Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Megapixel "Penis Envy"


Ade_Osman e2
11 4.5k 36 England
16 Nov 2012 6:50PM
I think it will come eventually though Lemmy, maybe not in the next 12 months as I stated very tongue in cheek Wink But I do feel manufacturers are now starting to make cameras with very superfluous features that none of us will never need or use.......I searched out one of the last 50d's available for my last purchase, purely because I didn't need or want a camera (60d) with a video facility, despite the fact it might be very good!.... I've got a video camera if I ever feel the need to use video, I only use this as an example..

AdeGrin

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
16 Nov 2012 7:02PM

Quote:I think it will come eventually though Lemmy, maybe not in the next 12 months as I stated very tongue in cheek


Yes, I realised that, Ade Smile. I suppose that what is superfluous to one person is useful to another. When I first started buying digital cameras I had no interest in the video facility at all.

But in the last couple of years I have started making a decent little income from YouTube videos and wouldn't even consider a camera without top quality video - even though still performance is still my top priority.

In my view, adding video doesn't compromise camera handling or even increase costs a great deal. I'd draw the line at anything that materially detracted from a my camera's main purpose, ie stills and video.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
16 Nov 2012 7:07PM
I think you might have posted something about digital zooms somewhere David, I`ve since found it very handy for video on the OMD Smile

You did a nice little revue on that 45mm as well.
mikehit e2
5 7.1k 11 United Kingdom
16 Nov 2012 8:19PM

Quote:I think it will come eventually though Lemmy, maybe not in the next 12 months as I stated very tongue in cheek Wink But I do feel manufacturers are now starting to make cameras with very superfluous features that none of us will never need or use


Which is, I think, where the 6D is aimed. A simple full-frame camera leaving the 5Diii for those who want high-grade AF.
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
17 Nov 2012 12:09AM
Could we see a future where CSC and full frame dominate.

Less crop frame dslr users, a lot more CSC users, and a lot more full frame dslrs users with full frame camera`s costing less than 1000 within 2 or 3 years Smile
Steppenwolf 3 1.1k
17 Nov 2012 8:43AM

Quote:
Will new kit make you happy? Yes. Will folk want to see and have a play? Probably. Will it make you a better photographer? In most cases no.



It's a bit like buying a new set of golf clubs. You buy a new set after reading all the marketing puff about the new head giving a bigger sweet spot and the new composite shafts giving you greater length and after a few months using them your average scores are exactly the same. The problem is that the subconcious rapidly adjusts to the bigger sweet spot and you're less accurate when you hit the ball and the longer shot length is only an advantage if you've hit the ball in the right direction. However, it does make it easier to shoot the same score as before.

Better cameras just make it easier to take the same shot you would have taken anyway. I do find more accurate focus is a big advantage though, which is where the analogy breaks down.
strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
17 Nov 2012 9:25AM
I agree better AF performance helps, and my reflection is that once you go past a certain number of pixels what matters more are the other aspects of photography so much more, from handling to AF etc. I go look at exhibitions like wildlife photographer of the year and I see big great prints that I wish I had taken. I cannot remember ever thinking that the images did not have enough resolution. and it is this sort of reflection that leads you to the "just how many mp do I need" thought and should I stop worry about number of pixels and instead trade number of pixels for say a deeper frame buffer or better dynamic range, lower noise etc. The message from those exhibitions is that mp is not important, dedication, skill, being in the right place, and having good reactions (camera and photographer) is.

So it all sort of tells you @ 12mp is a sweet spot, yes you can use more and technology will deliver improving performance, but its not the biggest thing. For example are you better off getting the longer lens rather than cropping? It gives you AF a better chance of being correct if you are shooting with the lens wide open for example. Its not like you can look at images taken by the D3 and D300 for example and say those 12mp images are rubbish, as I have seen stunning images from them. I have seen large prints taken by an S95 compact and been impressed.

Another reflection comes from landscape prints. There is no doubt that printing big the higher resolution capture allows you to walk a lot closer and still see lots of detail. But if I am photographing the sweeping vista and that is the purpose of my image, is it important that the individual blades of grass are captured? If someone has to walk so close to see the detail you have that they can no longer see the whole image are they no longer looking at the shot you captured??

So perhaps the question to ask is what gives value to your photography??? Each person can draw their own line. What is certain is the race to add more pixels will continue for awhile because sales follow and we will all end up with more pixels than we absolutely need Smile It could be time to look for other aspects.

My question on number of mp is does it enable you to take a better picture, or do developments like AF improvements and bright high dynamic range viewfinders help more. In fact does more training help more?. I fear more mp makes a tiny impact compared to other areas, now.
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
17 Nov 2012 10:41AM

Quote: In fact does more training help more?


Yes, probably but the whole ethos today is to enable people to do things without effort, mostly, as with photography by having computers do the so-called 'donkey work'.

That's why we are seeing the middle classes, public school and Oxbridge educated, taking over the country. They go through an old fashioned system that places great value on learning and knowledge, teaching you to expect a lot from yourself.

If we accept that the purpose of photography is to make pictures (arguable, a love for the technology itself is perfectly reasonable), I see nothing to suggest that they have been improved. Is the modern perfect blue/ cloudy sky, large object in foreground, steep ultra-wide angle perspective that is the modern landscape cliche better than Ansel Adams landscapes on clumsy, totally manual plate cameras?

I look at fashion pcitures that David Bailey did on a Rollei - are the modern ones any better? Reportage? Show me better modern stuff than Eugene Smith's on manual Leicas. That's not to say that digital output is worse, just not better.

I think that training, learning, looking, more important, seeing, is at the heart of photography. A better camera doesn't help with that. As with Steppenwolf's golf analogy about golf and modern equipment making it easier to attain the same score - the digital everything does make sharper, clearer etc easier.

I was always fond of Arthur Koestler's remark, that there are two ways to get to the summit of a mountain. One is to be dropped off at the top by a helicopter. The other is to climb it yourself. The mistake is top imagine that the view from the top is the same.
Ade_Osman e2
11 4.5k 36 England
17 Nov 2012 11:50AM
I think there is still a place for film, especially in the mono/specialist sector, digital hasn't quite caught up yet in some of the more specialist sides of photography. I still love firing off the odd roll of Ilford FP4 Plus at the occasional family wedding, even if I am very much still very much the amateur and it costs a fortune to get it processed. I wonder sometimes how some of today's pro's and semi-pro's who have never used film would get on with such technology???.......I don't think they'd have a clue Wink

Ade
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
17 Nov 2012 12:08PM

Quote: I wonder sometimes how some of today's pro's and semi-pro's who have never used film would get on with such technology???


It would be very hard for them. One of the reasons that things have become so nasty with the paps, the pushing and shoving and the thugs in the business, is that before digital they had to learn how to operate a manual camera under difficult and rushed conditions. It did take photographic skill whatever one might think of the work itself and that kept the worst elements out of the business.

The people willing to do that are very different from someone who just buys a camera which does the technical work for them. It enables anyone able to push a button to be a pap.

Those guys would never have survived in previous days and the business was better without them.

I knew all three of today's top paps (though they go everywhere by invite now), Richard Young, Alan Davidson and Dave Benet. All three of them are technically highly skilled photographers who went through the long freelance proving ground that was Fleet Street.
Carabosse e2
11 39.7k 269 England
17 Nov 2012 12:37PM

Quote:I wonder sometimes how some of today's pro's and semi-pro's who have never used film would get on with such technology???.......I don't think they'd have a clue


Indeed. They wouldn't have a little screen on the back of the camera to constantly 'chimp' ! Wink

chimp.jpg

Ade_Osman e2
11 4.5k 36 England
17 Nov 2012 1:02PM
GrinGrinGrinGrinGrin
lemmy 7 2.0k United Kingdom
17 Nov 2012 2:24PM

Quote: camera to constantly 'chimp' !


Well it is a viewing screen so the animal is entitled to 'chimp an' see' isn't it? Smile
20 Nov 2012 10:52AM
You guys kill me..! Grin

(Not before time, some would say.... Smile )
23 Nov 2012 6:13PM

Quote: "I spent 4 grand on a new camera because I can"


Well, it helps to keep the makers in business, so that if I need a new camera in the future they might still be there! Grin

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.