Interesting article posted by Kirk Tuck...All the cameras are better than you are

Started Mar 4, 2014 | Discussions
sigala1 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,818
This is a gear site, what do you expect people to discuss?
2

amalric wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

Thanks for sharing, that's a good read.

I mostly agree with what he says about photography.

I notice that many influent Photographers and bloggers seems to converge to one point now : we have reached a sort of plateau of optical performance.

Differences in IQ between FF, APS-C and m4/3 are minimal, as are every "improvement" advertised on every new sensor.

So IQ war seems over. Now we can concentrate on Photography.

We, amateur photographers, will not need anymore to upgrade every year. Camera companies are in trouble

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/

Even more 'gear sites' like this, where people discuss impossible minutiae at day's length.

That's where you see the limits of Education. They won't be able to discuss Photography, because they have no History of it.

Some know more or less their genre, but that's it.

This is and has always been a site about discussing gear. That's why the sub-forums are organized by TYPE OF GEAR like Canon SLRs or Micro Four Thirds.

If you don't like this topic, LEAVE! Go to other online forums where they discuss the topics you'd rather discuss.

photohounds
photohounds Senior Member • Posts: 1,133
Re: Interesting article posted by Kirk Tuck...All the cameras are better than you are
1

Well said Kirk!

.
In fact for a couple of years when someone asks me what camera is "best", I've also said :-
"It's hard to buy a bad camera these days, but a quality brand that does what you really need , read a bit and get a good lens -- Then .. really learn how to use it properly by practicing."
.

Bricks and bazookas are NOT needed for a quality, usable picture in almost ALL cases. That's a marketing man's spin to extort your money.
.

Big sensors and lots of pixels are no substitute for taking a little time and making a little effort. I confess I sometimes rush, but have also been relearning that skill.

.

I bought a 458B tripod which, once 'worn in" is very fast to use, so I actually take it with me most of the time

.

-- hide signature --

Well designed gear performs better for longer than well marketed gear.
Pics:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/
Gear test samples:
http://photohounds.smugmug.com/Gear-tests

 photohounds's gear list:photohounds's gear list
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus E-M1 II Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +8 more
Chris Malcolm Senior Member • Posts: 1,986
Re: Interesting article posted by Kirk Tuck...All the cameras are better than you are

jhinkey wrote:

Interesting read, though it is certainly only from his point of view. He makes some sweeping statements and gets some things right while others he's off base in my opinion.

His overall point of cameras being good enough, though not valid for me personally, is true for many people I know that are casual shooters.

Not just casual shooters. I take an interest in RE photography (photographs of houses for sale or rent). Lighting, exposure, composition, and pp are pretty important to get good images which will sell the house and impress the agent. But the maximum print size very rarely exceeds A4, and a lot of images never get further than web images rather unpleasantly downsized by the letting agency's software and tiny prints in local house sale newspapers. Yet on the RE forums there are plenty of photographers discussing lens upgrades and camera body upgrades to acheive levels of detail resolution which nobody is ever going to see and low light high ISO performance which they're never going to use, because they shoot on tripods at small apertures for maximum DoF. Cameras these days are good enough that you can take top quality RE photographs with mid-range gear, and not even a forensic photographer would be able to tell the difference between a good zoom vs a prime lens or a 10MP vs a >20MP sensor.

It's like agonising over which top end mountaineering boot or approach shoe to buy for a walk round the park. Which is also starting to happen.

Cells phone sensors and images became good enough and the compact market has dried up.

APS-C based cameras became good enough and there is little incentive to switch (based on the casual Canon, Sony, and Nikon DX shooters that I know) to a new DSLR or to something like m43 (which I think Oly and Pany have not done nearly enough advertising here in the states to let most people know m43 even exists which has nothing to do with educational standards as the folks that I know who shoot APS-C DSLRs are certainly above average in eduction, affluence, etc.).

It has a lot to do with the kind and quality of the education. Anyone with what used to be good school grades in maths and physics, and now has sadly become around two years of university maths and physics, and wanting to buy an exchangeable lens camera would ask enough technical questions in the shop or of friends or the web to very quickly find out about the different sensor sizes and the existence of m43. If you need to rely on advertising to let you know that a kind of product exists then either you're technically uneducated or your education killed your natural curiosity.

One of the problems in the affluent Anglophone countries is that eduation has been shifting away from nerdy science and engineering towards fashionable arts and humanities. If you're a rich nation you can get immigrants to dirty their hands doing your research and engineering or you can outsource it. The result is the nation no longer makes cameras and the population buys fashionable cameras.

-- hide signature --

Chris Malcolm

 Chris Malcolm's gear list:Chris Malcolm's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A550 Sony SLT-A77 Sony 50mm F1.4 Sony DT 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 Sony 500mm F8 Reflex +7 more
Bob Tullis
Bob Tullis Forum Pro • Posts: 34,982
Re: In other words. . .

nkbj wrote:

Bob Tullis wrote:

Ask NOT what your camera can do for you. Rather ask what YOU can do with your camera!

Hi Bob. You also read the latest blog posting by Robin Wong?

Not before you pointed it out [g].

-- hide signature --

...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.

 Bob Tullis's gear list:Bob Tullis's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Fujifilm X-Pro2 Fujifilm X-T2
sderdiarian Veteran Member • Posts: 4,229
Re: Straight from the heart

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Quite true, straight from the heart and truth should not offend. I also think that almost any camera on the market might be good enough for the purpose its user might need.

But from the dawn of photography there has been this primal urge that if better gear is bought then the images will be better without any more application than simply pressing the shutter (to a point this might even be true). This always sells camera gear and this forum and all others is 99% devoted to finding and recommending that new lens or camera that will make that one magic image of a lifetime.

More often just that one-time lucky catch. In target shooting the idea is to find the bulls eye and then continue to do it. Does not quite relate to photography skills which are more related to if you take enough images there is bound to be a good one in there somewhere, ammo is cheap. Give a target shooter a machine gun and he is bound to hit the bulls eye sooner or later.

Of course it might be a male version of "a new pair of shoes will make me happier".

Bulls eye, Tom !

Kidding aside, your words capture my feelings as well: it's simply so much easier to continuously buy new bleeding edge gear than to work on improving our skills. Part of what a market-based economy is built upon, convincing people that happiness can be bought and the latest gadget is your ticket there.

This "buying happiness" marketing applies to homes, cars, boats, you name it, but cameras and accessories are a heck of a lot more affordable and easier to indulge in maintaining this illusion. Where else can you buy the latest "perfect" highly technical product for under $1,500?

Most of us fall for this to a degree if we're honest with ourselves, and your "male version of "a new pair of shoes will make me happier" hit the nail on the head (there, no target mentioned!).

No harm, provided its recognized and offset by actually improving our skills. It's also essential for advancing technologies of photographic equipment. Kirk's comment "let's not buy cameras for a year", while likely tongue-in-cheek, is I think a bit over the top as well.

While we always tend to think our latest equipment will be state-of-the-art forever, when one looks at advances in 5-10 year chunks of time, there really have been substantive improvements that we wouldn't want to go without.

I guess it's "recognize and temper the illusion" for me, indulging in truly innovative equipment upgrades from time to time, allowing manufacturer's to survive and advance technology. And accompany this with truly advancing our skills, the harder but more rewarding part of the equation.

-- hide signature --

Sailin' Steve

 sderdiarian's gear list:sderdiarian's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Olympus M.Zuiko ED 75-300mm 1:4.8-6.7 II +1 more
amalric
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Re: This is a gear site, what do you expect people to discuss?
1

sigala1 wrote:

amalric wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

Thanks for sharing, that's a good read.

I mostly agree with what he says about photography.

I notice that many influent Photographers and bloggers seems to converge to one point now : we have reached a sort of plateau of optical performance.

Differences in IQ between FF, APS-C and m4/3 are minimal, as are every "improvement" advertised on every new sensor.

So IQ war seems over. Now we can concentrate on Photography.

We, amateur photographers, will not need anymore to upgrade every year. Camera companies are in trouble

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/

Even more 'gear sites' like this, where people discuss impossible minutiae at day's length.

That's where you see the limits of Education. They won't be able to discuss Photography, because they have no History of it.

Some know more or less their genre, but that's it.

This is and has always been a site about discussing gear. That's why the sub-forums are organized by TYPE OF GEAR like Canon SLRs or Micro Four Thirds.

If you don't like this topic, LEAVE! Go to other online forums where they discuss the topics you'd rather discuss.

You are not the owner of the site, and clearly it was  people like you my post was referring to, so no wonder.

This place is still called Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review, so one must assume that it was only vested COMMERCIAl pressure that turned it in a travesty of its title.

BTW I still own m4/3 matériel and I have residual interest in the stuff, so I peruse it for that purpose. I only object to be in such poor company as you.

Happily there are still better minds like Kirk Tuck that tend to say the simple truth for your discomfiture -  you are probably not worth the simplest camera. Let's say a P&S?

Am.

rickreyn
rickreyn Senior Member • Posts: 1,493
Re: Really nice, contemplative critter. Good shot. (nt)

Thanks.

-- hide signature --
 rickreyn's gear list:rickreyn's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 +2 more
s_grins
s_grins Forum Pro • Posts: 12,013
Re: They are better, I'm not. What can I do?

Moti wrote:

Well, maybe for a start learn to be better? It is not rocket science, even I did it...

Moti

-- hide signature --

Moti, you're younger.

-- hide signature --

Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / Power O.I.S +3 more
s_grins
s_grins Forum Pro • Posts: 12,013
Re: They are better, I'm not. What can I do?

Michael J Davis wrote:

Interestingly, I have a reputation at our Photo Soc of producing 'sharp' photos, some of my G1 + 20mm f1.7 photos (at f1.7) being assumed by a visiting judge as 'full-frame'.

So last month I gave a short talk (mainly for new-comers) on '12 points to produce sharp photos'; nothing that would surprise anyone here, but all based on the premise that "sharpness cannot be added - only lost!"

When judging photos at other clubs, I'm often disappointed at the lack of quality presented to me - again either softness, or worse, 'over-sharpening'. (Of course, I'm judging mainly on composition and "what's the story this photo tells?").

So the real point is that the quality is there in every camera (and many camera phones) produced today, so the skill is learning to use it. In that I agree with KT's article.

Mike

-- hide signature --

Mike Davis
Photographing the public for over 50 years
www.flickr.com/photos/watchman

The same with me.

-- hide signature --

Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

 s_grins's gear list:s_grins's gear list
Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / Power O.I.S +3 more
rickreyn
rickreyn Senior Member • Posts: 1,493
Re: In other words. . .

Thanks for pointing us to the Wong piece. I needed that input. I am doing a couple of things right like taking every opportunity to shoot--since I learn by bumping my nose--and slowly learning my camera. If he can get those kind of shots out of the E-M5 and kit lens, in those conditions, I am a substantial distance from maximizing the capabilities of the E-M1 and the 12-40mm lens!

Thank God for a good pair of natural lenses and observation skills at least.

-- hide signature --
 rickreyn's gear list:rickreyn's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 Olympus 12-100mm F4.0 +2 more
TrapperJohn Forum Pro • Posts: 16,488
Why has mirrorless been slow to catch on...
1

The 'intelligence' remark is an offbeat reference there, but you have to take it in context of the adjacent passages. I believe this is known as 'self depreciating humor'.

As for why µ43 and mirrorless in general have been slow to catch on in some areas... I see this as a matter of inertia and available products. Look where it has sold well, versus where it has been slow. What else is different about those markets?

Mirrorless is selling very well in the emerging Asian nations, where there hasn't been a thriving photography market in the past, and Japan, where they're quick to adopt new consumer tech, almost to a point of obsession.

It isn't selling well in the EU and US, two markets where photography as a hobby or pastime has been active for a very long time. Unlike the Asian nations, there is an existing base of owners who have a substantial investment in current gear. There is a thriving market in used gear. And, perhaps, some entrenched thinking - people like to stay with what worked well in the past. In these cases, the existing market, existing line of available gear and glass, and existing way of thinking are factors not found in the emerging Asian economies.

So it is interesting to note that mirrorless is selling well when it's a clean slate - no huge numbers of DSLR owners with existing gear. Eventually, the existing base will fade as a factor, as volume of production and amortization of development costs (from sales to Asia and Japan) brings mirrorles prices down, while µ43 already whips the market leaders on diversity of body style, and available lens selection is getting better every quarter.

Otherwise, I completely agree with Kirk's conclusions, and he has a lot more experience and gear than I have.

The best photos tend to be shot at low ISO's. Look at the challenges: the winners are almost always below ISO800.

I will say the EM5/EM1 IBIS has really helped me, but nothing that couldn't also be done with a good tripod and more effort.

And the EM5's PP headroom was a big leap over my previous E3 and EP1. It means I don't have to focus so much on lighting and exposure, or drag reflectors or light sources around with me. But, nothing that couldn't also be done with my old E1, some light sources and reflectors, and a lot more time and experience.

We don't need upgrades other than maybe better and more diverse glass.  In fact I do have some doubts as to whether the EM1 was worth that much more than the EM5. But, I already have it, it AF's my ZD 35-100 very nicely, and it's too much trouble to sell it off.

Jim Salvas
Jim Salvas Veteran Member • Posts: 5,365
Re: Interesting collection of logical fallacies by Kirk Tuck
1

Ulric wrote:

DaveLemi wrote:

This is well thought out and delves into what is sufficient-

http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html

Well, if we shot them the way we did in the film days (when we were more than reasonably happy with the performance of our film+cameras) that would mean using good techniques.

No, because technology didn't stop in the 60's, it hasn't stopped now and it won't stop any time soon. If I use my car in the same way as I would a cart pulled by donkeys, it wouldn't make me a good driver, it would make me an idiot, despite the fact that people were more than reasonably happy with the performance of carts pulled by donkeys.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument does not work because you don't refute his main poin here, which is that good technique is still paramount. I think that point is unassailable.

And where are his other logical fallacies?

-- hide signature --

Jim Salvas

 Jim Salvas's gear list:Jim Salvas's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +11 more
Ulric Veteran Member • Posts: 4,532
Re: Interesting collection of logical fallacies by Kirk Tuck
1

Jim Salvas wrote:

Ulric wrote:

DaveLemi wrote:

This is well thought out and delves into what is sufficient-

http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html

Well, if we shot them the way we did in the film days (when we were more than reasonably happy with the performance of our film+cameras) that would mean using good techniques.

No, because technology didn't stop in the 60's, it hasn't stopped now and it won't stop any time soon. If I use my car in the same way as I would a cart pulled by donkeys, it wouldn't make me a good driver, it would make me an idiot, despite the fact that people were more than reasonably happy with the performance of carts pulled by donkeys.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument does not work because you don't refute his main poin here, which is that good technique is still paramount. I think that point is unassailable.

Yes, but that is my point, not his. His point is that obsolete technique is paramount.

And where are his other logical fallacies?

To be honest, I lost interest after the first page, but here's a good one:

But I know why we upgraded. The camera companies did a remarkably good job at creating the appearance of competition between photographers.

It is more likely that new equipment could be used in ways that donkey-cart equipment couldn't.

My friends in the film industry call this "New York Lighting" which suggests that a New York D.P. walks into any room/location, no matter how heinous the light, and if there are enough aggregated photons floating around (no matter how green or uni-directional), they consider the room "well lit" making the effort of additional lighting unnecessary.

Here he compares bad X to good Y, implying that Y is better than X, where it would be more valid to compare bad X (available-light photography as described as above) to bad Y (deer-in-headlight flash photography). Or good X to good Y.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
sigala1 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,818
Re: This is a gear site, what do you expect people to discuss?

amalric wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

amalric wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

Thanks for sharing, that's a good read.

I mostly agree with what he says about photography.

I notice that many influent Photographers and bloggers seems to converge to one point now : we have reached a sort of plateau of optical performance.

Differences in IQ between FF, APS-C and m4/3 are minimal, as are every "improvement" advertised on every new sensor.

So IQ war seems over. Now we can concentrate on Photography.

We, amateur photographers, will not need anymore to upgrade every year. Camera companies are in trouble

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/

Even more 'gear sites' like this, where people discuss impossible minutiae at day's length.

That's where you see the limits of Education. They won't be able to discuss Photography, because they have no History of it.

Some know more or less their genre, but that's it.

This is and has always been a site about discussing gear. That's why the sub-forums are organized by TYPE OF GEAR like Canon SLRs or Micro Four Thirds.

If you don't like this topic, LEAVE! Go to other online forums where they discuss the topics you'd rather discuss.

You are not the owner of the site, and clearly it was people like you my post was referring to, so no wonder.

This place is still called Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review, so one must assume that it was only vested COMMERCIAl pressure that turned it in a travesty of its title.

BTW I still own m4/3 matériel and I have residual interest in the stuff, so I peruse it for that purpose. I only object to be in such poor company as you.

Happily there are still better minds like Kirk Tuck that tend to say the simple truth for your discomfiture - you are probably not worth the simplest camera. Let's say a P&S?

This site has always been primarily about reviewing digital cameras from a technical perspective, and not about photography in general. I am sure the owners of the site would agree with that. In fact, they state it on the site:

"Digital Photography Review's mission is to provide the most authoritative reviews of, the fastest, fullest news reports about, and the most comprehensive database of consumer digital cameras in the world ..."

http://www.dpreview.com/misc/about

So it's a site about "consumer digital cameras" and not about photography.

Jim Salvas
Jim Salvas Veteran Member • Posts: 5,365
Re: Interesting collection of logical fallacies by Kirk Tuck

Ulric wrote:

Jim Salvas wrote:

Ulric wrote:

DaveLemi wrote:

This is well thought out and delves into what is sufficient-

http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html

Well, if we shot them the way we did in the film days (when we were more than reasonably happy with the performance of our film+cameras) that would mean using good techniques.

No, because technology didn't stop in the 60's, it hasn't stopped now and it won't stop any time soon. If I use my car in the same way as I would a cart pulled by donkeys, it wouldn't make me a good driver, it would make me an idiot, despite the fact that people were more than reasonably happy with the performance of carts pulled by donkeys.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument does not work because you don't refute his main poin here, which is that good technique is still paramount. I think that point is unassailable.

Yes, but that is my point, not his. His point is that obsolete technique is paramount.

And where are his other logical fallacies?

To be honest, I lost interest after the first page, but here's a good one:

But I know why we upgraded. The camera companies did a remarkably good job at creating the appearance of competition between photographers.

It is more likely that new equipment could be used in ways that donkey-cart equipment couldn't.

My friends in the film industry call this "New York Lighting" which suggests that a New York D.P. walks into any room/location, no matter how heinous the light, and if there are enough aggregated photons floating around (no matter how green or uni-directional), they consider the room "well lit" making the effort of additional lighting unnecessary.

Here he compares bad X to good Y, implying that Y is better than X, where it would be more valid to compare bad X (available-light photography as described as above) to bad Y (deer-in-headlight flash photography). Or good X to good Y.

Where to begin?

i don't believe he was arguing for "obsolete technique." He was arguing for good technique, which remains good technique: proper exposure, good camera support, etc.

When talking about available light, he wasn't arguing for or against it, but rather against those who don't know how to do anything else, who don't know how to light or are too lazy to do it when needed. Again, it was an argument for good technique. It is a winning argument.

-- hide signature --

Jim Salvas

 Jim Salvas's gear list:Jim Salvas's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PM2 Olympus E-M1 Olympus PEN-F Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 R +11 more
cmpatti Regular Member • Posts: 254
Re: Interesting collection of logical fallacies by Kirk Tuck
1

Jim Salvas wrote:

Ulric wrote:

Jim Salvas wrote:

Ulric wrote:

DaveLemi wrote:

This is well thought out and delves into what is sufficient-

http://ripecamera.blogspot.com/2014/03/all-cameras-are-better-than-you-are.html

Well, if we shot them the way we did in the film days (when we were more than reasonably happy with the performance of our film+cameras) that would mean using good techniques.

No, because technology didn't stop in the 60's, it hasn't stopped now and it won't stop any time soon. If I use my car in the same way as I would a cart pulled by donkeys, it wouldn't make me a good driver, it would make me an idiot, despite the fact that people were more than reasonably happy with the performance of carts pulled by donkeys.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument does not work because you don't refute his main poin here, which is that good technique is still paramount. I think that point is unassailable.

Yes, but that is my point, not his. His point is that obsolete technique is paramount.

And where are his other logical fallacies?

To be honest, I lost interest after the first page, but here's a good one:

But I know why we upgraded. The camera companies did a remarkably good job at creating the appearance of competition between photographers.

It is more likely that new equipment could be used in ways that donkey-cart equipment couldn't.

My friends in the film industry call this "New York Lighting" which suggests that a New York D.P. walks into any room/location, no matter how heinous the light, and if there are enough aggregated photons floating around (no matter how green or uni-directional), they consider the room "well lit" making the effort of additional lighting unnecessary.

Here he compares bad X to good Y, implying that Y is better than X, where it would be more valid to compare bad X (available-light photography as described as above) to bad Y (deer-in-headlight flash photography). Or good X to good Y.

Where to begin?

i don't believe he was arguing for "obsolete technique." He was arguing for good technique, which remains good technique: proper exposure, good camera support, etc.

When talking about available light, he wasn't arguing for or against it, but rather against those who don't know how to do anything else, who don't know how to light or are too lazy to do it when needed. Again, it was an argument for good technique. It is a winning argument.

-- hide signature --

Jim Salvas

"Camera support" is a good example of his own contraditions. On the one hand he mentions use of a tripod as an example of good ole' technique, on the other he talks about the superiority of stabilized mFT over FF. Of course stabilization is an example of technology successfully substituting for what used to be regarded as good technique. In film days, I didn't go anywhere without a tripod and seldom shot without using it. Now with IBIS and clean, high ISO, I can get just as sharp pictures handheld.

 cmpatti's gear list:cmpatti's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8
amtberg Veteran Member • Posts: 5,898
Similar to computers
3

I agree with Tuck's thesis and its reminiscent of what's happened to desktop computers.  For years the need for speed drove consumer demand as we all snapped up faster and faster machines.  But recently computer sales started declining, simply because the machines have become more than fast enough for 100% of what maybe 95% of the people use them for.  In fact, even tablets can satisfy most users' computer needs.

We're now at the point where inexpensive digital cameras are much better than 35mm film cameras ever were, and even for those few people who print, the output is more than adequate for even large home printers.

To be honest, it doesn't bode well for the camera manufacturers.  I've got to believe that camera sales will continue to decline, much as PC sales have, as cell phones continue to eat away the lower end and higher end users discover that their existing cameras are plenty good enough.

amalric
amalric Forum Pro • Posts: 10,839
Re: This is a gear site, what do you expect people to discuss?
1

sigala1 wrote:

amalric wrote:

sigala1 wrote:

amalric wrote:

Pixnat2 wrote:

Thanks for sharing, that's a good read.

I mostly agree with what he says about photography.

I notice that many influent Photographers and bloggers seems to converge to one point now : we have reached a sort of plateau of optical performance.

Differences in IQ between FF, APS-C and m4/3 are minimal, as are every "improvement" advertised on every new sensor.

So IQ war seems over. Now we can concentrate on Photography.

We, amateur photographers, will not need anymore to upgrade every year. Camera companies are in trouble

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Frederic
http://azurphoto.com/

Even more 'gear sites' like this, where people discuss impossible minutiae at day's length.

That's where you see the limits of Education. They won't be able to discuss Photography, because they have no History of it.

Some know more or less their genre, but that's it.

This is and has always been a site about discussing gear. That's why the sub-forums are organized by TYPE OF GEAR like Canon SLRs or Micro Four Thirds.

If you don't like this topic, LEAVE! Go to other online forums where they discuss the topics you'd rather discuss.

You are not the owner of the site, and clearly it was people like you my post was referring to, so no wonder.

This place is still called Digital PHOTOGRAPHY Review, so one must assume that it was only vested COMMERCIAl pressure that turned it in a travesty of its title.

BTW I still own m4/3 matériel and I have residual interest in the stuff, so I peruse it for that purpose. I only object to be in such poor company as you.

Happily there are still better minds like Kirk Tuck that tend to say the simple truth for your discomfiture - you are probably not worth the simplest camera. Let's say a P&S?

This site has always been primarily about reviewing digital cameras from a technical perspective, and not about photography in general. I am sure the owners of the site would agree with that. In fact, they state it on the site:

"Digital Photography Review's mission is to provide the most authoritative reviews of, the fastest, fullest news reports about, and the most comprehensive database of consumer digital cameras in the world ..."

http://www.dpreview.com/misc/about

So it's a site about "consumer digital cameras" and not about photography.

So why did they chose  such a strange name to their site? If you check my membership you'll see that I am one of the oldest, and I can still remember this as a British site, with purpose much closer to his original name. Auri sacra fames - greed sweeps all.

OTH it is clear that in the Portrait genre, a grasp of lights and psychological interpretation, both of facial expression, attitudes, dress codes even hair is v. relevant to good Photography, and is needed well beyond and before a camera.

So is social and political competence when you do Reportage. You must know the language of Photography, well before checking the sharpness of a lens, the sensitivity of a sensor.

If I stay here, despite the crassness of  some of the public, is because I promoted mirrorless and m4/3 in the belief that it would advance photography, notably because it would make composition easier, and advance skill with 'a camera always with you'.

BTW even if you took photography as a sport, you would understand that buying  a gun for hunting, or  a golf  bag of tools is only the beginning - always. The skill is all, and so you deserve, or not,  your tools.

I am sure that at the Club House they must have a word for those who keep buying equipment and never progress in their skill - a word of contempt.

How much more in Photography that deals for the most intellectual of the senses - Sight, and its relationship with Brain. Are you trying to prove that you don't need any brain? Or that you use it only to buy things? And do tests on your poor, sad pets & brats?

Am.

linux99 Senior Member • Posts: 1,116
Out of focus Cats....
1

So true!

There is one poster in this forum particularly who alwasy posts pictures of extreme DOF slices of his cat to "prove" that FF cameras are better in any equivalence thread.

It's a picture of an out of focus cats butt - get over it!

 linux99's gear list:linux99's gear list
Sigma DP2x Sigma DP3 Merrill Nikon Coolpix A Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +14 more
linux99 Senior Member • Posts: 1,116
Re: Why It’s Never Mattered That America’s Schools ‘Lag’ Behind Other Countries
2

yanisha wrote:

http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/03/why-its-never-mattered-that-americas-schools-lag-behind-other-countries-2013-edition/

The United States has never ranked at the top of international education tests, since we began comparing countries in 1964, yet has been the dominant economic and innovative force in the world the entire time. Despite this fact, a popular annual education report has once again stoked fears of America's impending economic mediocrity with fresh stats on how far the U.S. “lags” behind the world in college attainment, pre-school enrollment, and high school graduation.

The reason for the apparent disconnect is because ..

.... the USA bombed Europe flat in WW2 and were the only remotely industrial power to survive intact throughout the 1950's

There corrected the article for you.

 linux99's gear list:linux99's gear list
Sigma DP2x Sigma DP3 Merrill Nikon Coolpix A Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +14 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads