My experiences of camera viewing systems Locked

I'm very pleased that you have owned so much camera equipment but do you have to keep telling us in every post?

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

I'm very pleased that you have owned so much camera equipment but do you have to keep telling us in every post?

What he keep telling us over and over again is how he no longer is happy with DSLRs (and, by extension, Pentax), and how his new choice is "superior".

Alex

Which is presumably why he feels the need to post a picture of his Ricoh GR3 hanging from a belt loop.

If anyone wants to abandoned Pentax and move to another system, fine, do it but why the need to tell people ad nauseum, illustrated with photographs of every camera he owns?

I've seen Barry's photographs of aircraft in flight and their fine in a generic aircraft in flight sort of way. I mean they don't interest me but he seems to do perfectly well with the kit he already has, so quite why the need to change is beyond me? I can't imagine he'd take any better or worse images than those he takes now.

If he replaces his bodies then he'll have to replace the lenses because if this review is anything to go by, using Pentax on Sony isn't as easy as it's portrayed.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/sony-a7-with-pentax-full-frame-lenses/adapting-pentax-glass-a7.html

As far as I'm concerned, I came to realize that vast majority of people tend to focus on details when selecting a camera tool, rather than raising head and seeing the big picture from a higher level. And focusing on camera gear aspect is a hint that the photographer concerned about camera tech still has a lots of room to improve his photograph if he would be forgetting his concerns about camera gear technology. Over the years, I have looked at photographs from people obsessed with camera gear, and those photographs, while technically correct, were far from impressive on an artistic level.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, I came to the conclusion that the difference between brands of the same camera format are not cost effective, i.e. you don't get much bangs for your bucks by switching brands for the same camera format, and you get much more bangs for your bucks by selecting the format that suit your need regardless of the brand , with or without mirror.

But, that being said, it's great that most people spent full blown camera kit money on newer camera models of the same format for a few minor differences, because this is what help the camera industry rolling. Useful or not, money must be spent to keep the economy alive and keep us employed. For the sake of business, it's important that the buyer believe spending money will improve his photography, even if it doesn't.

Now, myself looking at things from a higher systems level standpoint, I don't buy new gear, I save tons of money and I still obtain the photographic results I like , and I do so without spending money on equipment. On the other hand, I realized that spending the money on travel and planning gets me the photographs that I'd never get by spending the same money on camera upgrades.

For me, the location, subject matter and light are of the highest importance, camera format come second as it defines image quality and how large to print at given quality.

And I didn't find that the presence or absence of mirror in my camera makes much difference in my photographic results, basically I don't care if the camera has a mirror or not, how camera manages to capture what I see is not my job, it's the job of camera makers to give me a took that works as intended.

So, even if I had money to waste, I'd not waste it on buying new cameras for the sake of knowing that there is no mirror inside the camera. If I had money to waste, I'd waste it on a larger format system.

Some renown professional photographer said "the camera is just a metal box designed to capture what you see". And I think that statement is true.

I've found that viewfinder technology makes no difference in the photographs I take, as long as I can see what's in the frame.

Barry Pearson wrote:

Alex Sarbu wrote:

Phil A Martin wrote:

I'm very pleased that you have owned so much camera equipment but do you have to keep telling us in every post?

What he keep telling us over and over again is how he no longer is happy with DSLRs (and, by extension, Pentax), and how his new choice is "superior".

It is superior for me!

I emphasised that I was discussing my own experiences.
I made no claims that it is superior for anyone else.

I made it clear in this forum in 2018 that my future would be FF mirror-less.
I said then that I hoped this would be with Pentax.

My last residual hope died with the latest Pentax positioning.

I simply do not care what cameras you have used, are using or will use next and I'm not sure if many other people care either.

I'll carry on with my KP with a K5 as back up for the foreseeable future and hopefully find time for my first love, my Mamiya RB67, which I've used for the last 26 years with only two lenses. This is mainly because my prime interest is in photography and not gear.

pentaust wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, I came to realize that vast majority of people tend to focus on details when selecting a camera tool, rather than raising head and seeing the big picture from a higher level. And focusing on camera gear aspect is a hint that the photographer concerned about camera tech still has a lots of room to improve his photograph if he would be forgetting his concerns about camera gear technology. Over the years, I have looked at photographs from people obsessed with camera gear, and those photographs, while technically correct, were far from impressive on an artistic level.

This is so true. people seem to get obsessed with owning certain types of equipment and especially lenses but have no idea what they actually want to do with them, they buy them without a purpose and then grub around looking for excuses to use them, invariably ending up with technically perfect yet dull and generic images of kittens or aeroplanes.

Again, as far as I'm concerned, I came to the conclusion that the difference between brands of the same camera format are not cost effective, i.e. you don't get much bangs for your bucks by switching brands for the same camera format, and you get much more bangs for your bucks by selecting the format that suit your need regardless of the brand , with or without mirror.

Again, very true. Over the years I've acquired a small arsenal of lenses and no way could I afford to replace them for the luxury of changing systems. Especially when I'm perfectly happy with my KP. Not all of us have the unlimited financial resources to chop and change as much as some.

But, that being said, it's great that most people spent full blown camera kit money on newer camera models of the same format for a few minor differences, because this is what help the camera industry rolling. Useful or not, money must be spent to keep the economy alive and keep us employed. For the sake of business, it's important that the buyer believe spending money will improve his photography, even if it doesn't.

Now, myself looking at things from a higher systems level standpoint, I don't buy new gear, I save tons of money and I still obtain the photographic results I like , and I do so without spending money on equipment. On the other hand, I realized that spending the money on travel and planning gets me the photographs that I'd never get by spending the same money on camera upgrades.

Agreed, much of my kit has been purchased used.

For me, the location, subject matter and light are of the highest importance, camera format come second as it defines image quality and how large to print at given quality.

Exactly, it's about the image.

And I didn't find that the presence or absence of mirror in my camera makes much difference in my photographic results, basically I don't care if the camera has a mirror or not, how camera manages to capture what I see is not my job, it's the job of camera makers to give me a took that works as intended.

true

So, even if I had money to waste, I'd not waste it on buying new cameras for the sake of knowing that there is no mirror inside the camera. If I had money to waste, I'd waste it on a larger format system.

Yes I'd love to upgrade to a medium format digital camera, most of my film photography was taken using Mamiya RB 67 cameras and I'd love to get that feel in digital but that's never going to happen for me. The best I can aspire to is full frame.

Some renown professional photographer said "the camera is just a metal box designed to capture what you see". And I think that statement is true.

It is.

Barry Pearson wrote:

pentaust wrote:

.... As far as I'm concerned, I came to realize that vast majority of people tend to focus on details when selecting a camera tool, rather than raising head and seeing the big picture from a higher level. And focusing on camera gear aspect is a hint that the photographer concerned about camera tech still has a lots of room to improve his photograph if he would be forgetting his concerns about camera gear technology. Over the years, I have looked at photographs from people obsessed with camera gear, and those photographs, while technically correct, were far from impressive on an artistic level.

I have gained awards, (LRPS twice, and CPAGB, see my panel-images below), and my photos have been accepted in international competitions, etc:

"The image should be the primary focus of discussion" (1)

"The image should be the primary focus of discussion" (2)

Now I want to raise my standards and gain higher awards and gain more acceptances.

The standards increase year by year, and so does the competition.
I need both more skills and comparable equipment to those I'm competing with.
(Guess what sort of equipment they use!)

Each panel comprised 10 mounted A3 Prints.

This panel comprised 10 mounted A3+ prints.

I'm not sure if you wish to pull rank and I can if you want but just to say based on my photographic qualifications, I could easily apply for ARPS status without issue, I am more than qualified.

These photographs are a perfect example of pentaust's claims. No one can doubt your excellent technical abilities but these flawless images lack soul. They tell me nothing about the world and nothing about you. They are just ropes that fail to make an artistic impression. Now I've taught photography in adult education for some years and it's a common occurrence. The older male photographer with all the equipment and very rigid definitions of what is suitable as a photographic subject. Whilst younger people, especially women, with limited expertise and often beat up old cameras, are far more adventurous. They have no preconceptions and are far more experimental in practice and subject matter, often using the camera to explore their own lives and environments. That's what I think you should do, forget the gear and generic subject matter and turn the camera on yourself, look at your own life and what is important to you, not what you think other people will be impressed with.