When good is good enough: a hobbyist perspective

Bandit57 · Jan 12, 2018

AlwynS said:
And to start I have to give some perspective to this:

Firstly I am a hobbyist and strictly an amateur photographer. A quite enthusiastic amateur but at the end of it still an amateur. This means that when I take photographs I do it as a hobby and really only for my own enjoyment. This gives quite a different perspective than some others would have.

Secondly: my principal area of interest is birds and particularly BIF.

The subject of this thread came to me after I was fortunate enough to be given a 12 minute long display of flying by a pair of Bald Eagles yesterday: see thread HERE They were enjoying a "standing wave" of air from an onshore wind and were really just surfing around at relatively low level and close to the walkway on the dyke next to our townhouse complex. This allowed me a lot of time to take numerous photographs (I will admit to around 550 shots!).

Now for an amateur with mid level equipment such as mine, BIF tend to be quite a challenge. But I enjoy it for many reasons: flying birds to me just seem right (and yes: I know they spend more time NOT flying than flying, but flying sort of is their big claim to fame!). Secondly I enjoy the challenge. Yes, I get many, many mediocre to bad (make that "pathetic"!) shots. But every now and then you get some that are immensely satisfying. And it is this definition of "immensely satisfying" that really is the subject of this thread.

I am an engineer, not an artist. Which many of my family and friends would say explains a lot! :-D So my understanding (and appreciation?) of art tends to be.... well, let's just say "somewhat stunted" and leave it there. This is probably why I enjoy a more technical topic such as BIF.

Major fact: In doing what I do, I enjoy "pretty". And we all know how subjective THAT is! Almost as subjective as art!

So I do not have fantastic high end equipment. By that standard I have relatively inexpensive equipment (although there are millions and millions of people all over the world who would vehemently disagree with that judgement). I do not spend days and days on getting the perfect shot. But I enjoy getting outside and trying to get a better (prettier?) shot.

But. And this is a big BUT!

I am NOT striving for perfection. We all know the saying that "perfect is the enemy of good". When I get a "good" photograph (by my standards: also read "pretty" for good), I am totally, totally happy and satisfied. For example: just one of the photographs I got yesterday:

I know this can be torn apart technically AND aesthetically/artistically. Unfortunately Bald Eagles tend to be a quite a bit of VERY white and even more VERY black. Especially when the white head is in the sun and the dark bottom of the wing is in shade. So yes, I know the DR is too limited and I could have done better with a FF camera and taking RAW images and processing better. And I know it is just a couple of birds in the sky with no background or perspective and it tells no story whatsoever. And, and, and....

But hey, guess what? I think it is pretty. Simplistic as that may be, I like it! And I am satisfied and happy.

And isn't that the point of a hobby?

--
Cheers
Alwyn

I can see your statement and I do absolutely agree with it but I have a different approach to happiness.

I may be very happy just witnessing nature, I can even forget/not bother to take photo’s sometimes and just observe for hours.

But IF I do take a photograh I want it to be better than ever before which means that I’m still not and probably never will be a 100% content after 43 years photographing. This means I’m using highend stuff so there’s no escape for me in blaming my gear.

Am I a frustrated photographer? Well I may say I’m not by any means.

I love my hobby for the joy and fulfillment, the distraction of the things I’ve seen and the relief it brings me, but if I can’t see it anymore like an enduring challenge I will stop photographing

--
Nunc aut nunquam

Since2007 · Jan 12, 2018

AlwynS said:
And to start I have to give some perspective to this:

Firstly I am a hobbyist and strictly an amateur photographer. A quite enthusiastic amateur but at the end of it still an amateur. This means that when I take photographs I do it as a hobby and really only for my own enjoyment. This gives quite a different perspective than some others would have.

I am with you.

AlwynS said:
Secondly: my principal area of interest is birds and particularly BIF.

BIF is also one of my areas of interest. The difference is, I am more interested in iron birds. They are faster but easier to catch because they are so much bigger!

NormSchultze · Jan 12, 2018

Whn folks get too intense...I say..."Hobby Effort, that's all"

VadymA · Jan 12, 2018

I am a hobbyist too. To me, the real enjoyment is in the process, not even in the results. I would not compare it to any competitive sport, like other do here. It is more like fishing to me. When I was a kid, I never liked the taste of fish that much, but I loved fishing. The anticipation, the intrigue, of catching something was the real driver. It didn’t matter how big was the catch. But once I caught it, I barely looked at it after that, just gave it to my parents to cook. Same with my photography. I go out there to enjoy the process of catching “something”. It doesn’t have to be big or perfect, it just has to be up to MY standards (which are not mediocre by any means). If I get something I like - I am happy. I don’t even have to share it with anybody. This happy moment lasts only for a day or two, and then I almost forget about it. And it doesn’t matter because I am already on my way for the next “catch”.

There are some exceptions though - which is taking pictures of my family. The “happy” moments from viewing my family albums never fades, just get bigger with years. And I am grateful to my hobby for making me a slightly better photographer to be able to create better memories for my family. This alone is worth more than any critique I could get for not making a perfect shot of a flower or something.

AlwynS · Jan 12, 2018

VadymA said:
There are some exceptions though - which is taking pictures of my family. The “happy” moments from viewing my family albums never fades, just get bigger with years. And I am grateful to my hobby for making me a slightly better photographer to be able to create better memories for my family. This alone is worth more than any critique I could get for not making a perfect shot of a flower or something.

I have isolated this because it resonates for me. I was a relatively early adopter of video so I have videos of our kids from pretty much their birth in the 80's. This includes all the normal highlights: first words, learning to walk, learning to ride a bicycle, first school day etc. A few years a go I made a compilation video. I think most of you have a fair idea of the time it takes to make a short video clip. Now try distilling down tens of hours of video taken over many years into a one hour video!

Also comes back to my "twilight years" and "life well lived" comment earlier. This to me is priceless beyond measure.

CMCM · Jan 13, 2018

Well expressed, and I agree completely. My own motives are very similar. I loved photography when I was young and in my 20s in particular, then in the couple of decades I just didn't have time to re-learn all this digital camera stuff so I let it go and just bought a string of P&S cameras for the most part. Now that I have time to learn these things that most people here on the forum already know so well, I'm finding this great fun, and that's all it is, fun. I just bought a Nikon P900 entirely the fun of that crazy long zoom, and it definitely is great fun. And through that I've gained a whole new side interest in shooting birds, wildlife (I live in the mountains) and insects. One thing leads to another, I guess!

caterpillar · Jan 13, 2018

First, I am not a bird or wildlife photography. But I have been in the digital camera revolution at the turn of the 20th century and been there in the early 2000's to get the 300d and what is the most affordable dslr at that time. I can tell you that today's equipment, even the entry level will beat the 300d, 20d, 30d even the 40d of yesteryears.

I love sports shooting. But in the early 2000's, unless you buy a 1D or D1H and those L lenses and expensive f2.8 zooms, you can't really shoot fast moving action without these gears. You can try, but your keepers will be very low. You'll be lucky to get 5 out of a 100 shots in many situations if the action is track and field or soccer.

Now consider if you are even just using an SL2 and a 55-250 STM lens. My guess, you can get about 15-25 good shots out of that from a 100 shots! Maybe you'll even get more if the light is good and you use primes. Why is that?

The advancement of tech through the years has made AF, high ISOs, pixel count, etc way much better. And the lenses need not be the top of the line to be sharp and good even at all FLs. It would put to shame even the 5d2, or even the 50d (or 60d). I don't know much about Nikon gear, but as far as Canon goes, one can safely assume that anything made pre-2012 will probably not be good enough for sports, except maybe the 7d. But even that camera is not good at high ISO's when you need to bump up the shutter speeds to freeze motion. Of course the top of the line may be able to deliver the goods, and with faster lenses (L or primes). But then again, we are talking about non top-of-the-line equipment, which is your assumption. Today's 800d/77d could probably match or even exceed a 1D made ca 2007-2010 in getting a high percentage of keepers.

Yesterday's high end equipment is today's mid-level or entry level equipment. Technology and improvements continue, and today's gear is more than enough to do most of the photography tasks. There will come a time that an entry level camera of tomorrow will be able to do what the 1Dx or D1 of today. So, what is really high end equipment?

The point of all this is simple - today's midlevel equipment is no slouch anymore. Even today's entry level gear have a lot of fighting chance for your type of shooting. So, not having the best equipment is no longer the problem. If I were to get a Panasonic G9 + even a simple U$125 Olympus 40-150 f3.5-5.6 lens (equiv of 300mm), I can probably do some decent birding in good light! The G9 is U$1,700 + U$125 (for the lens) = U$1,825. Ca 2005, you could probably buy a 20d/30d with that amount. That's a 5fps, 8mp, 9-point AF which struggles in low light and in fast subjects. The g9 has amazing AF and can track subjects well, at 20fps at 20mp and can string dozens of raw files to boot. Even if you buy the cheaper models like the g85 at U$1000 with 12-60 lens and you still get 16mp, 9fps, sharper image even at Iso 1600-3200.

So, Today's photographer isn't really hobbled anymore. Will you get better results if you had a Sony A9 + 100-400 GM? Sure you can and will! But it's not as if today's gear is severely crippled compared to 10 more years ago!

As you said, there is just good enough equipment. And today's cameras, especially those bought ca 2013-2014 and later are more than capable for almost all types of photography. And anything really camera bought between U$1,100-2,000 is more than just enough to do the job for most types of photography.

As far as lenses go, it used to be that you have to have the best lenses to get many things done. Now, many lenses are sharp and need not be the U$1,500 or more priced lenses. The only limitations of lower priced lenses is usually the slower aperture they can give wide open. But even with lenses, they can be good enough too. And if you go 3rd party like Sigma, or Tamron, you can get by with top-of-the-line optics at half or more the price of the name brand. In some instances, these 3rd party lenses outperform the major name brands.

What has not been said is, that in the same price bracket, you can really get a lot of features and capabilities if you don't stick with the major players. If one becomes brand agnostic, and just focus on the specs of the equipment, one can be surprised as to the capabilities of some brands to offer more for the same price. So, one can literally get more than just "good enough," with some brands. If one is a smart consumer, one must investigate and do one's research to avail of these "more than just good enough" gear but at "good enough" prices.

--
------------------
- Caterpillar
'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

Bandit57 · Jan 13, 2018

caterpillar said:
First, I am not a bird or wildlife photography. But I have been in the digital camera revolution at the turn of the 20th century and been there in the early 2000's to get the 300d and what is the most affordable dslr at that time. I can tell you that today's equipment, even the entry level will beat the 300d, 20d, 30d even the 40d of yesteryears.

I love sports shooting. But in the early 2000's, unless you buy a 1D or D1H and those L lenses and expensive f2.8 zooms, you can't really shoot fast moving action without these gears. You can try, but your keepers will be very low. You'll be lucky to get 5 out of a 100 shots in many situations if the action is track and field or soccer.

Now consider if you are even just using an SL2 and a 55-250 STM lens. My guess, you can get about 15-25 good shots out of that from a 100 shots! Maybe you'll even get more if the light is good and you use primes. Why is that?

The advancement of tech through the years has made AF, high ISOs, pixel count, etc way much better. And the lenses need not be the top of the line to be sharp and good even at all FLs. It would put to shame even the 5d2, or even the 50d (or 60d). I don't know much about Nikon gear, but as far as Canon goes, one can safely assume that anything made pre-2012 will probably not be good enough for sports, except maybe the 7d. But even that camera is not good at high ISO's when you need to bump up the shutter speeds to freeze motion. Of course the top of the line may be able to deliver the goods, and with faster lenses (L or primes). But then again, we are talking about non top-of-the-line equipment, which is your assumption. Today's 800d/77d could probably match or even exceed a 1D made ca 2007-2010 in getting a high percentage of keepers.

The point of all this is simple - today's midlevel equipment is no slouch anymore. Even today's entry level gear have a lot of fighting chance for your type of shooting. So, not having the best equipment is no longer the problem. If I were to get a Panasonic G9 + even a simple U$125 Olympus 40-150 f3.5-5.6 lens (equiv of 300mm), I can probably do some decent birding in good light! The G9 is U$1,700 + U$125 (for the lens) = U$1,825. Ca 2005, you could probably buy a 20d/30d with that amount. That's a 5fps, 8mp, 9-point AF which struggles in low light and in fast subjects. The g9 has amazing AF and can track subjects well, at 20fps at 20mp and can string dozens of raw files to boot. Even if you buy the cheaper models like the g85 at U$1000 with 12-60 lens and you still get 16mp, 9fps, sharper image even at Iso 1600-3200.

So, Today's photographer isn't really hobbled anymore. Will you get better results if you had a Sony A9 + 100-400 GM? Sure you can and will! But it's not as if today's gear is severely crippled compared to 10 more years ago!

As you said, there is just good enough equipment. And today's cameras, especially those bought ca 2013-2014 and later are more than capable for almost all types of photography. And anything really camera bought between U$1,100-2,000 is more than just enough to do the job for most types of photography.

As far as lenses go, it used to be that you have to have the best lenses to get many things done. Now, many lenses are sharp and need not be the U$1,500 or more priced lenses. The only limitations of lower priced lenses is usually the slower aperture they can give wide open. But even with lenses, they can be good enough too. And if you go 3rd party like Sigma, or Tamron, you can get by with top-of-the-line optics at half or more the price of the name brand. In some instances, these 3rd party lenses outperform the major name brands.

What has not been said is, that in the same price bracket, you can really get a lot of features and capabilities if you don't stick with the major players. If one becomes brand agnostic, and just focus on the specs of the equipment, one can be surprised as to the capabilities of some brands to offer more for the same price. So, one can literally get more than just "good enough," with some brands. If one is a smart consumer, one must investigate and do one's research to avail of these "more than just good enough" gear but at "good enough" prices.

hombrec · Jan 13, 2018

Fascinating [ ala Spock ?] ... an engineer who is HAPPY with whatever results you get?

Relatively recent , past three years ... I was lured into BIF and nature photography coming from a serious amateur BW landscape background [ large - med , 4x5, 8x10] background where CLARITY reigns ...

Now .. Here is what I found .. IF you are doing BIF ... nature images.. they are either SHARP and crisp, well composed or NOT .. .just as IN engineering . PRECISE , not bocci ball here.. or THERE so I do NOT quite understand your comment?

IF you mean , because YOU are not a pro .. the image is NOT important to

be SHARP , CRISP, WELL COMPOSED .. properly processed .. fine .. BUT I do NOT believe that is YOUR standard ... I think what you might be saying is .. .YOUR images are NOT being submitted to compete in the commercial world of photography to earn a living and SO therefore, IT is NOT important to me IF they are on par with the pros or not ... hmmmm .. let's just say that ... YOU are a happy person who takes BIF photos ..and I hope others like them ... I liked the one you shared .. who can argue with I am Happy otherwise ? I am NOT happy UNLESS certain parameters are correct ... thanks

AlwynS · Jan 13, 2018

Good thoughts and comments. Some of my opinions added below

hombrec said:
Fascinating [ ala Spock ?] ... an engineer who is HAPPY with whatever results you get?

Umm, nope! I am certainly not happy with "whatever I get": absolutely not. But (and a big but): I am NOT striving for perfection (whatever THAT is!). If the image looks good to me (and I do at least have SOMEWHAT of a critical eye!), I am happy. If it is blurry, badly composed, badly exposed then no: I am totally not happy... and into the bin it goes.

hombrec said:
Relatively recent , past three years ... I was lured into BIF and nature photography coming from a serious amateur BW landscape background [ large - med , 4x5, 8x10] background where CLARITY reigns ...

Now .. Here is what I found .. IF you are doing BIF ... nature images.. they are either SHARP and crisp, well composed or NOT .. .just as IN engineering . PRECISE , not bocci ball here.. or THERE so I do NOT quite understand your comment?

I think this is a common misconception: engineers do not and cannot strive for perfection. They precisely strive to achieve the appropriate level given uncertainties and assumptions. This in a field that is a gazillion times less subjective than "what is a good photograph?". This is really what I was talking about. Of course in something as subjective as photography we can endlessly debate what constitutes "appropriate"!

hombrec said:
IF you mean , because YOU are not a pro .. the image is NOT important to be SHARP , CRISP, WELL COMPOSED .. properly processed .. fine .. BUT I do NOT believe that is YOUR standard ...

That is a good and valid differentiation. Absolutely: I strive for sharpness, crispness and decent composition. But if you were to get specific and objective: what really constitutes the definitions of the above concepts? I would suggest that for virtually all of us they are extremely vague and nebulous and in the end totally subjective. What is acceptably sharp to you might not be sharp to me and vice versa. Same with composition: you quite possibly might not like what I like.

hombrec said:
I think what you might be saying is .. .YOUR images are NOT being submitted to compete in the commercial world of photography to earn a living and SO therefore, IT is NOT important to me IF they are on par with the pros or not ... hmmmm

Fair comment.

hombrec said:
.. let's just say that ... YOU are a happy person who takes BIF photos ..and I hope others like them ... I liked the one you shared .. who can argue with I am Happy otherwise ? I am NOT happy UNLESS certain parameters are correct ... thanks

Agreed: this is an absolutely legit/fair/reasonable perspective. And not contrary to what I intended: perhaps better clarification.

As for what I like and find "nice" by my standards: perhaps just a few (specifically BIF) examples of some of my relatively recent images that I like would be worth a thousand of my inadequate words?

I could post hundreds more like this but I think this would suffice to indicate what I like.

Cheers
Alwyn

Mr Garibaldi · Jan 13, 2018

The nice thing about being a hobbiest is being able to take the time to be as good as I can be. When I was a working pro, everything was on some sort of deadline, usually ASAP delivery on minimal prep time and no possibility of reshooting. When you are a working pro, if you are able to release only your very best into the wild, you are fortunate.

CMCM · Jan 13, 2018

Great perspective, I appreciate your experienced view on all this!

caterpillar · Jan 15, 2018

Bandit57 said:
caterpillar said:

First, I am not a bird or wildlife photography. But I have been in the digital camera revolution at the turn of the 20th century and been there in the early 2000's to get the 300d and what is the most affordable dslr at that time. I can tell you that today's equipment, even the entry level will beat the 300d, 20d, 30d even the 40d of yesteryears.

I love sports shooting. But in the early 2000's, unless you buy a 1D or D1H and those L lenses and expensive f2.8 zooms, you can't really shoot fast moving action without these gears. You can try, but your keepers will be very low. You'll be lucky to get 5 out of a 100 shots in many situations if the action is track and field or soccer.

Now consider if you are even just using an SL2 and a 55-250 STM lens. My guess, you can get about 15-25 good shots out of that from a 100 shots! Maybe you'll even get more if the light is good and you use primes. Why is that?

The advancement of tech through the years has made AF, high ISOs, pixel count, etc way much better. And the lenses need not be the top of the line to be sharp and good even at all FLs. It would put to shame even the 5d2, or even the 50d (or 60d). I don't know much about Nikon gear, but as far as Canon goes, one can safely assume that anything made pre-2012 will probably not be good enough for sports, except maybe the 7d. But even that camera is not good at high ISO's when you need to bump up the shutter speeds to freeze motion. Of course the top of the line may be able to deliver the goods, and with faster lenses (L or primes). But then again, we are talking about non top-of-the-line equipment, which is your assumption. Today's 800d/77d could probably match or even exceed a 1D made ca 2007-2010 in getting a high percentage of keepers.

The point of all this is simple - today's midlevel equipment is no slouch anymore. Even today's entry level gear have a lot of fighting chance for your type of shooting. So, not having the best equipment is no longer the problem. If I were to get a Panasonic G9 + even a simple U$125 Olympus 40-150 f3.5-5.6 lens (equiv of 300mm), I can probably do some decent birding in good light! The G9 is U$1,700 + U$125 (for the lens) = U$1,825. Ca 2005, you could probably buy a 20d/30d with that amount. That's a 5fps, 8mp, 9-point AF which struggles in low light and in fast subjects. The g9 has amazing AF and can track subjects well, at 20fps at 20mp and can string dozens of raw files to boot. Even if you buy the cheaper models like the g85 at U$1000 with 12-60 lens and you still get 16mp, 9fps, sharper image even at Iso 1600-3200.

So, Today's photographer isn't really hobbled anymore. Will you get better results if you had a Sony A9 + 100-400 GM? Sure you can and will! But it's not as if today's gear is severely crippled compared to 10 more years ago!

As you said, there is just good enough equipment. And today's cameras, especially those bought ca 2013-2014 and later are more than capable for almost all types of photography. And anything really camera bought between U$1,100-2,000 is more than just enough to do the job for most types of photography.

As far as lenses go, it used to be that you have to have the best lenses to get many things done. Now, many lenses are sharp and need not be the U$1,500 or more priced lenses. The only limitations of lower priced lenses is usually the slower aperture they can give wide open. But even with lenses, they can be good enough too. And if you go 3rd party like Sigma, or Tamron, you can get by with top-of-the-line optics at half or more the price of the name brand. In some instances, these 3rd party lenses outperform the major name brands.

What has not been said is, that in the same price bracket, you can really get a lot of features and capabilities if you don't stick with the major players. If one becomes brand agnostic, and just focus on the specs of the equipment, one can be surprised as to the capabilities of some brands to offer more for the same price. So, one can literally get more than just "good enough," with some brands. If one is a smart consumer, one must investigate and do one's research to avail of these "more than just good enough" gear but at "good enough" prices.

Click to expand...

hombrec · Jan 16, 2018

A.... Well done !!! Beautiful work ..

YOU are a humble gentleman , tactful with a kind heart ..

...

skilled Photographer content and happy ... with your life... Thanks for sharing ... regards... richard

Dennis · Jan 16, 2018

AlwynS said:
I think this is a common misconception: engineers do not and cannot strive for perfection. They precisely strive to achieve the appropriate level given uncertainties and assumptions.

Agreed. One of the first things you learn when you get out of school and into a job is that the cool way you want to implement something, or the way that the theory says is the fastest/most efficient, all goes out the window in favor of business concerns. And your time is a business expense, so if you can do a perfect job in 15 months or a good enough job in 12, good enough may very well win. I'm involved with a FIRST robotics team and one of the tough lessons the chief mentor teaches the kids is that you choose the solution that's most likely to win the game, not the coolest one that would be the most fun to implement. (Other teams run differently, but he's interested in teaching kids how to be an engineer).

When it comes to some of the technical attributes that people bicker over so much, I think the more demanding photographers fall into two camps. There has to be some subset who can actually make use of it ... who print big, possibly for money, but not necessarily. Then there are those (maybe the majority ?) who don't actually do anything with their images that demands the quality, but who pursue it in the same way a car enthusiast wants a faster car than he ever drives (or one with offroad capabilities he never uses) or who wants the luxury of a smooth, quiet ride. The luxury car driver isn't daft enough to think he can't get where he's going in a cheap car. He just doesn't want to. Photography is no different from any other hobby where people spend money and pursue gear just for the fun of it. I have a friend who skis infrequently on slopes in NY and VT and recently bought custom fit boots with a foam liner that's conformed to his feet ... he spent more on those boots than a lot of people here spend on a lens and he doesn't ski enough to "need" them by any stretch. But his theory is that if he's going to spend time on a hobby, he wants to do it with "good stuff".

It's so easy to accuse someone of having messed up priorities or a flawed sense of "necessary" just because they're searching for perfection in gear and not doing anything that (according to our own priorities) warrants it. That's when the "more money than brains" accusations start flying. But it could be that people just want what they want for reasons that make sense to them. I can't imagine that any two dpr members spend their money the same way.

AlwynS said:
AlwynS said:

.. let's just say that ... YOU are a happy person who takes BIF photos ..and I hope others like them ... I liked the one you shared .. who can argue with I am Happy otherwise ? I am NOT happy UNLESS certain parameters are correct ... thanks

Click to expand...

Agreed: this is an absolutely legit/fair/reasonable perspective. And not contrary to what I intended: perhaps better clarification.

Yes, the key is for each of us to figure out what is good enough for ourselves ... and then to realize that that answer applies ONLY to ourselves !

- Dennis
--

Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

AlwynS · Jan 16, 2018

hombrec said:
A.... Well done !!! Beautiful work ..

YOU are a humble gentleman , tactful with a kind heart ..

...

skilled Photographer content and happy ... with your life... Thanks for sharing ... regards... richard

Wow, thank you VERY much Richard: those are incredibly kind words that mean a lot to me.

Particularly enjoy the Cardinal shot: I would certainly very much like to see one of those in real life one day....

Alwyn

AlwynS · Jan 16, 2018

Dennis said:
AlwynS said:

I think this is a common misconception: engineers do not and cannot strive for perfection. They precisely strive to achieve the appropriate level given uncertainties and assumptions.

Click to expand...

Agreed. One of the first things you learn when you get out of school and into a job is that the cool way you want to implement something, or the way that the theory says is the fastest/most efficient, all goes out the window in favor of business concerns. And your time is a business expense, so if you can do a perfect job in 15 months or a good enough job in 12, good enough may very well win. I'm involved with a FIRST robotics team and one of the tough lessons the chief mentor teaches the kids is that you choose the solution that's most likely to win the game, not the coolest one that would be the most fun to implement. (Other teams run differently, but he's interested in teaching kids how to be an engineer).

When it comes to some of the technical attributes that people bicker over so much, I think the more demanding photographers fall into two camps. There has to be some subset who can actually make use of it ... who print big, possibly for money, but not necessarily. Then there are those (maybe the majority ?) who don't actually do anything with their images that demands the quality, but who pursue it in the same way a car enthusiast wants a faster car than he ever drives (or one with offroad capabilities he never uses) or who wants the luxury of a smooth, quiet ride. The luxury car driver isn't daft enough to think he can't get where he's going in a cheap car. He just doesn't want to. Photography is no different from any other hobby where people spend money and pursue gear just for the fun of it. I have a friend who skis infrequently on slopes in NY and VT and recently bought custom fit boots with a foam liner that's conformed to his feet ... he spent more on those boots than a lot of people here spend on a lens and he doesn't ski enough to "need" them by any stretch. But his theory is that if he's going to spend time on a hobby, he wants to do it with "good stuff".

And perhaps a good thing to remember is that GAS does not only apply to photography.... :-D

Dennis said:
It's so easy to accuse someone of having messed up priorities or a flawed sense of "necessary" just because they're searching for perfection in gear and not doing anything that (according to our own priorities) warrants it. That's when the "more money than brains" accusations start flying. But it could be that people just want what they want for reasons that make sense to them. I can't imagine that any two dpr members spend their money the same way.

Amen!

Dennis said:
Dennis said:

Dennis said:

.. let's just say that ... YOU are a happy person who takes BIF photos ..and I hope others like them ... I liked the one you shared .. who can argue with I am Happy otherwise ? I am NOT happy UNLESS certain parameters are correct ... thanks

Click to expand...

Agreed: this is an absolutely legit/fair/reasonable perspective. And not contrary to what I intended: perhaps better clarification.

Click to expand...

Yes, the key is for each of us to figure out what is good enough for ourselves ... and then to realize that that answer applies ONLY to ourselves !

Indeed: it makes no sense to me to try and prescribe to someone else how they should do things and what they should enjoy: we are completely different people with completely different perspectives that get our enjoyment in completely different ways.

Dennis said:
- Dennis

Thanks Dennis: great clarification/expansion on my thoughts exactly.

Cheers
Alwyn

tbcass · Jan 16, 2018

Krav Maga said:
For example, if I took the shots you're showing I would be pretty happy, but my OCD would haunt me regarding the haloing I see. But early on, when I started this hobby, I probably wouldn't have noticed.

I noticed the haloing but it almost disappears when viewed at 100% size.

Dennis · Jan 16, 2018

AlwynS said:
Thanks Dennis: great clarification/expansion on my thoughts exactly.

Thanks - and may I add - great images ! I had this thread confused with another in which I thought I remembered the OP writing about choosing m43 gear. But I see you shot some of those BIFs with an RX10-IV. That camera has me seriously intrigued ! I tried one out at Photoplus Expo - sample images were nothing special indoors under artificial light, but that thing was fast ! (I recall trying an original RX10 and had the opposite impression).

I haven't had a long tele in years (over 5, maybe closer to 7, since switching brands). I haven't splurged on one because I shoot Sony e mount and Nikon F mount and the Nikon has better lens choices, but I don't see sticking with it too much longer. There aren't much in the way of choices for e-mount without adapting lenses. But an RX10 ... I could be happy with the RX10-IV, my RX100 and then just a couple primes on my A6500 ...

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

tbcass · Jan 16, 2018

Dennis said:
Dennis wrote: But an RX10 ... I could be happy with the RX10-IV, my RX100 and then just a couple primes on my A6500 ...

That would work. My 3 main cameras are an RX10iii, A99ii and RX100. I just can't be happy with one camera because each has it's purpose for me.

When good is good enough: a hobbyist perspective

Well-known member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

New member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

New member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts