Reading mode: Light Dark

Why all this Technical Garbage?

Go to last post
O

oldshutterbug

Veteran Member
Messages
9,602
Reaction score
25
Location
Brisbane
I think the digital camera world has gone nuts and some of the threads on this forum are proof, I cannot for the life of me understand why camera specifications have become more important that the photo's the cameras take, I have never read so much technical bunkum spewed out over what camera is better than the next.

IMO supposed to be photographers would be better off practicing their photography rather than getting over involved in a whole lot of meaningless garbage, the best spec camera in the world does not mean its capable of the best pictures, its the person that presses the shutter button, I guess its a lot to do with the computer industry hijacking the photography industry that has turned a lot of people looney.

Thank goodness there are still a few on this forum that use their cameras and post pictures taken with Kodak cameras, to you I take my hat off.

--
Regards
Dave
Downunder.
 
People get passionate about things.

Where else to release it other than anonymously on a Internet forum?

Life is all a competition, just like it was for the Greeks. Only after a little while, they stopped killing each other as competition, and turned to other forms of competition, like drama writing contest (Antigone, anyone?). And other stuff like javelin throwing and discus throwing.

And the equipment plays a role in the pictures you take, although I agree the photographer is the more important factor.

Time for me to stop daydreaming of my next camera.

Back to work with my 5 year old Kodak DX7590 :D!
--

Overall I can't say enough positive things about this camera. Sure it would be nice if it had HD video or a higher resolution screen but those aren't required to take fantastic pictures.
 
isn't this analysis something like discussing film type, grade and processing?

isn't digital just modern film?

BTW... I think I heard that there's only one lab left in all of North America that can properly process KodaChrome.
 
Dave, I couldn't agree more. For many years I was a member of our city's photography club. We NEVER discussed technical such as film, processing, dark room techniques and were I still a member there I suspect the topics of discussion would not entail camera specifications. In fact, we seldom knew what camera (unless that person revealed his/her camera) our fellow member was using. Our only concern was to share our photographs in friendly competitions, evaluate our photographs and have the occasional speaker come in to speak about photography or give a show. We learned about composition... how to "see" and most importantly we learned about the joy of photography. And I fully agree that the computer industry has, in fact, hijacked photography in that regard.
--
JamesD
Happy Snappin'
 
that's not my experience... really I've never been in a real bricks and mortar photography club.

I'm a newbie to all this so.. I just don't have that much to go on except what I learn from you guys and try to figure out by my lonesome.

about an over emphasis on technical stuff... I'd like to suggest that a strong emphasis on technical stuff is appropriate.

That is, it's appropriate for a camera specific forum to be nit picky about all things technical about cameras.

on the other hand

I just did a quick Google on 'photography magazines' and came upon one called

http://www.aperture.org/magazine

After a good look about, I did not see one reference to camera gear. Not once. They only had articles about the other side of photography. Some thing that James was speaking of in his camera club.

Again, my experience has been coloured by visiting DPReview a tech centred site at least 100,000 times. That's crazy isnt' it? :(

If I had... visited Aperture Magazine 100,000 times no doubt I'd see photography in a different light.

Surely Aperture Magazine isn't the only non tech place for photographers to visit and share in discussions on photography. I remember another one that was kinda over the top for me anyway, something called Deviant something or other. Wow...the image was the main deal there too.. not so much about what lens was used.

Maybe one thing I like about the tech side is that it's measurable. It's either f/2.8 or f/5.6 It's either 5 meg sensor or 10 meg sensor. OK maybe there is some fun discussions about just what that means but at least I know that there is an ultimate answer at the end of the day.

on the other hand

the arty people can present something that they say is wonderful avant guard photography.. something that I would deem worthy of laying face down on the bottom of a bird cage.

I got nothing to say to those types. And I just cant' see or hear what they are talking about. Kodak colour I can see and talk about.:)
 
TechOutsider said:
Life is all a competition, just like it was for the Greeks. Only after a little while, they stopped killing each other as competition, and turned to other forms of competition, like drama writing contest (Antigone, anyone?). And other stuff like javelin throwing and discus throwing.
Click to expand...
TechOutsider, I am sorry for this but you have to know that I have just pressed the complaint button for your abusive statement about Greeks, and Greece…
And because we the Greeks are proud you have to know that I have just did it…
Thanks for your understanding.

--
Just lost my Dpreview account known as mike_mike
*****************************************
Have a look at the totally new http://www.spiridakis.gr
 
Well well. I've just switched on and am greeted by the above.

Michael, I don't know if you are serious but I'm sure you have every right to be. Just put him on 'Ignore' like I did a while ago when I read his silly post in the Open Forum.

Just write him off as a callow youth and one of those types it takes all sorts of to make a world.

I'm sure Diogenes would have very quickly put him right!
 
I think a certain degree of technical talk is beneficial and appropriate. We need to know our camera to be able to fully utilized it. Just that we need to keep an open mind and respect other's opinions when there is an dispute.

I am proud of the Kodak forum that we can discuss things in a civilized way. Unlike other forum, it can get pretty ugly (either my way or no way).

It is nice to known the technical behind the CMOS and CCD, but it is no point to argue which one is better. I don't really care with one in my camera as long as it produce the picture that I like.

I'm also glad to see in the Kodak forum that no such questions as "I want the best camera in this price range", "I want the best low light camera", "I'm newbie, and I want a camera with excellent sharpness, best colors, excellent low light performance, small size, quick response time, excellent video, fast lens, etc, etc".

We are at a brave new world. I'm glad I'm in the generation to witness the change over from analogy to digital age. In the film days, it was a luxury to own a dark room equipment to develop our own film and the discussion of darkroom techniques were mostly confined to those group. But now, with digital, every one have a dark room on hand or at the desk top. With digital, it open up the dark room to everyone. Hence all these discussion about PP.

Time to go back to take some pictures from my low tech Kodak Z915.

Here is one of my contribution to the Kodak forum, one shot from my LOW TECH Z915. Do I need a Ricoh CX series, Pana LX FX series, Canon G series????





--
chiue -
Nikon D5000 / Kodak 880 7590 6440 915
Kodak Digital Cameras Galleries
http://www.wix.com/chiuestar/Kodak-DC



 
There is no doubt that some technical information is beneficial but what bugs me is camera comparisons, many times on this forum I read things like "well I think the Canon ABC is a far better camera than the Panasonic XYZ you just have to read the specifications to see that. (or things along that line).

For the best part of half a century the standard and accepted specifications for a decent SLR camera was -

Shutter Speed 1sec to 1,000sec
ASA/ISO Setting 32 - 6400
Lens f2 - 50mm Standard
Most Popular Zoom, 28-80 or 35-70 and 80-200.

All of a sudden we have been bombarded by a whole lot of technical rev-heads that love to spout numbers at photographers that mean zilch, photography is an art and thankfully many that post on this forum produce some beautiful artistic photo's many of which have been taken by using cameras that these technical rev-heads scoff at.

Comparing one camera to another to me is stupid, most digitals work pretty much the same way and produce photo's as good or as bad as the person that presses the shutter button, raving on about and learning about all the wonderful and sometimes useless features of cameras does not produce good photographers, taking lots of pictures, learning the art of photography by practice and looking at the way others produce good photo's is the way to go.

I don't think the great masters like Ansell Adams and Richard Brown worried about specifications, they were more interested in creating great photo's, why sould it be different today ?.
--
Regards
Dave
Downunder.
 
My statement is

a) True.

b) Not intended to be derogatory for anyone.

c) Meant to show that people like to compete in one way or another. Since the Greeks stopped killing each other in ancient times, people turned to other means of competition like poetry writing in the 5th century. So now we are in the 21st century, and I am in America, which takes a lot from Greek civilization (democracy, etc.). And we still like to compete.

d) The Greek reference was just something I was studying in class recently too.
Spiridakis Michael said:
TechOutsider said:
Life is all a competition, just like it was for the Greeks. Only after a little while, they stopped killing each other as competition, and turned to other forms of competition, like drama writing contest (Antigone, anyone?). And other stuff like javelin throwing and discus throwing.
Click to expand...
TechOutsider, I am sorry for this but you have to know that I have just pressed the complaint button for your abusive statement about Greeks, and Greece…
And because we the Greeks are proud you have to know that I have just did it…
Thanks for your understanding.

--
Just lost my Dpreview account known as mike_mike
*****************************************
Have a look at the totally new http://www.spiridakis.gr
Click to expand...
--

Overall I can't say enough positive things about this camera. Sure it would be nice if it had HD video or a higher resolution screen but those aren't required to take fantastic pictures.
 
Charlie, I agree with you by way of Dave's last answer. Information such as shutter speeds, ISO, lighting techniques, apertures... it's important to share such. But as Dave posted, making comparisons of Panny versus Kodak versus Canon versus Nikon and throwing in camera specifications and number of lines resolvable from bench tests is not only taking the joy out of photography but it's essentially irrelevant to the real purpose of photography: making images to please us, to capture memories and to share with others. I think of Eugene Smith one of my all-time favorite photographers with his walk through Paradise Garden. No one cared about the camera specs. The image ruled the day. The most important factor in a good picture is the person pressing the shutter release. And I know you agree with this. I probably misrepresented myself in my earlier post. :-(

--
JamesD
Happy Snappin'
 
oldshutterbug said:
For the best part of half a century the standard and accepted specifications for a decent SLR camera was...
Comparing one camera to another to me is stupid...
Click to expand...
Today's cameras have more in common with computers than cameras of the past. Besides, it's fun comparing cameras features & specs- you know, as a hobby. I find it interesting, but not so much as to rant & rave as some do. But some actually need certain features/functions for their type of photography.
oldshutterbug said:
I don't think the great masters like Ansell Adams and Richard Brown worried about specifications...
Click to expand...
People frequently questioned Ansell Adams on which is the best camera. His usual response was
"The biggest one I can carry".
 
DanasSutra said:
People frequently questioned Ansell Adams on which is the best camera. His usual response was
"The biggest one I can carry".
Click to expand...
Yes but he had a great sense of humor and would have said that pretty much tongue in cheek besides most cameras in his day were quite large.
--
Regards
Dave
Downunder.
 
I agree 100% James but it is true some people love comparing cameras and reading specs and good luck to them, I guess I am just an old fashioned chap that cant come to terms with all the technical jargon, to me a camera is a tool, a tool for taking pictures, I still believe people create great pictures not cameras, a camera is a tool for a photographer just as a hammer is a tool for a carpenter.

I don't see and sense in complicating a hobby when it is the photographer him/herself that is responsible for the photograph, so long as a camera has the required settings such as aperture, speed and ISO settings that is all that is really required.

Things are not going to change while they are being pushed along by greedy manufactures that change models all the time, to me the best thing that has happened to digital cameras of late are the Sony, Olympus and Leica Rangefinder types with interchangeable lens, for an old geezer like me one of those would be a far better investment than a DSLR.

Anyway time goes on and so long as the majority of pictures posted on this forum are taken with Kodaks I couldn't care less, I hope to get away soon and take some new photos to post, all taken by Kodak cameras, yep still my favorites.

--
Regards
Dave
Downunder.
 
I feel the need to write down some thoughts, because I see a lot of talk about camera’s comparisons, and as a participant to this lately I feel my own part of responsibility…

So, I a totally agree that the photographer and not the camera makes the picture, the camera is just a tool.

Historically the tools are developed, a hummer 100 years old is not the same like a new one that you can find just in big hobby store, the new one is made from new materials maybe have soft plastic shaft, maybe is better balanced as a tool, and finally maybe needs less effort to do the same job as the old one from the past.

If the hammers were the same interesting tools like cameras maybe forums like this to be available for people to discus and exchange experiences and knowledge about hammers.

It is a common fact that digital cameras as a new product, had a developing curve, you have just to have a look at old first days reviews here in dpreview, small sensors in terms of mpxls, silly designs, poor screens, absence of IS, of high ISO capability

(By means up to ISO 800 not crazy 6000…LOL), poor EVFs, and so many other things.

So it is normal year by year this developing curve to attract people’s interest, and make them to change their equipment easier, and way faster than they did in past.

It is normal all these developing to make them discuss about specs, the tools have specs, so speaking for tools means speaking for specs.

Agree, people washed up from this developing curve of the last years there are times that behave ludicrously, asking for silly things again and again, if you occasionally have an eye in other forums then definitely know what I am talking about, if you go in Canon’s and Nikon’s forum and see what happen there for things like HD video recording you will get sick of it, and not only this, they are so passionate about brands that frequently posts troll info or even pretend the buyer of a camera and then post how disappointed are, how bad is this new Canikon camera and that they will return it and go for the other’s brand toy…. LOL, they are so detectable from a mile for what are doing…. But human silliness is something we all have accept to live with…

Finally I don’t think that here in Kodak forum has ever happened this… what happens clearly is the opposite, the Kodak funs feel abandoned from the company itself, and there are people reacting in a defending way.
Hope this help more the already nice discussion here.

Mike.

--
Just lost my Dpreview account known as mike_mike
*****************************************
Have a look at the totally new http://www.spiridakis.gr
 
Interesting thread. I actually just posted an answer in generally similar terms on the Canon Forum, just a few hours ago. It is true that the differences between cameras and photos are only marginal in some cases. I find that it is important to have a certain knowledge of the camera and the possible performance, specs etc. but it is true that the camera is not the final product, it is a mean to achieve the final product which is pictures.

I like this hobby and I like to take photos, I have used Kodak cameras and found them good. I have now a Canon A620 that I have been using for the past few years. It works great, and even now I can take great photos. I am right now at a point that I would like to upgrade and potentially have a smaller more portable camera to take with me all the time. To me the main problem is that the prices range between less then $100 and over $7-800 for a point and shoot, I find myself asking what is the best bang for the buck.

The advance of the technology though helps in making changes that can facilitate this hobby and make more rewarding in terms of better pictures etc.

I look at the specs myself trying to read them and translate them into photos but I know that these don't always translate and so one can either blindly hoping to buy something good without knowing anything about it or can get familiar with the camera via the specs, photos, reviews and views from other that have it. This to me has been the successful action for each one of my digital cameras because I knew what I was buying and what to expect from each. I also knew what I could do and what I could not do with it. it is a tool in fact but if you don't know how to use your tool you won't be able to reach good results. As I mentioned before prices are extremely different, from under $100 to several hundreds. I am not rich and I would like to know where I am investing my hard earned money so that I can have fun with this hobby and not regret it later.

All this to basically say that the important part of this hobby ARE the photos and this is true, the quality of the photos will depend in great measure from the person shooting. The camera being the tool should be decent and should be known by the photographer so that he can use it to the hilt. While it is true that the reviews and the talk in some cases is excessively directed toward the camera and the technicality of it, one can use them and the talk to distill the actual important data that he needs in order to know what camera could be best for him and discard the rest. I find this the best way to know and not only make a decision but also to learn certain techniques and data that I would never know otherwise.
 
I think this a silly discussion the way we do it… specs are always important.

I don’t like to use my fuji cameras for landscapes because they don’t have the Landscape option in their focus menu, so there are times that you really cant find a focus point, there are times in low light in sunrise that finding a focus point in the horizon is difficult, specially if a tripod is used.

I don’t like to use my canon S90 for macros although its f:2 because there is not selectable spot focus….
I can’t use my P880 in action shots because it’s a slowwww camera….

These basic things are all specs…. I could write down many others, but a basic listing is just ok to find out some big differences in a camera usage depending only in specs…

--
Just lost my Dpreview account known as mike_mike
*****************************************
Have a look at the totally new http://www.spiridakis.gr
 
I would like to thank the contributors to this thread for their interesting and well put replies, yes I agree I have read some of the comments on other forums and also know some of them are so far up their brand that nothing else exists, make an adverse comment on their camera and they react as though you had just dropped a bomb on their family home, in the eight or so years I have been involved in this forum in one name or the other I have never found that on this forum.

I think the comment about Kodak owners feeling left out by Kodak is true, long time Kodak users like myself have had to contend with that for quite some time, I have to say though that some of the current models like the Z915 are still capable cameras with the proof being posted here by Chiue and others being quite outstanding, some of the other cheapie models also produce good results that sometimes make the very expensive cameras look like a waste of money, talking about expensive cameras my first DX6490 cost me $915au and my first DX6440 $499au so I guess the current Kodaks can be considered good value for money, maybe just maybe we should cut Kodak a little bit of slack.
--
Regards
Dave
Downunder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top