"Blame the camera"

[Mimi_Siku]

I occasionally have moments of honesty with myself.

I currently have 4-5 cameras and all of them are just wonderful, at least when compared eith the cameras i started with, around 17 years ago.

Yet, generally speaking the quality of the images i get isn't much different than it was 17 years ago, and most of the differences lie in the way i handle the camera, because now i have more experience.

As a consequence, i have to ask myself every time i want a new camera- would it do me any good?

The answer is no. It's the reason i stopped chasing the latest tech in camera development, it wouldn't improve my skills except make my life easier, with things like eye AF or pet eye AF.

So, nowadays i don't blame the camera when i fail to reach a certain result, because i know the camera's fine(I always want better optics, though).

To be honest i didn't blame the camera in the beginning either. When all you have is a cheap P&S you make sure the get the best of it, which i did. I still enjoy seeing those 6 megapixel images today.

The more access to technology we have, the less we tend to try to become better ourselves. Do you agree?

Do you blame the gear when things go wrong and the images are just not right?

 

[tbcass]

As a consequence, i have to ask myself every time i want a new camera- would it do me any good?

Do you blame the gear when things go wrong and the images are just not right?

This is especially true when someone buys a new camera and isn't satisfied with the results. They often blame the camera when 9 times out of 10 it's because they aren't using the camera correctly. The moral of the story is to get familiar with the new camera and learn how to use it before complaining about the results. Unless there is something wrong with the camera every camera made is capable of excellent IQ.

 

[dmanthree]

Same old expression applies here: "it's a poor tradesman who blames his tools."

My take on my camera gear is the same as my last road bike; the bike isn't holding ME back.

:-D

 

[dmanthree]

As a consequence, i have to ask myself every time i want a new camera- would it do me any good?

Do you blame the gear when things go wrong and the images are just not right?

This is especially true when someone buys a new camera and isn't satisfied with the results. They often blame the camera when 9 times out of 10 it's because they aren't using the camera correctly. The moral of the story is to get familiar with the new camera and learn how to use it before complaining about the results. Unless there is something wrong with the camera every camera made is capable of excellent IQ.

Agree, and it's why I reduced my gear to a single camera and system. It's just easier for me to be proficient on a single system than switching systems.

 

[yardcoyote]

I'll blame anything-- the light, the weather, uncooperative subjects, lack of subjects, lack of "inspiration", and of course the camera gear. But I know all the time where the problem lies. When I'm firing on all cylinders, I can get a decent image with any decent camera and I can never avoid that truth for long.

 

[cutterpup]

Back when I was still using Pentax I attended a model train show with my husband. As i walked around I saw a gentleman with the same model camera and lens that I used 75% of the time. He told me that the camera/lens had originally belonged to his son, and that his son insisted they were faulty and he could never get any good images so he gave them the man I was talking with.

The man said he read the users manual and learned about fine tuning the lens. He did so and has since gotten many "good" images and he could trace any "bad" images to user error.

 

[Dennis]

The more access to technology we have, the less we tend to try to become better ourselves. Do you agree?

Not exactly, but sort of. The point of upgrading to newer technology, IMO, is that it provides functionality that makes things easier or makes new things possible, and I think we exploit that. We (meaning some of us!) shoot more handheld rather than having to dig out a tripod; we shoot more without flash rather than having to resort to flash.

If anything, the ability to pixel peep high res images makes me more critical of the technical quality of my images, which helps me get better. But I'm more likely to lean on image stabilization and low light capabilities of sensors to shoot in situations where I would have had to use a tripod or flash (or just put the camera away) in the past ... and I suppose when the technology still isn't good enough, I wish for better (and try to work around it). I don't have a camera with state of the art AF, so I often resort to prefocusing just like I did years ago with cameras with lousy (or even no) AF.

Do you blame the gear when things go wrong and the images are just not right?

Not "blame" but I identify when the camera couldn't do what I wanted it to do and figure out how to avoid that in the future.

 

[topo morto]

Just to play devil's advocate - one reason for a poor workman to blame his tools might be because he's not using the right tools...

And now and again, it might be the case that that new shiny camera/phone/lens/birdie is the right tools for the job, and nothing you currently have is...

Certainly very easy to kid oneself that that is the case though!

 

[Fogel70]

The more access to technology we have, the less we tend to try to become better ourselves. Do you agree?

Do you blame the gear when things go wrong and the images are just not right?

I do not agree, depending on what type of automation we have and use. The more we can focus on the creative aspect of photography.

Instead of having to push buttons and rotate dials to get the technical aspect of photography right. We can let the camera handle much of that so we can get the more important stuff right that the camera can not help with.

 

[Bob A L]

Maybe if that's what one is after with their photography. Personally, I find many things offered by modern cameras as unnecessary. I do appreciate many of the advances through the years, but think we each have our own boundaries. I have drawn my line in the sand concerning many modern "enhancements" in camera design.

And probably if it were not for the hours spent in places like dpr, I would still be using one of my old old digital DSLR's from years ago exclusively and being perfectly happy about it. And for my target audience of friends and relatives, they certainly cannot see any difference in what I produce today vs 10 years ago. I often pull out a 10 year old camera and spend a day or two with it, and no one but me is aware that I changed anything. I can put two similar photos side by side and try to explain the differences to them, but usually to no avail. They just cannot see any difference in them, but it is evident to me. Most of these folks don't even see a big difference in photos from 20-30 years ago with film cameras ranging from SLR's to MF, to instamatics.

 

[sirhawkeye64]

I occasionally have moments of honesty with myself.

I currently have 4-5 cameras and all of them are just wonderful, at least when compared eith the cameras i started with, around 17 years ago.

Yet, generally speaking the quality of the images i get isn't much different than it was 17 years ago, and most of the differences lie in the way i handle the camera, because now i have more experience.

As a consequence, i have to ask myself every time i want a new camera- would it do me any good?

The answer is no. It's the reason i stopped chasing the latest tech in camera development, it wouldn't improve my skills except make my life easier, with things like eye AF or pet eye AF.

So, nowadays i don't blame the camera when i fail to reach a certain result, because i know the camera's fine(I always want better optics, though).

To be honest i didn't blame the camera in the beginning either. When all you have is a cheap P&S you make sure the get the best of it, which i did. I still enjoy seeing those 6 megapixel images today.

The more access to technology we have, the less we tend to try to become better ourselves. Do you agree?

Do you blame the gear when things go wrong and the images are just not right?

I think the "smart" ones realize that gear is just a tool, and that the real photographs come from the photographer's mind/vision. If you're not happy with what you're getting, 99.9% of the time it's not the gear, it's the photographer (the only exceptions may be if you're trying to make do with what you have, and it just can't do it, then maybe we can blame the gear but it may also be time to re-assess your needs and your gear). But majority of the time, people blame the gear but really they should blame themselves because they're not happy with the photographs their getting. And this is something that is generally learned, as many beginners start out thinking that maybe the next new camera will make their photography improve some how, when in fact, it usually doesn't. Getting out and shooting is about the only way you get better. You can read books and watch courses, but those only do so much. And that was something I struggled with a bit for a while... I thought I knew a lot (and I did, but the technical side) by fell short when it came to "seeing" because I spent too much time reading books and watching videos, and not enough time "exercising" my eye through practice.

 

[dmanthree]

Just to play devil's advocate - one reason for a poor workman to blame his tools might be because he's not using the right tools...

Then he doesn't know what he's doing, does he?

And now and again, it might be the case that that new shiny camera/phone/lens/birdie is the right tools for the job, and nothing you currently have is...

Certainly very easy to kid oneself that that is the case though!

 

[sybersitizen]

Do you blame the gear when things go wrong and the images are just not right?

Only when it's actually because of limitations in the gear. But now it's possible to overcome many limitations (like noise, lack of sharpness, CA, distortion, vignetting) with software. My purchases have shifted to the software side so I'm not as tempted to replace gear.

 

[Chris R-UK]

I have a had few occasions when the camera has got it wrong.

The worst was on a wildlife trip when my only telephoto lens broke and went out of alignment very early on. I had to shoot the whole of the rest of the trip with a lens that produced images blurred down one side. I have several times had a camera simply refuse to lock focus even when there was plenty of contrast. I have had a fair share of white balance problems.

However, the other 99% of my bad photographs have been entirely my fault.

 

[Bob A L]

But how many years has it been since there were serious limitations in the gear? It may have been harder to make them produce what we are after, but the gear itself has been capable of most anything for a long time. There were endless numbers of sports, action and action photographs produced even before autofocus or digital. By very skilled operators I will add, but nevertheless, the camera could handle it.

 

[D Cox]

Back when I was still using Pentax I attended a model train show with my husband. As i walked around I saw a gentleman with the same model camera and lens that I used 75% of the time. He told me that the camera/lens had originally belonged to his son, and that his son insisted they were faulty and he could never get any good images so he gave them the man I was talking with.

The man said he read the users manual and learned about fine tuning the lens. He did so and has since gotten many "good" images and he could trace any "bad" images to user error.

I think the need to fine tune the lens in some DSLRs is an engineering fault. It shouldn't be necessary.

Don

 

[Fogel70]

Maybe if that's what one is after with their photography. Personally, I find many things offered by modern cameras as unnecessary. I do appreciate many of the advances through the years, but think we each have our own boundaries. I have drawn my line in the sand concerning many modern "enhancements" in camera design.

Yeah, but that us hardly something new. Photographers probably have said the same thing for more than 100 years.

I bet few professional photographers saw a future of the 35mm film when it was introduced for photography.

And probably if it were not for the hours spent in places like dpr, I would still be using one of my old old digital DSLR's from years ago exclusively and being perfectly happy about it. And for my target audience of friends and relatives, they certainly cannot see any difference in what I produce today vs 10 years ago. I often pull out a 10 year old camera and spend a day or two with it, and no one but me is aware that I changed anything. I can put two similar photos side by side and try to explain the differences to them, but usually to no avail. They just cannot see any difference in them, but it is evident to me. Most of these folks don't even see a big difference in photos from 20-30 years ago with film cameras ranging from SLR's to MF, to instamatics.

 

[DirkPeh]

(…) but the gear itself has been capable of most anything for a long time.

I strongly disagree. Just compare audio technology to camera technology. Camera technology is far from being satisfying. With a cheap mic, you can capture things you can’t hear with your ears without adding noticeable noise etc. You can put the same affordable mic directly in front of a bass drum or loud guitar amp at 125 db. You will get an undistorted recording of what’s in front of the mic.

If we suppose that a mic or mics are tools to capture noise and cameras are tools to capture light.

Try this with a camera! You can’t make a noisefree sharp picture with everything in focus - say at f/7.0 - in a room, where your eyes can see everything in front of you effortless. You still need additional light, compromise in aperture and shutter speed. Cameras still are far from reproducing the dynamic range of reality, audio can.

This makes photography with all the compromises and tricks still interesting, but to state that camera technology is kind of perfect since a long time and not much more is to expect - often stated at DPR - IMO is very questionable. And it is far too expensive for what it is capable off

 

[RetCapt]

I have a 'different courses/different horses' approach to my photography. I have a sufficiently wide variety of cameras to suit my particular photographic interests and the circumstances and environments in which I choose to exercise those interests.

Several of those cameras, in different formats, go back to when I transitioned to digital photography in 2009. They are still in use. My last purchase was in 2018, and that was to fulfill a specific need.

Having had sufficient experience, I know before I go out what my intended photographic subject(s) will be, and that knowledge determines what gear goes with me. One of the benefits of this approach is that I can be relatively minimalist in how much equipment I have to carry.

Under these circumstances, given I know what I am after on any given safari, and have chosen the gear to suit the purpose, I have no one to blame but me if I don't get the photographs I want.

Occasionally there can be exceptions. I went out the other day in hopes of photographing the annular eclipse. But I was not successful. In the mountain area where we live there were thick clouds, so the sun was completely obscured. Thirty air miles distant, over the northern Sacramento Valley, the sky was clear and photographers there got their images. That was neither pilot error nor equipment shortcoming. It was the light and atmospheric conditions. I was aware of this when I drove the two minutes to a clear area, but I went anyway in case the clouds did part. I would rather have been there just in case than to have stayed home and lost a photo. Sometimes stuff just happens.

I am a fly fisherman. I have a lot of really good gear. That does not mean I always catch fish. That does not mean I always land the huge fish I have on my light tippet. At that point it is all on me.

The common thread of both endeavors is the equipment, if properly chosen, will do the job, provided the operator is up to it.

I have no need nor interest in the latest and greatest photographic gear.

The buck stops with me.

 

[Bob A L]

I don't believe you will find anyplace that I ever said anything about any camera new or old was perfect - far from it.

I said that cameras have had the capability to do pretty well anything they can today for many years, it's just that it took more skill to make them do it. A large percentage of "advancements" made in recent years have not made the cameras more capable of doing things, they have been geared towards making it easier for photographers to make the camera do these things.