What the h*ll?

[fmw]

Isn't this whole thing of Sensor MegaPixels equivalent to how fine grained film and how fine grained developer one is using?

I don't think so. The purpose of fine grain film was not to see the grain in an enlargement. It wasn't to get more resolution. In fact grain size has nothing to do with resolution. Sometimes heavy grain was viewed as an artistic option. I don't think noise is considered that way in the digital world.

It seems like buyers desperately need a simple figure by which one can scale the quality, usability and performance of an item. I cars it was (and still is horsepower), in ampliphiers it was wattage, in cameras it is megapixels and so on.

I think this is more for the manufacturer who is advertising in competition with others. I never viewed these characteristics as a mark of quality nor were they ever primary factors in a decision to buy. I could be in a minority, of course, but that would explain why I don't think so.

Megapixels are easy to sell to people who have little knowledge of what they are buying like watts and horsepower. Things like MTBF or weather sealing or lens compatibility aren't very good as an appeal to emotion and emotion is what causes people to make a purchase decision.

 

[markc]

I truly hope that doesn't offend you because the others on the thread get a heck of a lot of information that neither of us would probably get out without the other.

No offense taken, but I did get confused. Not to be argumentative, but earlier you stated, "And I don't think your choices are limited by your equipment", which really makes it seem like you disagreed with me.
I still don't get the feeling that anyone understands what I was trying to say. "You can take a great picture no matter what camera you use" is a fine sentiment, but it misses the point and isn't a counter-argument.

 

[Alex_B]

Hmm, I think we all learned something from this thread .... although we do not really disagree with each other.

And as for those who could benefit from it even more than we do, but they don't as they don't read or listen ... well, actually I personally do not care too much, since I am not a missionary

And for those where I do care, I will tell them anyway, no matter if they come here or not, no matter if they ask me or not.

For some it is just about horsepower, and none of us will change their view ...
Actually, this is much worse on purely German forums I have to admit

 

[mysteryscribe]

I still don't get the feeling that anyone understands what I was trying to say. "You can take a great picture no matter what camera you use" is a fine sentiment, but it misses the point and isn't a counter-argument.Today 09:02 AM

Your point if i understand it is, and correct me if im wrong, that you are limited in the kinds, not the quality ,of shots you make. if you dont have a room full of equipment.

My point and I hope it is clear here is that, true you can't make a fisheye group without a fisheye lens, but you can make a good group shot with a normal lens. You don't need a specialty lens to make a good shot, you need a specailty lens to make a specialty shot. The fact that someone doesn't own a specialty lens only means they can't make the shot the same way someone who does own one makes it. It won't look the same but without the choice who even thinks about that.

For an example on the what to shoot at a wedding thread someone stuck up a shot of the men's party. The were standing around in totally different poses not even as a group but just a few guys hanging out and it WORKED beautifully. Would they have been cool in a circle and with a fish eye lens. Yes they most likely would, but they worked just as well the way they were shot. That was my point.

So if that wasn't your point please explain I really would like to understand. I thought I did but I guess I didn't.

 

[Don Simon]

Anyone mind if I go back to the original topic?

People do seem to be obsesses with megapixels... and also with what's "professional".

To my mind, some of the "what camera?" or "how much camera?" questions seem to be equivalent to asking if you need a truck. Surely you have some idea whether or not you need or are likely in the near future to need a truck. MarkC asked whether we should tell the person shooting sports with a 35mm/f22 p&s to keep trying... well no, but I'd hope that they would, as you say, learn something useful (from the experience), and then consider why and how the camera isn't meeting their needs and what would be the most appropriate way to replace or 'upgrade' it, rather than thinking in terms of "That camera was no good. The photos it took were no good. Obviously I need a Very Expensive Camera, apparently Professionals use Very Expensive Cameras, and they take Better Photos. So do I need Expensive Camera A or Even More Expensive Camera B?" I know that seems simplistic, but honestly that's how some posts seem to come across.

I don't see this as an question of whether or not you can take a great camera with a pinhole. I'm thinking more of the practical rather than the artistic issues here... the original post said "How much camera you need... will vary", and I couldn't agree more. There just seem to be a lot of people who are convinced that they need the camera with "the most", and refuse to believe that the camera with "less" can actually be better. There's talk of what's "better" and what's "professional" seemingly without any consideration of the individual's needs, skills and means. In other words (going back to my dodgy analogy) some people need a truck. Some people need a sedan, some people need a bicycle, and some people need a camel. There are situations in which each of those would be infinitely more useful than any of the others. Now you might buy a truck before learning how to drive a truck. But would you buy a truck simply because it's "better" or "more professional", unless you planned to transport goods in large volume? Would you not consider the cost of fuel, or whether or not you could drive it to the shops?

 

[mysteryscribe]

For alex, "It's the cold war with manners."

 

[markc]

Your point if i understand it is, and correct me if im wrong, that you are limited in the kinds, not the quality ,of shots you make. if you dont have a room full of equipment.

Basically, but that "room full of equipment" is such a loaded phrase, as if I'm promoting that people should buy it all. I'm not. I think you've acknowledged the basic idea though. I was just hoping for a larger discussion on that. Instead it seemed that people were trying to convince me that people can shoot well with any camera, which I already believe.

The fact that someone doesn't own a specialty lens only means they can't make the shot the same way someone who does own one makes it. It won't look the same but without the choice who even thinks about that.

I do. I think we look at photography different enough that it makes it difficult to converse about this stuff. And I'm not just talking about specialty lenses. That's what is getting so frustrating. They make good examples, but the same thing applies to basic equipment.

That was my point.

I got your point. I reiterated your point. I asked if you thought that I didn't understand your point because of my point.

I know this shouldn't be about posting style, but I felt I like I was on topic about style and image choices, as I feel it's directly related to our choices in equipment. I was hoping to talk about that aspect, but I'll let it drop. I've said my piece and I'm not sure how else I can put it.

Maybe this: You don't roadrace with a Hummer, and you don't offroad with a Miata. Sure, a really good driver in a Hummer could beat a lousy driver in a Miata when on a road track, but if the point is to do the best you personally can, wouldn't you rather be in the vehicle made for the job? I like autocross. I have a Neon prepped for autocross. I don't need a huge engine, and I certainly don't want a Hummer. I don't have an interest in offroading. I could certainly autocross in a Hummer, but why spend that kind of crazy $$$ on a vehicle that isn't going to do what I want? I don't need a garage full of vehicles to make me happy. It would be fun, sure, but I don't need it. My choices are limited, but I've found my niche. The car is also fine and fun for street driving, which is good since that's what I do most, and it would be ok for mild road racing. I can even take it to the drag strip and it would do better than a stock Neon. I'm not eliminated from doing those things, but the car isn't optimum for them. But then with my normal tires, I can't drive it in the snow. That choice just isn't there. To do that, I need other equipment: my snow tires.

I know that can feed a beginners misconception that they need a lot of expensive equipment to take great pictures, but I'm saying the opposite. Once you know what your equipment can do and the choices involved, you can eliminate what you don't need. If you want to be able to take every kind of image out there, then yeah, you'll have to be making some decisions on where to spend your money.

A beginner hasn't had the chance to experience the different kinds of photography there is out there, so they won't know what they want. The temptation is to get everything so that they won't be limited. There is some truth to that, as they can be limited. I guess that's what it boils down to. They are right. They will be limited. I don't think their mistakes comes from believing that, but that believing that it's a bad thing. Rather than telling them that they won't be limited, which I think they will have a hard time believing, tell them that limitations feed creativity and it's easier to learn what things do when you don't have so many damn choices to fiddle with. It's better to learn to drive in the family sedan than any specialized race vehicle or even an all-around hopped-up speed demon. It may not be sexy, but it's what works.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I don't think in the end it makes much difference we probably shoot pics different as well. But the truth is for a beginning photographer he really doesn't need specialty lenses as much as he needs to learn to use what is available... I think we agree on that.

For a working photographer he needs all the equipment that he needs. Only he, based on his specialty and his comfort level. can decide that. But a new photographer shouldn't feel that he needs a fisheye lens cause he once saw a cool picture made with one.

Now you said photography for you is about choices. Well see it isnt for me. For me it's about challenges. But that's okay I only give my opinion and you give yours. Of course I think mine is right and I hope you think yours is. A man without the strong convictions isn't worth arguing with. Sorry discussing an issue with.

Fortunately photography is like that political party slogan. We do indeed have a big tent with room for everyone.

 

[markc]

I agree with all of that. :salute:

 

[Torus34]

Folks buy huge SUV's [case in point: the Hummers -- silliest trucks to be introduced in many years] and then use them to transport the driver, a 110 pound housewife, 4 blocks to the supermarket.

There's a reason! Ownership includes 'bragging rights', very important to some folks. Note the number of people on this site who list their gear.

 

[mysteryscribe]

I don't list mine because im afraid they would ban me.

 

[Alex_B]

I don't list mine because im afraid they would ban me.

I think you have to try way much harder than that! .. fortunately

 

[BoblyBill]

I don't list mine because im afraid they would ban me.

I would actually like to see pictures of your collection... I liked your "my compact camera" thread. I would like to collect cameras like that to take pictures and just to have. I would love to have a MF and LF camera, but I'll have to get a little more money before I can to that.

 

[mysteryscribe]

Oh hell build your own it's so easy it's scary once you understand the basics. It was just too bad i had to relearn them since there was no one i knew to ask.

Heres how cheap and easy it is.

Polaroid 250 (for the frame) under ten bucks.

real lens... frm a 116 folder... also under ten bucks..

film back made of masonite & lens spacers from the surplus slightly over 2bucks.

Glue and misc material 5 bucks.

Film holder from ebay either 2x3 or 3x4 less than ten bucks.

You can make 2x3 cut film from 120 roll film 8 sheets to a roll.

So for thirty bucks you can make your own old fashioned 120 camera with a ziese rangefinder no less. Put your own name on it and off you go. I flat guarentee you that you will get more attention when you use it that anybody with a digital nikon or canon.

If you really need roll film that is just as easy but you have to buy the roll film back and that is more than the camera will cost to build.

However there is a way to do it reasonably inexpensively.I expect I just haven't done it.

 

[mysteryscribe]

The sports with a pns was a good comment.

The flip side is 'why not if that's what you have.'

If you aren't going to publish them in the newspaper or something equally useful in the braoder sense, why isnt the shot of the field with a small pns's zoom lens satisfactory. The use would most likely be for the family album or even the christmas card. What would make a picture of the mud flying off his soccer shoes a better christmas card.