that "technically correct" does not automatically mean impressive, interesting, touching. Photography is art, and photographers therefore are - according to Feininger - artists, and it's the photographer's task to find interesting subjects and to make good pictures of it.

While professional equipment can be bought, the artists' eye cannot. So if you think that your images are not good enough, buying better gear usually does not help at all. It's usually not the technical aspect of the image that is bad, but the "artistic expression". It's usually better to invest time and money into strengthening your artistic self, rather than into gear.

Additionally, it's a lot more fun to educate yourself than buying stuff. At least this is true for me.

Regards, Josef.
 
josefnemecek said:
Additionally, it's a lot more fun to educate yourself than buying
stuff. At least this is true for me.

Regards, Josef.
Click to expand...
As I recall, you're not American, correct? That would be why education is more fun than consumption for you. :D

For shame for questioning our materialistic society!! When's the A700 available for purchase? ;)
 
Yes, but not everyone uses a camera for art. I would dare say that most professional photographers don't get paid to create art.
josefnemecek said:
I was reading - again - Andreas Feininger's book "That's photography"
(or something like this, in German it's called "Grosse Fotoschule").
There is a section that precisely describes the dilemma.

Professional gear indeed does allow photographers to create
technically correct images more easily than with non-professional
gear. "Technically correct" means that the image is correctly
exposed, and the focus point is set correctly. Nothing more, nothing
less.

The problem is, that "technically correct" does not automatically
mean impressive, interesting, touching. Photography is art, and
photographers therefore are - according to Feininger - artists, and
it's the photographer's task to find interesting subjects and to make
good pictures of it.

While professional equipment can be bought, the artists' eye cannot.
So if you think that your images are not good enough, buying better
gear usually does not help at all. It's usually not the technical
aspect of the image that is bad, but the "artistic expression". It's
usually better to invest time and money into strengthening your
artistic self, rather than into gear.

Additionally, it's a lot more fun to educate yourself than buying
stuff. At least this is true for me.

Regards, Josef.
Click to expand...
--
http://photos.ashernet.co.uk/
 
Asher said:
Yes, but not everyone uses a camera for art. I would dare say that
most professional photographers don't get paid to create art.
Click to expand...
That's probably the problem. Most professional photographers get paid for making informative pictures. That is probably also the reason, why today's professional photographers hardly earn money. Making pictures à la "been there, made the shot, gone home" does not necessarily need an educated person; a guy with some kind of camera is enough, he only has to press the shutter at the right moment. This is at least the most professionals' job description today. Newspapers and media companies do not expect great pictures, just something that fills the space next to the article.

What the original poster asked, is to learn how to shoot impressive pictures. Making impressive pictures has usually nothing to do with gear, since almost every available tool allows influencing enough the final technical product (sensitivity, shutter, aperture, focus). The rest (subject, perspective, light, framing, etc.) only depends on the photographer.

Again, a fool with a tool remains a fool. So photographers that make boring, uninteresting pictures, keep making those pictures, no matter how professional his gear is. So investing time and money into educating yourself is much more effective.

Regards, Josef.
 
Gosh, that stimulated more discussion and debate than I had intended! And it's not sour grapes from me that prompted the original post, just a misplaced sense of humour. But I wonder how long it will be before we regard the A100 as a piece of ancient history incapable of delivering good enough shots, in the way that noone now would consider buying a 2MP dSLR camera, even though such things were state of the art only a few years back.
 
Sorry, it had passed me by that the definition of a pro is someone who shoots exclusively with Canon or Nikon.

In which case, what are Hassleblad users called? Strong-armed?
 
t his p ost is in response to digitaldan's tirade...Wow, amazing.

Could you try to lighten up a bit?
U nless I'm mistaken, the post was made in jest.
N ot everyone is an award winning photographer as I'm sure you are.
Temper your words with humility and you'll not look like a donkey.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top