Reading mode: Light Dark

Do we really need a new camera?

Go to last post
Charles Pike

Charles Pike

Senior Member
Messages
1,531
Reaction score
350
Location
Charlotte, NC, US
If we realize that a camera is just a capture device, and you use mostly the center focus spot, shoot RAW, use only the best pro lens, does the model of DSLR really make that much difference in your output, when the real work is going to be bringing out the photograph in your software program? It didn’t make a difference in the wet darkroom, I am not sure how much it makes in the digital darkroom. It would seem that you really need to master the digital darkroom more than going out and buying the latest model camera. Yes, I wanted the best camera and lens when I only shot B&W, but the pay off was in the darkroom.
 
Charles Pike said:
If we realize that a camera is just a capture device, and you use mostly the center focus spot, shoot RAW, use only the best pro lens, does the model of DSLR really make that much difference in your output, when the real work is going to be bringing out the photograph in your software program? It didn’t make a difference in the wet darkroom, I am not sure how much it makes in the digital darkroom. It would seem that you really need to master the digital darkroom more than going out and buying the latest model camera. Yes, I wanted the best camera and lens when I only shot B&W, but the pay off was in the darkroom.
Click to expand...
You're saying, then, that the camera model and quality makes less difference than do the PP skills?

I'm sure that's true for some photographers, while I'm sure even the best post processor is aided by a good image as a starting point, something that is at least partly determined by camera quality and features.

I preferred not doing a lot of dodging and burning in in my wet darkrooms; I prefer doing as little post processing of any kind with digital equipment. It's a time save, amongst other reasons. Getting it as close to right as possible in the camera seems to me the simplest way to save time for a photographer, especially when the events being covered require shooting hundreds of photos.

--
Charlie Self



http://www.charlieselfonline.com
 
I also use as little PP as possible and most of what I do is in NX2 with very little in CS4. A lot depends on your subject matter. I do a lot of work that involves landscape using tripod mounted camera using a cable release. I am not sure how much a newer camera would help me. I think buying better glass would do more to move your photography forward than buying the latest model camera. Ansel Adams used to refer to the negative to the score, and the finished image to the performance. I am not meaning that we do a whole lot of pp but we still need to do some. I used to burn and dodge a lot when I shot in film, I still do this in NX2.
 
Charles Pike said:
If we realize that a camera is just a capture device, and you use mostly the center focus spot, shoot RAW, use only the best pro lens, does the model of DSLR really make that much difference in your output, when the real work is going to be bringing out the photograph in your software program? It didn’t make a difference in the wet darkroom, I am not sure how much it makes in the digital darkroom. It would seem that you really need to master the digital darkroom more than going out and buying the latest model camera. Yes, I wanted the best camera and lens when I only shot B&W, but the pay off was in the darkroom.
Click to expand...
All things being equal (good glass, good post developing, good technique), as long as the capture medium satisfies, then no. But if you need/desire an improvement in the 'film', well, that requires a new body nowadays.

--
...Bob, NYC

'Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't.' - Little Big Man

http://www.bobtullis.com
 
Well, now and then new films were developed, which brought on a new group of converts from the old (formarly acceptable) film users.

Now, with the digital body being the equivalent of the film (in many ways), something similar is true.

Remember the early digital cameras with the 8-bit A to D converters?
Remember the jump in quality when you stepped up to a 12 bit A to D body?
The 14 bit A to D brings even more subtlties to the image

Just a thought, going back 10 or so years to the first Agfa digital I used and thru the various Kodak, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and Canons.
 
Charles Pike said:
If we realize that a camera is just a capture device, and you use mostly the center focus spot,
Click to expand...
Lost you at that point. Its the reason why I got a 7D instead of 5DII as backup to 1DsIII.

Center point focus and recompose makes you look like you have coordination problem, wastes time, ruins candid opportunities, ruins shot timing, makes tracking off center impossible, makes flash exposures worse, leads to focus errors due to geometry, leads to focus errors due to operator movement, leads to focus error due to subject movement and makes bursting portrait shots with the focus point on an eye impossible.
Now if I could have a 1DsIV with clean ISO 128,000...
Andrew
 
andrewD2 said:
Charles Pike said:
If we realize that a camera is just a capture device, and you use mostly the center focus spot,
Click to expand...
Lost you at that point. Its the reason why I got a 7D instead of 5DII as backup to 1DsIII.

Center point focus and recompose makes you look like you have coordination problem
Click to expand...
But the center AF point on many dSLRs has twice the focusing precision of other AF points (even cross types) when using an f2.8 or faster lens. If you are shooting near wide open close up portraits, manual focus is advised.
 
Exactly, so the camera matters. One center cross focus point or 19 of them where your subject might be.
Manual focus becomes less and less required if the AF is better.

Andrew
 
What jkind of photogaphy for what kind of clients?

I can';t imagine skipping features like multipoint autofocus, lots of choices of metering patterns, getting white balance right inthe camera, multiple frames per second, just so I could spend hours at a computer, consideringhow available these features are.

What kind of clients pay for hours of probably unnecessary computer work?

BAK
 
You saved me a lot of typing.

Going back to single-point autofocus would be a huge step back for me. As you say, focus-and-recompose is detrimental to conposition, timing and often to focus accuracy.

Gato

--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com
 
For photographers whose current camera meet all their needs, maybe they don't need a change. But a lot of us see room for improvement.

At this point we're seeing continuous improvements in both function and image quality. My current camera is a big step up from my last in handling and features, and a noticeable improvement in image quality, but I still see room for improvement. Among other things, live view and face detection have proven very valuable, but they are in their infancy. I expect them to be even better and more useful in the next generation.

So yes, many of us can use improved camera technology.

Gato

--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com
 
I post process the Hell out of every image that allows the time. I've rarely seen a usable image out of camera. Depends on how far you want/need to go.
--
BigPixel / Hawaii
 
Hi, yeah I couldn't go back.
I forgot also that an IS lens has to stabilise again after recomposing.

Andrew
 
Charlie Self said:
You're saying, then, that the camera model and quality makes less difference than do the PP skills?

I'm sure that's true for some photographers, while I'm sure even the best post processor is aided by a good image as a starting point, something that is at least partly determined by camera quality and features.

I preferred not doing a lot of dodging and burning in in my wet darkrooms; I prefer doing as little post processing of any kind with digital equipment. It's a time save, amongst other reasons. Getting it as close to right as possible in the camera seems to me the simplest way to save time for a photographer, especially when the events being covered require shooting hundreds of photos.
Click to expand...
This is most sensible answer I've seen in a long time. I still use all the technique I learned years ago with film now doing digital. The less I have to P/P the better I like it and I don't need a ton of expensive programs to get the results I like.
"FILM FOR EVER"
Charlie Self said:
--
Charlie Self



http://www.charlieselfonline.com
Click to expand...
 
Charles Pike said:
If we realize that a camera is just a capture device, and you use mostly the center focus spot, shoot RAW, use only the best pro lens, does the model of DSLR really make that much difference in your output, when the real work is going to be bringing out the photograph in your software program? It didn’t make a difference in the wet darkroom, I am not sure how much it makes in the digital darkroom. It would seem that you really need to master the digital darkroom more than going out and buying the latest model camera. Yes, I wanted the best camera and lens when I only shot B&W, but the pay off was in the darkroom.
Click to expand...
Absolutely right, thats why I now shoot everything on my iPhone and do the rest in Photoshop, to think I once hauled Hasselblads and Sinars around.

Kevin.
 
I've just found my old Contax 35mm body with manual focus Zeiss lens. The viewfinder is spectacular in terms of its size and brightness and manual focus is so easy and quick. My D700s are nowhere near as good.

Now if I could have a viewfinder like that I'd happily do without the auto-focus altogether.
 
Photography is all about the camera AND post processing.

If you can tell the after came from the before, you havent done enough PP.
 
Agree with you 100% -

This is the reason that I did not choose to go get the lastest release of camera body that my brand just came out with.

This is also the reason many people get many out of focus shots consistently and then blame the lens because they can't figure it out or cannot concieve it could be this reason.

You put it perfectly into words with that explanation. I feel like copying it and pasting it somewhere so I can refer to it again in the future next time I get asked or questioned why I don't keep my camera always on the center dot.

suse
 
andrewD2 said:
Exactly, so the camera matters. One center cross focus point or 19 of them where your subject might be.
Click to expand...
Again, the center AF point of most dSLRs is twice as "accurate" as "other" AF points that are also cross types when using f2.8 or faster lenses. So eve with the 7D, the center point is the most accurate when using an f2.8 o faster lens compared to any of its "other" 18 cross type AF points. Get it now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
How do I make my film photos less "digital"?
Replies
16
Views
25K
alex_virt
A
J
Do used GF lenses hold their value over time?
Replies
14
Views
199
JohnS59
J
G
Old timer - two family weddings in one weekend, one of them blurry
Replies
7
Views
72
gurtch
G
G
Old timer: 2 weddings in one weekend; one of them blurry
Replies
7
Views
375
Digital Nigel
D
M
Film vs. Digtial: The Final Arbiter - the Print
Replies
15
Views
322
Michael Firstlight
M

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