DSLR Rant

[AlanKlein]

People who drive Maserati's and Ferrari's get me upset. Especially if they have a Leica along for the ride. Now that's nerve.

 

[bribrius]

the more I think about this. the more I am beginning to agree with the o.p.

 

[mamboitaliano]

So after sitting by idly and seeing the responses, I'm partially surprised and partially not.

I understand some points, and while they may be true, what about the professionals on here who shoot say weddings?
With the huge amount of people with DSLR's, and so many "photographers" out there, you can't possibly tell me you're ok with someone taking work from you. And I don't want to hear the "it's more than just a camera" excuse. While that may partially be true, with technology advancements these days, you can somewhat "pay" for skill. You can buy a camera that can get rid of most of the thought process and produce great pictures. So instead of hiring a "professional" to shoot a wedding for $5k, why not hire Bob's niece? Bob just bought her a 5D mk III with some great L lenses. She used to shoot with her iphone, but hey, she'll do the wedding for $100 bucks.

And don't say that can't happen because it has happened, maybe not exactly that scenario, but you get the idea.

So while you might argue that more people buying DSLR's make it cheaper to develop technology, that may PARTIALLY be true, you're missing the other side of that coin, which is saturating the market.

Just a thought.

 

[Josh66]

Yeah, but saturating *which* market?

Sure, you can go buy a "fancy camera" that will ensure that every shot you take is perfectly exposed and in focus. You'll have a bunch of tack sharp snapshots. I'm sure that is all some people ever wanted for their wedding photos.

That isn't "skill". "Getting rid of most of the thought process" is pretty close to what I would call the opposite of skill.

 

[Overread]

So basically you're saying you want photography to become a guild type operation. Where by you can't purchase the tools (or certain types/qualities) let alone practice without first passing through a series of gates held by gatekeepers - likely in the form of apprenticeships or examinations.

To essentially make photography closed shop and deny people access in an effort to protect business income.

Whilst there might be some merit in that from a business perspective there isn't from a personal interest perspective; especially since this is a profession where you don't die if you get it wrong. There's no real sane need to regulate photography except from a business protection angle or one of enforcing "standards of art/craft" (which within that is a nightmare of opinions).

 

[407370]

Yeah, but saturating *which* market?

Sure, you can go buy a "fancy camera" that will ensure that every shot you take is perfectly exposed and in focus. You'll have a bunch of tack sharp snapshots. I'm sure that is all some people ever wanted for their wedding photos.

That isn't "skill". "Getting rid of most of the thought process" is pretty close to what I would call the opposite of skill.

If a friend asked me to shoot a wedding I would advise them to get a pro but if they insisted that they had no money to pay a pro I would probably do it for free food. I would also include a caveat of "I AM NOT A PRO" and if they are happy with that then why not?

 

[snowbear]

with technology advancements these days, you can somewhat "pay" for skill

Much like computers? Maybe we should keep people from buying computers until they are able to pass proficiency tests in operating systems and various programming languages?

Just a thought.

 

[sashbar]

Let us be real. We are all humans. A lot of people who do not know much about photography feel more assured and confident with a high end camera. Most of them are perfectly aware that as photographers they are limited to simple run-of-the-mill snapshots.

They do not have time, desire and dedication to learn photography seriously. But somewhere at back of their mind they believe a "better" camera will help them to take a better picture. Not all non-photogs are satisfied with an iPhone image.

Lots of people buy prosumer cameras with best intentions. They plan to learn photography. But they also have families, kids, jobs and a lot of things that are more important than taking pictures. So their hobby is being permanently postponed.

A lot of people are conscious of things like prestige even though they never admit it. They are reluctant to be seen with a beginners camera just as they do not want to be seen wearing cheap watches.

I guess, things will change soon. As soon as consumers realise, that a good small and light mirrorless camera has an IQ as good as any DSLR if not better, and mirrorless get in vogue, there will be less and less bulky, heavy DSLRs carried by amateurs and tourists. The writing is already on the wall.

 

[CameraClicker]

Whilst there might be some merit in that from a business perspective there isn't from a personal interest perspective; especially since this is a profession where you don't die if you get it wrong. There's no real sane need to regulate photography except from a business protection angle or one of enforcing "standards of art/craft" (which within that is a nightmare of opinions).

I don't think regulation is the solution. Kodak wanted to make it easy for anyone to take a photo, and no one is suggesting you should not be allowed to purchase paint and brushes.

Photography may be fairly safe, but people do die:
Pedestrian struck by vehicle in Noble Square - Chicago Tribune

I can't find a link. The back page of Macleans Magazine carries an obit. A few months ago, it said the person stepped onto the highway to take a photo and was instantly killed by a truck coming out of the sun, so he never saw the truck.

And, then there is this, which was in the news for a while. Canadian bride’s last words before being dragged to her death by water-logged wedding gown during ‘trash the dress’ photo shoot: ‘It’s too heavy’  - NY Daily News

 

[480sparky]

......... you can't possibly tell me you're ok with someone taking work from you.........

So, when you get hungry, you simply tell your personal chef what to make?

When your lawn needs mowing, you always hire a groundskeeper?

Better toss out your vacuum, too. You're putting maids out of work.

Don't bother digging out the ladder so you can replace that shingle that got blown off your roof yesterday..... you're stealing from the handyman who depends on that kind of work.

When you have a pile of dirty clothes on the floor, you will faithfully take it all to the dry cleaners?

And of course, to take it to the dry cleaners, you'll need to summon your chauffeur. You know, he's the person that drives your car for you. The car that is only worked on by professional mechanics. The same car that is only cleaned by the auto detailer. And your chauffeur only stops at full-service gas stations..... God forbid putting gas pump jockeys out of work.

And if all this is giving you a headache, don't bother taking an aspirin...... call your chauffeur and get driven to the local clinic. After all, self-medication is taking away business from the healthcare industry.

 

[Derrel]

... sitting by idly and seeing the responses, I'm partially surprised and partially not.

"Sitting by idly and seeing the responses," is a behavior many people consider to be a form of trolling. Turning the boat around after having made a successful trolling pass, and then lowering more baited rigs into the water to troll through a concentration of fish is considered the mark of a high-line troller, and one who really does want to return to port with a nice catch.

 

[astroNikon]

There's nothing that's going to stop people from buying cameras and trying their flair at taking photos whether for fun or as a "professional endeavor". in many, many .. well everything.

 

[weepete]

I like turtles. They don't judge me for the camera I use. Though they are pretty picky about lenses.

 

[Josh66]

Yeah, but saturating *which* market?

Sure, you can go buy a "fancy camera" that will ensure that every shot you take is perfectly exposed and in focus. You'll have a bunch of tack sharp snapshots. I'm sure that is all some people ever wanted for their wedding photos.

That isn't "skill". "Getting rid of most of the thought process" is pretty close to what I would call the opposite of skill.

If a friend asked me to shoot a wedding I would advise them to get a pro but if they insisted that they had no money to pay a pro I would probably do it for free food. I would also include a caveat of "I AM NOT A PRO" and if they are happy with that then why not?

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I was talking about. I know that happens, and I don't really see a problem with it.

What I was talking about is the idea that gear and skill are interchangeable - something that I do not believe. The OP seems to believe that they are at least partially interchangeable, and that "skill" is something that can be bought instead of learned.

 

[chuasam]

I really want the new Panasonic Lumix LX100. That's the sort of camera I would use on vacation.