Choosing cameras for our actual needs!

Doug's comments following Michael Nagel's impressive pictures of insects, casual visitors to his table, makes a great topic deserving to stand on its own. So here goes!


Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:

Although numbers favor the larger sensors, pictures speak for themselves and 4/3 seems pretty fantastic.

Click to expand...

I was excited by the emergence of the Four Thirds format (22 mm), and felt that it could come to play the same role vis-à-vis the Kleinibild format (43 mm) as the Kleinbild format did many decades earlier vis-à-vis the 120 format (or even the 4x5 format).

But that didn't really take off, probably because it had built in the baggage of the SLR formulation (a wondrous thing, but not the only way to make a camera). It was time to think outside the (mirror) box.

Then came Micro Four Thirds, and I think they've got it!

My most recent change in gear, as you know, is to a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ200, having a 7.7 mm sensor. A reason for the choice was the synergy between the wish for a large zoom ratio (to readily cover "all our bases" and the reality that almost all our work is delivered in a relatively low-resolution context. It is doing a very nice job in that frame of reference.

But that is not the be all and end all here, and I plan at a later stage to acquire a higher-performance system, but still one that is lighter and more compact than our original Canon EOS-based rig.

And I suspect that as that quest materializes, I will be looking at the Micro Four Thirds system as the platform.

Best regards,

Doug

Doug Kerr said:

.......
But that is not the be all and end all here, and I plan at a later stage to acquire a higher-performance system, but still one that is lighter and more compact than our original Canon EOS-based rig.

And I suspect that as that quest materializes, I will be looking at the Micro Four Thirds system as the platform.

Click to expand...

Doug,

Your choice of the digicam zoom is perfect for your collection of pictures aimed at the web. Everyone should be encouraged to, likewise, ask themselves about the end purpose of the pictures, beyond the joy of figuring out, stalking and shooting an impressive composition or reflexly snapping at a transient appearance that makes one gasp.

From Cem's wonderful essay, I see a tremendous cost saving in working with files in LR or Aperture instead of processing all to PSD files in PS. Using parametric instructions instead of PSD files, means that we don't have to be frightened away from larger sensors for our casual work.

The newest Sony, Pentax and Olympus mirrorless cameras weight gets reduced by 2/3. That alone makes photography less of a physical stress in prolonged shoots. Frankly, holding 3.5 to 5lb of Canon camera for 3 hours is tough on my wrists, back and psyche!

I must admit to using large cameras and massive PS files and that is hard on the joints and pocket book! I think that we will see more folk owning a mirrorless professional grade cameras with interchangeable lenses in place of the FF Canon, Nikon and Sony monsters. In addition, there's a quiet revolution in fixed lens professional large sensor options from Ricoh, Sony and Fuji and the Sigma DP Merrill series of 28mm, 45mm and 75mm so that serious work can be done holding 500 gm or less of gear!

For 21mm and 28 mm my Ricoh GR APS C camera is perfect and then a DP Merrill 45 mm could replace my Canon 5DII with its 1.2 L lens and I might never turn back, at least outside the studio!

Asher

The above two posts ( Doug's and Asher's ) are accurate in what they state. However, they are not necessarily all encompassing as regards to camera purchases and ownership.

Man does not live by bread alone. Bread...meaning eatables to sustain life. But there is much more a person needs.

So with cameras ( since this post is about photography requirements ). What is sufficient for a particular job should not be the sole criteria for a cam purchase...

For me, the feel, the ergonomics, the pleasure I shall derive from owning a particular cam is also very very important.

You see, I take better pictures ( judged by me of course ) when I pick up a cam I love to use..as opposed to just have to use.

Same with lenses. Same with the cam/lens combo. The feel. The bonding of man and machine. And serving the purpose for which it is being used.

As was referenced somewhere here, Joshua Bell or Andre Rieu could produce lovely music with most any violin; but Joshua's violin set him back a few million. There has to be a reason. A fine instrument can never be replaced by something that just gets the job done. At best then, it shall just do the job.

If one is happy with that...good luck.

p.s. For me the process of making an image is very important. The instruments I use, must not be in my way. I do not pretend to make art. But I do freeze a moment in time never to be captured again.
That deserves, for me, something more than ' will such and such get the job done ' instrument.

fahim mohammed said:

For me, the feel, the ergonomics, the pleasure I shall derive from owning a particular cam is also very very important.

You see, I take better pictures ( judged by me of course ) when I pick up a cam I love to use..as opposed to just have to use.

Click to expand...

Fahim,

Besides added beauty of special leather, great design is often beautiful and graceful to use in itself. I feel that the best designs not allow one to get the job done, but with extra fluidity so that there's less barrier between intent and action. I see that beauty in the simple design of the Ricoh GR, which has become an extension of myself. The better the camera design, the more easily we join it to our "body-mind" experience.

Then there's Leica! Well, not only does on get fine tools but also awe inspiring workmanship. But no matter how advanced that Leica is, unless one makes that special bond, the camera won't yield the result for impulsive shooting that something we feel is part of our being can deliver.

If one removes wonkiness in construction and it does the job, like choosing a bride, one can have endless options in camera selection. However, to end up happy when one opens one's eyes, it's better to have a camera which gives love back!

Asher

"Like choosing a bride", "gives love back".
Really!
Its a ****ing camera, for (someone's) god's sake!
Mechanical, functional, ergo-dynamic. Or was that ego-dynamic?
I'm afraid I have to side with Fahim on this one. If I can't pick it up and press the buttons its of no use to me what-so-ever.
Now, I know not everyone has 3 fingers that curl like a grape tendril and a titanium steel screw holding the scaphoid in place but whats the first thing you do when you walk into the shop to buy a new camera. You pick it up and rest it in your hot little hand. You get the feel of it!!! Now, unless your dead, your brain is already calculating how you feel abut this particular model (not bride) and it may (i do say: may) over-ride all the technical stuff you ever learnt about this amazing machine. In addition to that, I would also suggest that before you picked it up you were already salivating over a nice picture of it it the latest B&H catalogue (as you might with a prospective bride). Do they sell brides at B&H, or is that Wallmart?
If we all went for functionality alone I'd be wearing a thawb instead of a T-shirt and jeans. Then I'd have a nice cool breeze blowing up my ...... instead of trying to look cool (and not succeeding) in the western culture in which I live.
Stick your head under the bonnet (hood) by all means but when you've finished, join your bride in the cabin while she is deeply engrossed in a conversation about interior colours and how she can adjust the seat to allow her to drive with 7in heels.

Tom dinning said:

"Like choosing a bride", "gives love back".
Really!
Its a ****ing camera, for (someone's) god's sake!

Click to expand...

Tom,

Myriads of cameras work. It's the "one in one's hand" that makes the beautiful pictures, after all and we carry the one we love! Some cameras earn a lot of our affection because they work with us! It's as if they're our trusted companions. So that's the love I speak of!

...and it practical!

Likely as not, your best images get taken with very few of your many choices! Yes, it's like one's wife or favorite girlfriend, great to have along!

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

Tom,

Myriads of cameras work. It's the "one in one's hand" that makes the beautiful pictures, after all and we carry the one we love! Some cameras earn a lot of our affection because they work with us! It's as if they're our trusted companions. So that's the love I speak of!

...and it practical!

Likely as not, your best images get taken with very few of your many choices! Yes, it's like one's wife or favorite girlfriend, great to have along!

Asher

Click to expand...

Christine have a pact. We put all our love into humans, especially each other. Admiration for quality, aesthetics or whatever are permitted for inanimate objects but no love. This enables us to be more sensitive to each other if we break something that belongs to the other person. I give my cameras to children to play with, I get rid of what I don't need, I break Christine's best crystal on a regular basis, and have happily walked away from all possessions twice in my life for the love of another human being. Sure, I like tech stuff but only for what it can do, not for what it is. Attachment to animal, vegetable and mineral is too stressful.

Hi, Tom,

Tom dinning said:

Christine [and I?] have a pact. We put all our love into humans, especially each other. Admiration for quality, aesthetics or whatever are permitted for inanimate objects but no love. This enables us to be more sensitive to each other if we break something that belongs to the other person. I give my cameras to children to play with, I get rid of what I don't need, I break Christine's best crystal on a regular basis, and have happily walked away from all possessions twice in my life for the love of another human being. Sure, I like tech stuff but only for what it can do, not for what it is. Attachment to animal, vegetable and mineral is too stressful.

Click to expand...

Excellent!

Best regards,

Doug

Tom dinning said:

Christine have a pact. We put all our love into humans, especially each other. Admiration for quality, aesthetics or whatever are permitted for inanimate objects but no love. This enables us to be more sensitive to each other if we break something that belongs to the other person. I give my cameras to children to play with, I get rid of what I don't need, I break Christine's best crystal on a regular basis, and have happily walked away from all possessions twice in my life for the love of another human being. Sure, I like tech stuff but only for what it can do, not for what it is. Attachment to animal, vegetable and mineral is too stressful.

Click to expand...

Tom,

With Christine on your side, I'm overpowered!



Asher

Hi, Fahim,

fahim mohammed said:

That deserves, for me, something more than ' will such and such get the job done ' instrument.

Click to expand...

Well, happily for some, the very camera I chose is available with a Leica badge at only twice the price.

Or are you chastising me for accepting something that does not have extraordinary performance.

Perhaps I should have gotten a nice compact body with a 43 mm sensor and a really good EVF and a nice not-too-heavy high-performance large-aperture lens with a 15:1 zoom range.

I forget exactly what product combination that is.

I wonder if the Gibson ex Huberman camera is on the block?

I wonder if Bell played the Gibson ex Huberman in the D.C. subway in 2007? (It would be in Weingarten's Pulitzer-prize-winning article on the event.)

Best regards,

Doug

For me it is a balance between the technical aspects and the camera. I love my 1DsMkIII and the pictures we take together, but it doesn't satisfy two of my needs unfortunately, so I also have the twins (a pair of Canon T3i's) I use to shoot 3D stereography with. the 1DsMkIII is just too muscular for that job which requires the petiteness of a smaller camera. Of course, i am not quite so enamoured of 3D that I will drain my savings for a pair of 5D series, yet!!.

And finally every once in awhile I just have a need for some underwater photography, for that I have a really poor camera otherwise, but unlike the 1Ds3 or the T3i's it will go up to 10 feet underwater with no fear. Again if I was trying for the best quality, i would have to spring for an underwater housing, but again it is just a occasional fling.

Luckily my 1Ds3 is very forgiving of my dalliances with the other cameras, including the about once a year making sure my Hassy 500 ELM still works and processing a little B&W film in memory of times gone by.

So it is a bit of both technical and passion which to me determines which camera is best to use and posses (that and my available cash).

Tim,

Do you look at the world differently with different cameras? I wonder whether the camera can modulate one's artistic decisions by the way we see and frame, how light it is, how one holds it and so forth.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

I wonder whether the camera can modulate one's artistic decisions by the way we see and frame, how light it is, how one holds it and so forth.

Click to expand...

It sure does.

I know for certain that's true when I use LF film in my view camera or pinhole camera compared to digital, but what about a small full frame camera like the Sony RX-1 compared to a full bodied DSLR from Nikon or Canon with the same focal length lens at the same aperture. How does the compactness of the new form likely effect us. Are we more nimble and discrete ...what happens do you think?

Asher

We can only photograph what we see and how we see things depends on how the camera presents us with what comes through the lens. A DLSR is typically used with a viewfinder on ground glass. That means that we tend to photograph things at eye level. That also means that we get useful info on sharpness and depth of focus, what is present in the darker parts of the picture, etc…
A small P&S is usually framed by using its rear screen. If the screen can be oriented, we will be inclined to take pictures at hip level or above our head, which changes the perspective. The screen is difficult to see in sunlight, rarely not presents us with really useful info about depth of field, hides the darker parts of the picture from our view. On the other hand, it may be switched to B&W, which is useful in some cases.

Just do the experiment yourself: chose an object, a sculpture maybe, and try to take interesting pictures of it with different cameras. You will quickly notice how these seemingly trivial details are essential.

The viewfinder or "framing device" is the most essential part of any camera, because photography is entirely about the frame. What to put in, what to leave out.

Hi, Jerome,

Jerome Marot said:

The viewfinder or "framing device" is the most essential part of any camera, because photography is entirely about the frame. What to put in, what to leave out.

Click to expand...

You make an excellent point. The "waist-level" finders of typical box cameras, the waist-level SLR finder of the Graflex, and the standard waist-level TLR finder of the Rolleiflex all influenced the point-of-view of the photographers.

To boot, the Graflex viewfinder, with its deep, chimney-like folding leather hood, is considered responsible for many injuries of photojournalists who were mowed down by runaway horses and the like, of whose approach they were unaware, their gaze being confined to the ground glass.

Best regards,

Doug