Lies in the industry

[Hawaii Five-O]

Lies!! all of them:hugs:

 

[Village Idiot]

Things to look out for (marketing hype)

Image Stabilization, Vibration Reduction, etc - helps a little, but "three or four stops."

More megapixels does not capture a better picture - on the contrary, on P&S cameras you'd get a better picture out of a camera built three or four years ago than the ones being made now.

You have proof? I have a shot with the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS at 70mm and 1/10 that suffers from minimal blur. I should have been shooting at 1/125 with the crop factor. That's about "three or four stops".

Really... I was told you learn best from using film. You learn from the errors you make. No easy fix.

You learn from your mistakes either way, you just pay more for those mistakes with film.

 

[Yemme]

You learn from your mistakes either way, you just pay more for those mistakes with film.

I was lied to...:cry: Where does the deceit end!

 

[THORHAMMER]

You have proof? I have a shot with the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS at 70mm and 1/10 that suffers from minimal blur. I should have been shooting at 1/125 with the crop factor. That's about "three or four stops".



You learn from your mistakes either way, you just pay more for those mistakes with film.

think what iron means is that while you may have been able to miraculously pulled off a 10th and your lens wasn't shaking , you do realize anything you shoot @ a 10th thats a human, animal, sports etc, anything that breathes or moves will 95% likely be blurry right?

Most people use that lens for portraits, or events, so being able to shoot at a 10th or 15th or even 25th doesn't do much for you unless your shooting architecture, or something else that doesn't move, so people who don't know better end up taking that lens without a tripod to an event and get screwed.

its a marketing ploy for most people who don't understand what they will be shooting vs the lens blur. 2 types of blur.

 

[Iron Flatline]

I own the same lens.

 

[Joves]

Really... I was told you learn best from using film. You learn from the errors you make. No easy fix.

Only if you keep notes on every shot. I used to do that all the time.

I watch quite a few people on sites such as this one say "This image is straight out of the camera" when it's fairly obvious it's been processed to death with sharpening and saturation tweaks. Does that count?

Yeah I love that one too. Especially when it is obvious.

I was lied to...:cry: Where does the deceit end!

It never ends and that is the fun in life. Wading through the BS can be funny at times.

 

[Edward Crim]

Now here is a bare-faced lie! While the cost of digital cameras has certainly come down, it is not necessarily cheaper. Since the bottom has dropped out of the film camera market, film cameras can be picked up really cheap. The difference in cost (between a good film camera and a good digital camera) can buy you a lot of film (particularly if you shoot b&w and develop it yourself).

Shooting digital requires many unforeseen expenses - faster computer, more and bigger hard drives, optical media for archiving, frequent software upgrades, sensor cleaning kit, more media cards, more expensive batteries, etc.

Then dissatisfaction with our 12MP camera sets in and we have to have a 24MP camera (or in my case 48MP).

Digital isn't cheaper overall (for me), but it is better suited to my current workflow.

 

[Bifurcator]

Now here is a bare-faced lie! While the cost of digital cameras has certainly come down, it is not necessarily cheaper. Since the bottom has dropped out of the film camera market, film cameras can be picked up really cheap. The difference in cost (between a good film camera and a good digital camera) can buy you a lot of film (particularly if you shoot b&w and develop it yourself).

Shooting digital requires many unforeseen expenses - faster computer, more and bigger hard drives, optical media for archiving, frequent software upgrades, sensor cleaning kit, more media cards, more expensive batteries, etc.

Then dissatisfaction with our 12MP camera sets in and we have to have a 24MP camera (or in my case 48MP).

Digital isn't cheaper overall (for me), but it is better suited to my current workflow.

Yeah... I could argue almost every point there. I won't though because whether it's a $200 used digital SLR or a $1,000 used film camera isn't the issue to me. We're talking about using said tool to learn the trade right? If it's pro level being discussed then we probably already know these issues and are using whichever whatever we need for the job.

I (can) shoot 400 shots a day in digital and I have instant general feedback in camera and if I carry a mini-lap-top I have a full dark-room, delivery service, research library, customer or mentor approval/discussion tool, etc. with me in the field.

400 shots in 35mm film terms is 11 rolls of 36. At $7 a roll and another $5 a roll for developing that's $130 a day. LOL! (and considering what I charge for my time, developing myself is really 10 times more expensive.) But again money isn't really the issue. It's the time that it takes to develop all that, write notes on all 400 shots , and then try to juggle all 400 shots & notes to figure out which note went with which shot. With digital all the notes are taken for you automatically and if you need more just make sure you're on a camera with voice-memo capabilities.

It requires a bit of forethought and an analytical mind is invaluable to the process but the convenience factor of digital is on an order of magnitude more enabling to the task of learning technique and experimenting/discovering styles that work for you or against you as the case may be. Even if film were 100 times cheaper (tho actually it IS more expensive) it would still be worth it to shoot digital. I do think everyone should shoot film for awhile if possible for the experience and the fun though. :thumbup:

 

[Village Idiot]

think what iron means is that while you may have been able to miraculously pulled off a 10th and your lens wasn't shaking , you do realize anything you shoot @ a 10th thats a human, animal, sports etc, anything that breathes or moves will 95% likely be blurry right?

Most people use that lens for portraits, or events, so being able to shoot at a 10th or 15th or even 25th doesn't do much for you unless your shooting architecture, or something else that doesn't move, so people who don't know better end up taking that lens without a tripod to an event and get screwed.

its a marketing ploy for most people who don't understand what they will be shooting vs the lens blur. 2 types of blur.

It was a person that I took a photo of.