My opinion as a complete newbie, for what it's worth - art or science?

Robinson13 said:

I've read so much over the last couple of weeks and watched so many videos, my brain hurts! I started out looking to make a first step into the overly (?) complicated world of photography and here's what I found...by the way, I just made an offer of £500 on a mint Ricoh GRIII on ebay...fingers crossed. I think?

Like almost everyone else I know, I use my smartphone (iphone8 in my case) to take pictures/video. I know that the photos could be so much better using a premium camera but, to be honest, just visiting sites like this, the language used is, in my opinion, intimidating, to say the least. ISO, EVF, F2.0, 35mm or 28mm, blah, blah. This is a world where I can tell a device in the corner of my room to play a song, answer my questions, turn on the lights, run the bath and change the channel on my tele. We have driverless cars and all pilots need to do nowadays is take off and land, the planes fly themselves.

Yet I'm here being totally baffled about taking good photographs. It seems to me that there is a desire to maintain a shroud of secrecy, like the Magic Circle, about the art of photography. The mechanics, the science, seems to be more important to people than the actual art itself - surely the composition, the 'accident', the moment, matters more than with what, or how, the picture was taken? Artistically, creatively, I'm a musician, a guitarist, and I've been learning for 48 years now. I own 15 guitars but, d'you know what, I can only play one at a time and guess what - I gravitate to one guitar most of the time. A Fender Strat, 30 years old. My other Fenders, Gibsons, Guilds and Takamines sit in the corner in their cases and rarely come out at all. Sentimentality stops me from selling them all and just keeping the Strat. I play by ear and I have never had any lessons and have absolutely no music theory whatsoever.

I guess what I'm saying is that, by now, in this digital, computer driven age. there should be a camera that automatically takes the photos that I want it to take. There should be a chip that 'knows' what photo I want when I point the lens in any given scenario - my contribution should be in the 'accident', the moment, the fluke, the experience...only when you can prove to the owner of the latest smartphone that there is a camera that is 10 x better than the camera in the smartphone but that doesn't require a diploma in photography to achieve great results, will people return to buying cameras in any great numbers. What's more important - the science or the art? Shouldn't I be able to say to my camera - take the best photo you can 'of that'!

Click to expand...

Short answer: yes. Photography is an art as much as a science. It can also be just an art and just a science. The same holds true for music and musical instruments.

I have to admit that "Magical Circle" made me laugh - because it's true. Art was always a part of my life so photography was 'just one more art form". I'm happy to "pass it on" and help when I can. I never saw it as a contest.

Enough of me and back to you: Since you brought up guitars I can use that. Different guitars are good for different things and in the hands of different guitarists. Even the choice of strings matter. But a good guitarist can play anything well. The same holds true for cameras.

I've met some brilliant photographers who are completely clueless about photography and cameras. Their images are aesthetically great. When they ask a photo question I have to be careful not to introduce doubt into their process. New camera? I'm careful not to point them towards what I want for myself. The point is if the iPhone works for you than I'm fine with that. But you seem to be curious about "more". The Ricoh is an excellent, but niche, more. It makes sense coming from an iPhone. I can see that leap.

How about a FZ1000? It has a mic input which could work well with your music, is more video recording oriented, and in "Intelligent Auto" mode is pretty smart. The downside is it's a big thing. I'm a Panasonic owner so there's a bit of a bias, but the big FZ is like a multi-tool in a lot of ways.

fferreres said:

Stop reading or watching videos, focus on turning the camera mode dial to "Auto" and shoot. Also, nobody should learn how to cook a burger, the Auto mode equivalent may be GrubHub, you press a button and get the food.

Click to expand...

That is what I also suggested to start with. You press the button and you get your hamburger.

fferreres said:

Why do people even bother with the complicated lingo and language of "cooking", these kitchen snobs.

Click to expand...

Because they want something better and more tasty than just a hamburger. Nothing to do with being a snob. Everyone who likes food knows it. Same goes with photography, do I have to continue?

moti

Honestly, I know where you're coming from.

As you've probably been playing guitar all your life (52 years for me), you know the sound you want to hear. You have had the years to understand pick-ups (types and their adjustments), bridges, nuts, tuners, pots and even wood choices. Add to that string brand/gauge, cable brands (because some are pathetic)...even straps. Not to mention amps, which is a whole additional thing. You might also want to think about no plectrums or plectrums of different thickness, material and size. And, if all this isn't enough, what about the use of effects pedals/processing. You may not even think of these things in your day-to-day life, but you did throughout your life.

You can't do this with cameras. Oh, you can change lenses, filters, flash and a huge mess of post-processing. BUT, you can't swap out sensors, viewfinders, tripod mounts, firmware, circuitry, buttons and knobs......etc and on. You have to find a camera that is as close to what you want as you can. And that can take time. Imagine spending the same amount of time with cameras as with your guitars.

But, think about this: You have several other guitars. You must have gotten them for a reason. I have several as well, and they all bring something different to the music I create. They all have different sounds and characters. I also have several amps as they do the same. Lots of effects, too (I guess that's "post-processing" for guitars). Think of the same for cameras. I really hope you love your Ricoh! But...there just might be another camera out there that sparks your creativity.

Just give photography the same detail as you have being a guitarist. Learn. Ask questions. Observe. Then the camera you have will be as your Strat!

The incredible electronic/ambient music composer Robert Rich once said, "The art dictates the tools".

Guy Parsons said:

Go back 60 years when I first decided to get interested in photography. I knew nothing, so thought the best idea would be to borrow every library book about photography and learn what it was all about. After doing that I could understand what the aperture and shutter speed etc did for me. At that point I was then ready to go buy a camera.

Click to expand...

I did it backwards. I got a fantastically expensive ($400!) camera from the Sears catalog, then looked at all the dials and numbers on it and was completely intimidated, and stuck it in the back of my closet, under a pile of clothes and guilt, for about six months.

Eventually I got my hands on The Complete Kodak Book of Photography (in Association with Time Life Books!), and suddenly the world opened up. It turned out that those dials and numbers weren't rocket science after all.

Until I found that book, I had no guidance. Today the problem for a beginner is almost the opposite. They can go on the internet and get help. Too much help. Way, way too much help. It can be overwhelming, as Robinson13 indicated at the beginning of this thread.

Hi,

Thanks for your understanding and reply!

I can see where you're coming from to a degree. It doesn't alter the fact that the Strat has hardly changed since it's design by Leo Fender back in 1954 (the perfect design, as Jeff Beck calls it, and who am I to argue!). I play in bands, have done for around 40 years, don't use any effects pedals or even a plectrum, for that matter!. I'm strictly a guitar straight into an amp player. I've bought pedals and then immediately given them away after a very short time (to my son, usually) as I much prefer the pure sound of the guitar. I still have my original amp, too - a 1962 Vox AC30 although I would never gig out with that, nowadays. I should probably own up and admit that a fair few of my guitar purchases have been made as a result of too much wine late at night. But as I say, I wouldn't lose money if I sold them on (I hope!).

Regarding cameras - well, it's simply mind blowing when you read the forums here. Do I need a flash? I don't know. A view finder? Well, my iphone doesn't have one, so I suppose I can get by without? Do I want a 28mm or 35 mm lens? I've learnt that the iphone is 28mm, so why would I alter that? Like most people, I have a limited amount of money, so trying out all this gear, much of which seems to be obsolete after a short while (5 years, is it?) is not viable. I'm now reading on this site that the GRIII also has dust problems, so I'm left wondering what is the best thing for me! Is there a nice pocketable compact camera with a fixed lens, where the lens is interchangeable but I could just buy one of those 'pancake lenses' I've read about, as surely that wouldn't suck in dust? Maybe it would! Am I worrying too much about dust, anyway?

I'm very wary of buying second hand, too - I didn't win that GRIII. It went for £580 and I bid £500. Brand new GRII are available at £479 so maybe that would be my best option, as spending £749 on a brand new GRIII maybe a bit extravagant for someone who has relied on iphones for years?

Cheers,

Dave

Smaug01 said:

For shame.

You have a good point, but when he makes comments like he did; namely that he should just be able to push a button and get perfect photos, we can see that he doesn't realize photography is an art, just like playing a guitar.

We have to take this poor lost soul under our wings, not send him off to cell phone purgatory. He's one of the few who suspects that cameras can do better than phones!

Click to expand...

They usually can't. That's the point. It would be unfair to deny it.

All the scene recognition AI in a phone makes a better fist of optimising exposure and focusing than the largely non-existent intelligence in a standard camera. Just like a good minilab tried it's best to correct our exposure mistakes.

If nothing else, phones have set a minimum bar for images that look acceptable. Proper exposure, focus and good process settings for the particular scene.

Just basic stuff to us old hands, but there has to be willingness and curiosity to learn how to do that with a regular camera before we can expect to see anything better than a good phone camera. It's that curiosity the makes photography fascinating and engaging to some of us, but the work involved is a complete turn off for everyone else.

I am not blaming them. I gave up guitar because I didn't want to invest the time and effort to learn music theory, which I regret. It basically set a ceiling on what I could ever hope to accomplish, so I gradually lost interest.

Same applies with photography. Some people get excited by a new camera, but don't want to invest the time and effort to exploit it's capabilities or get into the whole ethos of what make a good image. They assumed the camera would do that.

I totally get it. The marketing hype and all those talking heads on YouTube try and convince everyone that the camera is really all that matters. We know that it's merely a recording device.

--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Lee Jay said:

57even said:

Lee Jay said:

Robinson13 said:

... to be honest, just visiting sites like this, the language used is, in my opinion, intimidating, to say the least. ISO, EVF, F2.0, 35mm or 28mm, blah, blah.

Click to expand...

Let me explain photography to you in the shortest and easiest way I know how.

A camera is a hole through which light enters and a light-sensitive material on which that light falls.

• The diameter of the hole is called the "aperture".
• The distance between the hole and the light-sensitive material is called the "focal length".
• The ratio between those two is called the "f-stop" - focal length divided by aperture. Camera makers often confusingly call this one "aperture".
• The amount of time we allow the light to pass is called the "shutter speed.

That's basically it.

The aperture controls two things - how much light gets in and how shallow or deep the depth of field is. Bigger hole = more light and less depth of field.

The focal length controls the wideness or narrowness of the portion of the scene we capture. More focal length = narrower.

The shutter speed also controls how much light gets in and, if there is motion, how much (or little) motion blur is captured. Faster shutter speed = less light and less motion blur.

The complicating factor is the quantum nature of light. This drives "noise" or "graininess". More light captured means the noise is less visible. That can lead to trade-offs.

All the rest is about how to control and/or manipulate those three things (aperture, focal length, shutter speed) to get the result (framing, light capture, depth of field, motion blur, noise) you want.

A lot of the wrangling that goes on here is because all those things have limits (shutter speed has the least restrictive limits, then focal length and aperture tends to be the most restrictive), and thus how to manage the bounds of those limits causes hand-wringing. Further, there are "features" such as type of viewfinder, type of support, type of lighting, how automatic features such as focus and exposure work, stabilization to prevent hand-shake and so on work. And then there's video.

Click to expand...

Actually, the exposure is where the easy bit stops and the hard bit starts.

Recreating something more like what the brain interprets than the eye records on an output medium with a limited colour space and contrast. That's the hard part.

Click to expand...

Practically, yes. Conceptually, that's easy. What I stated above was for a beginner. Getting into color science and static or dynamic contrast compression is a bunch more lessons in.

Click to expand...

But it's only fair that people should realise how deep the rabbit hole goes, esp. if they are fairly science-resistant to start with.

You missed my point by 180 degrees.

Robinson13 said:

Hi,

Thanks for your understanding and reply!

I can see where you're coming from to a degree. It doesn't alter the fact that the Strat has hardly changed since it's design by Leo Fender back in 1954 (the perfect design, as Jeff Beck calls it, and who am I to argue!). I play in bands, have done for around 40 years, don't use any effects pedals or even a plectrum, for that matter!. I'm strictly a guitar straight into an amp player. I've bought pedals and then immediately given them away after a very short time (to my son, usually) as I much prefer the pure sound of the guitar. I still have my original amp, too - a 1962 Vox AC30 although I would never gig out with that, nowadays. I should probably own up and admit that a fair few of my guitar purchases have been made as a result of too much wine late at night. But as I say, I wouldn't lose money if I sold them on (I hope!).

Regarding cameras - well, it's simply mind blowing when you read the forums here. Do I need a flash? I don't know. A view finder? Well, my iphone doesn't have one, so I suppose I can get by without? Do I want a 28mm or 35 mm lens? I've learnt that the iphone is 28mm, so why would I alter that? Like most people, I have a limited amount of money, so trying out all this gear, much of which seems to be obsolete after a short while (5 years, is it?) is not viable. I'm now reading on this site that the GRIII also has dust problems, so I'm left wondering what is the best thing for me! Is there a nice pocketable compact camera with a fixed lens, where the lens is interchangeable but I could just buy one of those 'pancake lenses' I've read about, as surely that wouldn't suck in dust? Maybe it would! Am I worrying too much about dust, anyway?

I'm very wary of buying second hand, too - I didn't win that GRIII. It went for £580 and I bid £500. Brand new GRII are available at £479 so maybe that would be my best option, as spending £749 on a brand new GRIII maybe a bit extravagant for someone who has relied on iphones for years?

Cheers,

Dave

Click to expand...

It depends on why you are buying it and what you hope to achieve that you can't achieve with your iPhone. Do you want to take band pictures? That can be quite tricky with any camera because it's a lot of jumping around in a dark club.

However, from what you described, you may find something like the Fuji XT200 would fit the bill. The 27mm pancake prime makes it very small and portable.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t200-review

But, unlike your iPhone, it won't do as much of the thinking for you. An expensive camera will not create better images on its own.

57even said:

Smaug01 said:

For shame.

You have a good point, but when he makes comments like he did; namely that he should just be able to push a button and get perfect photos, we can see that he doesn't realize photography is an art, just like playing a guitar.

We have to take this poor lost soul under our wings, not send him off to cell phone purgatory. He's one of the few who suspects that cameras can do better than phones!

Click to expand...

They usually can't. That's the point. It would be unfair to deny it.

All the scene recognition AI in a phone makes a better fist of optimising exposure and focusing than the largely non-existent intelligence in a standard camera. Just like a good minilab tried it's best to correct our exposure mistakes.

If nothing else, phones have set a minimum bar for images that look acceptable. Proper exposure, focus and good process settings for the particular scene.

Just basic stuff to us old hands, but there has to be willingness and curiosity to learn how to do that with a regular camera before we can expect to see anything better than a good phone camera. It's that curiosity the makes photography fascinating and engaging to some of us, but a complete turn off for everyone else.

I am not blaming them. I gave up guitar because I didn't want to invest the time and effort to learn music theory, which I regret. It basically set a ceiling on what I could ever hope to accomplish, so I gradually lost interest.

Same applies with photography. Some people get excited by a new camera, but don't want to invest the time and effort to exploit it's capabilities or get into the whole ethos of what make a good image. They assumed the camera would do that.

I totally get it. The marketing hype and all those talking heads on YouTube try and convince everyone that the camera is really all that matters. We know that it's merely a recording device.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Exactly. I see all those talking heads, as you call them, and I want to be able to take photographs like them. It's not the camera, it's the photographer. Some people will go out and buy a Jeff Beck Signature Fender Strat and expect to sound like Jeff Beck...ain't going to happen. By the way, I should mention that I have never had a guitar lesson in my life and, after 50 years of playing, I still don't have any music theory at all. I play totally by ear, playing along with my favourite bands when I was a lad! Most of the 'best' guitarists (outside of classical or jazz guitar) probably can't read a note of music. It's all done by feel, combined with practice, and the more you practice, the better you become at expressing yourself. I get the impression that this is not possible with photography. There is far more technology involved, with dials, buttons, customisation, etc etc.

Perhaps once I get a camera it will all become much clearer! I bought a book this morning on Amazon teaching the basics of digital photography. So I've actually bought the book before the camera. That way, I can continue to immerse myself in the language of photography, as it's quite foreign to me at the moment.

I'm down to these, now - GRII, GRIII, Fuji XF10, Sony RX100 III - VI and I would prefer to buy new.

Cheers,

Dave

Robinson13 said:

Regarding cameras - well, it's simply mind blowing when you read the forums here. Do I need a flash? I don't know. A view finder? Well, my iphone doesn't have one, so I suppose I can get by without? Do I want a 28mm or 35 mm lens? I've learnt that the iphone is 28mm, so why would I alter that? Like most people, I have a limited amount of money, so trying out all this gear, much of which seems to be obsolete after a short while (5 years, is it?) is not viable. I'm now reading on this site that the GRIII also has dust problems, so I'm left wondering what is the best thing for me! Is there a nice pocketable compact camera with a fixed lens, where the lens is interchangeable but I could just buy one of those 'pancake lenses' I've read about, as surely that wouldn't suck in dust? Maybe it would! Am I worrying too much about dust, anyway?

Click to expand...

You are worrying too much. You are on a gear site, where people obsess about gear.

Get any lens in the 28-35mm range and you will be happy. Forget about flash, accessories, or anything. Get the most basic. None of it will be obsolete. Today's cameras are so good that as long as it works, it will produce fine images. Forget about dust. I have dust all over my lens, viewfinder, and sometimes even my sensor and it rarely shows up.

Just start shooting and forget that those options exist.

Hi, yes, you're right, I probably am both worrying too much and overthinking it!

I've probably read too much on these threads! I'll get me a camera and see ow it goes.

Getting technically adequate photographs out of a "real" camera only requires some basic knowledge - there is no mystery being hidden by the participants here.

Getting photographs that have been magically processed and that look like something from your phone requires using and understanding not only your camera but perhaps also some external software.

If you're will to expend the same energy that you have on the guitar into photography you'll be fine. If you need magic right out of the box just remember the first time you picked up a guitar.

I'd like to think that I'm getting better on the guitar but I know that I've reach a level I'm comfortable with. I'll never wail like Hendrix or Clapton in a completely extemporaneous guitar solo but I can learn to mimic and play solos they've recorded. It's not the same though is it?

Robinson13 said:

57even said:

Smaug01 said:

For shame.

You have a good point, but when he makes comments like he did; namely that he should just be able to push a button and get perfect photos, we can see that he doesn't realize photography is an art, just like playing a guitar.

We have to take this poor lost soul under our wings, not send him off to cell phone purgatory. He's one of the few who suspects that cameras can do better than phones!

Click to expand...

They usually can't. That's the point. It would be unfair to deny it.

All the scene recognition AI in a phone makes a better fist of optimising exposure and focusing than the largely non-existent intelligence in a standard camera. Just like a good minilab tried it's best to correct our exposure mistakes.

If nothing else, phones have set a minimum bar for images that look acceptable. Proper exposure, focus and good process settings for the particular scene.

Just basic stuff to us old hands, but there has to be willingness and curiosity to learn how to do that with a regular camera before we can expect to see anything better than a good phone camera. It's that curiosity the makes photography fascinating and engaging to some of us, but a complete turn off for everyone else.

I am not blaming them. I gave up guitar because I didn't want to invest the time and effort to learn music theory, which I regret. It basically set a ceiling on what I could ever hope to accomplish, so I gradually lost interest.

Same applies with photography. Some people get excited by a new camera, but don't want to invest the time and effort to exploit it's capabilities or get into the whole ethos of what make a good image. They assumed the camera would do that.

I totally get it. The marketing hype and all those talking heads on YouTube try and convince everyone that the camera is really all that matters. We know that it's merely a recording device.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Exactly. I see all those talking heads, as you call them, and I want to be able to take photographs like them. It's not the camera, it's the photographer. Some people will go out and buy a Jeff Beck Signature Fender Strat and expect to sound like Jeff Beck...ain't going to happen. By the way, I should mention that I have never had a guitar lesson in my life and, after 50 years of playing, I still don't have any music theory at all. I play totally by ear, playing along with my favourite bands when I was a lad! Most of the 'best' guitarists (outside of classical or jazz guitar) probably can't read a note of music. It's all done by feel, combined with practice, and the more you practice, the better you become at expressing yourself.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a pretty good way to go about taking pics. You have plenty of great photographs to see just as you have certainly listened to a great amount of guitar music. You have the dials and buttons to press and can note the effects of each right there on your lcd. Using vision instead of hearing, you will get plenty of feedback from the resulting images. You may need to know the basics about aperture and iso. Shutter speed is pretty self-explanatory. A camera's various auto modes can do it all for you at the start. You can note the choices the camera made and start to modify them as you wish. A camera's scene modes can be especially helpful. They will provide the sorts of settings one might use for landscape photos, let's say, then you can comparte those settings with the ones the camera uses for portraits.

Robinson13 said:

I get the impression that this is not possible with photography. There is far more technology involved, with dials, buttons, customisation, etc etc.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily as I explained above. I don't know how you manage to use an amplifier and the various petals, handle reverb and distortion, without using technology, dials, and buttons while playing electric guitar. You knew which to buy as well as hook them all up simply by using feel?

Robinson13 said:

Perhaps once I get a camera it will all become much clearer! I bought a book this morning on Amazon teaching the basics of digital photography. So I've actually bought the book before the camera. That way, I can continue to immerse myself in the language of photography, as it's quite foreign to me at the moment.

Click to expand...

That may be helpful but buying a book beforehand is not necessary. A basic guide to the camera might be all you need. I bought "D90 for Dummies" after I bought my first DSLR. Went through the chapters while holding my camera and fiddling with the settings described in the book. Yes, that is kind of like reading sheet music.

I would not have gotten into digital photography if I had wanted it to be totally automatic. I think cell phones are fine if one has that sort of need. Even then, I rarely use the default camera option on my Pixel 3. I like the night sight and portrait modes a lot. Have to select one or the other. I change the aspect ratios fairly often. I digitally zoom and usually edit my photos in camera before sharing. You see, I have a need for manual control. Just as you manually select which strings you will strum. People who have taken the classic 'moment shots' knew how to set up their camera in order to get that shot.

People aren't going to flock to camera stores to get ai dslrs. DSLR companies will never again have the sales that they had in the first ten years that the cameras were introduced.

Robinson13 said:

I'm down to these, now - GRII, GRIII, Fuji XF10, Sony RX100 III - VI and I would prefer to buy new.

Click to expand...

Well, you are making it easier for yourself. These cameras have fixed lenses that obviously come with the camera. You don't have to do any research on lenses or learn how to change them!

Take my comments with a grain of salt. I shot film for decades and still play vinyl albums. I did read a lot of photo books in my first years of shooting digital. Mostly less technical sorts of books. More about the various sorts of photos one can shoot with beautiful photos to illustrate the tips. Lessons about composition, color, lines, etc.

Yes, there are billions of photos and millions of photographers out there. Your job is to blaze your own trail. Do it your way.

Robinson13 said:

Cheers,

Dave

Click to expand...

Yep, the size of it would put me off, to be honest! I suppose there's a bit of that "look at him, posing with that big expensive looking camera which he probably can't use' thing going on with me, too. That's probably another reason for gravitating to the Ricoh GRII or GRIII - it suggests completely the opposite!

Even the missus wouldn't think I'd spent 'all that money' on an expensive camera if she saw me using it. She doesn't know yet that I'm considering a new hobby!

There's an old saying in guitar circles - 'I hope when I die my wife doesn't sell my guitars for the price I told her I paid for them'! If she saw the Ricoh GRIII she would probably think it's a toy and tell me I could've bought something better!

I haven't explained my position very clearly from the start! Bloody wine. All I was trying to say is that surely it could be a lot more simple than it appears to be. I've read many posts on here saying that the iphone will never take better photos than a good premium camera with a relatively huge sensor - well, okay, that's great. I accept that, and that's why I'm here. But the next question should be - why can't I have a camera that has this big sensor advantage and it works in the same way as the iphone. I point it and click. Bingo - a photo that I could've taken on an iphone only the image quality is 10 x better, as it should be, because it has these huge advantages in technology. It seems to me that the camera manufacturers are perhaps missing a trick here and this industry will end up making cameras for an ever-decreasing base. I mean, the bloomin' phones are becoming bigger than the best premium compact cameras, now. Surely the industry should want to win back a segment of the market that wants better images with less 'tech-talk', that's all? This is the computer age, after all.

Cheers,

Dave

Robinson13 said:

57even said:

Smaug01 said:

For shame.

You have a good point, but when he makes comments like he did; namely that he should just be able to push a button and get perfect photos, we can see that he doesn't realize photography is an art, just like playing a guitar.

We have to take this poor lost soul under our wings, not send him off to cell phone purgatory. He's one of the few who suspects that cameras can do better than phones!

Click to expand...

They usually can't. That's the point. It would be unfair to deny it.

All the scene recognition AI in a phone makes a better fist of optimising exposure and focusing than the largely non-existent intelligence in a standard camera. Just like a good minilab tried it's best to correct our exposure mistakes.

If nothing else, phones have set a minimum bar for images that look acceptable. Proper exposure, focus and good process settings for the particular scene.

Just basic stuff to us old hands, but there has to be willingness and curiosity to learn how to do that with a regular camera before we can expect to see anything better than a good phone camera. It's that curiosity the makes photography fascinating and engaging to some of us, but a complete turn off for everyone else.

I am not blaming them. I gave up guitar because I didn't want to invest the time and effort to learn music theory, which I regret. It basically set a ceiling on what I could ever hope to accomplish, so I gradually lost interest.

Same applies with photography. Some people get excited by a new camera, but don't want to invest the time and effort to exploit it's capabilities or get into the whole ethos of what make a good image. They assumed the camera would do that.

I totally get it. The marketing hype and all those talking heads on YouTube try and convince everyone that the camera is really all that matters. We know that it's merely a recording device.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Exactly. I see all those talking heads, as you call them, and I want to be able to take photographs like them. It's not the camera, it's the photographer. Some people will go out and buy a Jeff Beck Signature Fender Strat and expect to sound like Jeff Beck...ain't going to happen. By the way, I should mention that I have never had a guitar lesson in my life and, after 50 years of playing, I still don't have any music theory at all. I play totally by ear, playing along with my favourite bands when I was a lad! Most of the 'best' guitarists (outside of classical or jazz guitar) probably can't read a note of music. It's all done by feel, combined with practice, and the more you practice, the better you become at expressing yourself. I get the impression that this is not possible with photography. There is far more technology involved, with dials, buttons, customisation, etc etc.

Perhaps once I get a camera it will all become much clearer! I bought a book this morning on Amazon teaching the basics of digital photography. So I've actually bought the book before the camera. That way, I can continue to immerse myself in the language of photography, as it's quite foreign to me at the moment.

I'm down to these, now - GRII, GRIII, Fuji XF10, Sony RX100 III - VI and I would prefer to buy new.

Cheers,

Dave

Click to expand...

Also consider whether you might like to control the area that fills your viewfinder without having to do it with your feet. That would be the RX100 series with zoom. The others are one fixed focal length.

Robinson13 said:

Like most people, I have a limited amount of money, so trying out all this gear, much of which seems to be obsolete after a short while (5 years, is it?) is not viable. I'm now reading on this site that the GRIII also has dust problems, so I'm left wondering what is the

Click to expand...

Don't worry too much about obsoleteness; in 5 or 10 years after it's introduction a camera will take just as good pictures as before, unless it actually breaks down (and is not economically viable to repair).

Unless newer cameras provide improvements that you actually need in image quality or functionality, you can happily keep on using your equipment as long as it works.

I really do believe the guitar/camera thing is getting out of hand here. No, you don't need feel to hook up a guitar to a pedal, or an amp, etc. Just common sense. It has been done the same way since electric guitars were invented. There's only one socket in each of my guitars and that's where the cable goes. It is incredibly simple. I have never purchased a guitar and received a 100 page manual or whatever to tell me how it works, be it acoustic or electric. As I keep pointing out, the basics of the guitar have remained the same. A 1954 Fender Strat is as valid now as it was in 1954. And probably a whole lot more valuable, too. I did receive a manual with a Dr. Rhythm BOSS drum machine which promptly went straight back on ebay after I'd read a few pages of the manual (my daughter was about 8 or 9 at the time and she wrote "The manual of death" on the front page, because that's what I kept calling it!).

All I've ever meant here is that with these massive leaps in computer technology, chip sizes etc it must surely be possible to build a camera that has these big sensors and takes photos as easily as an iphone does, without all of the tech-language, menus, dials, buttons, whatever. The image quality would be incredible compared to an iphone. If you're saying that there is such a camera, then which one is it, please! I've watched loads of videos on youtube and even with the Sony pocketable ones you hear the reviewer say...'well, if we can only get passed these typical Sony menus...shakes head, raises eyebrow, smiles to camera' etc etc. So, you see, it's not quite the same comparing cameras to guitars. There aren't different 'menus', the strings all tend to be in the same place and facing the same way, you don't get a huge manual to read. Learning guitar is not like learning how to use a camera. Not in my view, anyway.

Here you go, a 232 page manual for the XF10. http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/xf10/xf10_omw_en_s_f.pdf

My eyes are glazing over already. 232 pages!

Cheers,

Dave

This is great! http://fujifilm-dsc.com/en/manual/xf10/xf10_omw_en_s_f.pdf

Page 1 - Before you begin....22 pages later.....really? And there are 232 pages altogether!

I mean, c'mon guys, surely you can see how this sort of thing can be off-putting to the novice who may be considering this as a new hobby?

Member said:

1. JasonTheBirder wrote:

Member said:

Regarding cameras - well, it's simply mind blowing when you read the forums here. Do I need a flash? I don't know. A view finder? Well, my iphone doesn't have one, so I suppose I can get by without? Do I want a 28mm or 35 mm lens? I've learnt that the iphone is 28mm, so why would I alter that? Like most people, I have a limited amount of money, so trying out all this gear, much of which seems to be obsolete after a short while (5 years, is it?) is not viable. I'm now reading on this site that the GRIII also has dust problems, so I'm left wondering what is the best thing for me! Is there a nice pocketable compact camera with a fixed lens, where the lens is interchangeable but I could just buy one of those 'pancake lenses' I've read about, as surely that wouldn't suck in dust? Maybe it would! Am I worrying too much about dust, anyway?

Click to expand...

You are worrying too much. You are on a gear site, where people obsess about gear.

Get any lens in the 28-35mm range and you will be happy. Forget about flash, accessories, or anything. Get the most basic. None of it will be obsolete. Today's cameras are so good that as long as it works, it will produce fine images. Forget about dust. I have dust all over my lens, viewfinder, and sometimes even my sensor and it rarely shows up.

Just start shooting and forget that those options exist.

Click to expand...

No need to jump from one extreme to the other imho.