Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-15-2016, 07:22 AM   #46
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Flyover America
Posts: 4,469
I don't need "better" gear my gear needs a better photographer.

It was true when I first got into photography in 1955 with an Argus C3 and it's still true today - at least for me.

01-15-2016, 10:42 AM   #47
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,045
QuoteOriginally posted by KC0PET Quote
Of course we could bring up the Chevy Corvair or the AMC Pacer. But maybe that is too far off topic...??
There is nothing wrong with the Corvair despite Nader's stupid comments. Of course a rear engine car handles differently from a front engine car. There are any number of rear engine cars, and they all tend to swap ends if you don't pay attention. The only rear engine car I have ever owned was a really sweet little pretty sports car: Fiat 850 spider. Huge 903cc engine in the back on a transaxle. I paid attention and never swapped ends with it, although I got a wiggle warning a few times.

---------- Post added 2016-01-15 at 10:44 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by wildman Quote
I don't need "better" gear my gear needs a better photographer.

It was true when I first got into photography in 1955 with an Argus C3 and it's still true today - at least for me.
It's true for me, too, but I haven't been using a decent camera that long. I bought a Yashicamat in 1957.
01-15-2016, 11:24 AM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 15,789
QuoteOriginally posted by Canada_Rockies Quote
There is nothing wrong with the Corvair despite Nader's stupid comments. Of course a rear engine car handles differently from a front engine car. There are any number of rear engine cars, and they all tend to swap ends if you don't pay attention. The only rear engine car I have ever owned was a really sweet little pretty sports car: Fiat 850 spider. Huge 903cc engine in the back on a transaxle. I paid attention and never swapped ends with it, although I got a wiggle warning a few times.
Then why did GM completely redesign the suspension in 1965? If GM had simply included the front roll-bar in the 1960-63 models Nader wouldn't have that chapter in his book...John DeLorean said it wasn't included simply because of cost.
01-15-2016, 11:36 AM   #49
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,448
Maybe we need an article titled, "There's no such thing as a bad photograph, only a bad critic."

That way every photograph is deemed "good" and if you don't like it, you are obviously wrong.

Removes the equipment from the equation completely. We can all get participation trophies, too.

01-15-2016, 12:37 PM   #50
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 95
Years ago my friend worked for two brothers. Smart guys and hey had money to piss. Bought expensive cameras, etc. They took classes. Their photographs? Ugh. They just could never even get the basics of composition, let alone the technical parts.

Also years ago, there was a bad joke about "they" discovered that 90% of car accidents were caused by.................."the nut behind the wheel." (Steering wheels at least used to be held onto the steering shaft by a large nut.)

I've always hated it when people admired a photo of mine and ask, "What kind of camera did you use?" Aaaaaargh! And look at the classic great photographs of Stieglitz, Strand, Lange, and even that Ansel Adams. Slow film, uncoated lenses, no zooms.

I think "there are no bad cameras," extends into other things too. Cars. Oh sure, there's some better or worse by model and brand, but if you goal is to have a car that runs well for 200,000 miles, a Hyundai or Kia will as likely get you there as a Mercedes. Not at all true when I was young, the cheap vs expensive car thing.

So, yes, I completely agree that hardware matters little except in certain situations or having certain creative goals.

---------- Post added 01-15-16 at 01:42 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by jatrax Quote
Always bad when engineers forget little things like cold, or wind: Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse "Gallopin' Gertie" - YouTube
I was thinking that very thing! I'd never seen it in color.

Those damned sympathetic vibrations!

As the engineers said, "Oops."
01-15-2016, 01:03 PM   #51
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
johnhilvert's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Canberra, ACT
Posts: 245
If this commoditisation of camera and lens technology thesis is correct then it follows that the optimum gear should be the cheapest priced.
01-15-2016, 05:47 PM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
KC0PET's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Central Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,495
QuoteOriginally posted by johnhilvert Quote
If this commoditisation of camera and lens technology thesis is correct then it follows that the optimum gear should be the cheapest priced.
I think a better way to put it is that you don't have to spend a lot of money to make good photographs. I think what is optimum is another one of those things we could argue about all day long and never have a good answer.

But none of this is helping justify my LBA
01-15-2016, 10:51 PM   #53
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 19,047
QuoteOriginally posted by nomadkng Quote
Maybe we need an article titled, "There's no such thing as a bad photograph, only a bad critic."

That way every photograph is deemed "good" and if you don't like it, you are obviously wrong.

Removes the equipment from the equation completely. We can all get participation trophies, too.
Now that's just wrong. There are plenty of bad, awful, terrible photos. But good photos don't require great equipment. Great equipment can help improve the chance for great photos - but blame the eye behind the image if the image sucks.

01-16-2016, 01:43 AM - 1 Like   #54
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 925
QuoteOriginally posted by paulvzo Quote
I've always hated it when people admired a photo of mine and ask, "What kind of camera did you use?" Aaaaaargh! And look at the classic great photographs of Stieglitz, Strand, Lange, and even that Ansel Adams. Slow film, uncoated lenses, no zooms.
I know that feeling...

This is an old problem, I like Andreas Feininger's take on it:
“Photographers - idiots, of which there are so many - say, "Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs." That's the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It's nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest.”
01-17-2016, 08:15 AM   #55
Forum Member




Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 95
QuoteOriginally posted by Clou Quote
I know that feeling...

This is an old problem, I like Andreas Feininger's take on it:
“Photographers - idiots, of which there are so many - say, "Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs." That's the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It's nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest.”
Excellent! Or, if I only had this lens or that lens.
01-17-2016, 04:31 PM   #56
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,756
I have a 5 year old Panasonic Lumix point-and-shoot with supposedly a Leica lens. This is a great little camera that you can carry with you where ever because it's so small. When I purchased it, it came with a 10 Mega Pixel sensor. The truth is ISO 100 was like ISO 400 on my DSLR and ISO 200 was like ISO 800 on my DSLR. Another problem was the zoom which was listed at 10X magnification. Unfortunately trying to hold the camera still was almost impossible at that magnification and even at 5X you had to be really careful, or use a tripod. Regardless, if I kept the ISO below 400 and avoided using the 10X zoom, it was all good.


The good thing about point-and-shoots is that security does not think that you are some type of Terrorist casing the area. Just another dumb tourist, so you can practically shoot away at will, even at Government buildings. Another good thing is that you can take street Candid's without ever pointing the camera at your subject. I also can say that the Video and Live-View is so much easier to use and better than on my DSLR(s).


The BIG reason why this camera did not replace my DSLR and is now collecting dust on a shelf is that one day I noticed that this camera/lens distorts images in a weird type of way when it comes to portraits. I would have never noticed until I decided to take group shots of my co-workers at an office party. That's when I noticed that people who were supposed to be a certain Height came out shorter looking in the picture and that people who where supposed to be short came out looking taller than their counterparts. This was weird because there was no rhyme or reason to this phenomena ?


One so-called expert told me that is was the placement of the subjects that made them appear shorter or taller NOT the camera. I took this so-called experts advice and the next time I took some group shot with this camera, I made sure to place everybody on the same plane.


Did it work ? Heck No ! This time it became all too apparent. People who were supposed to be a certain height did not come out looking that way in the picture. Not only that, it looked like the ceiling was about to fall on their heads. Unfortunately Photoshop or any other software package that I know of does not have a tool to fix that type of distortion you sort of have to live with it and hope nobody notices....

Last edited by hjoseph7; 01-17-2016 at 07:02 PM.
01-17-2016, 09:27 PM   #57
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
KC0PET's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Central Missouri
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,495
hjoseph7, you may want to post this problem in a new post perhaps under "Troubleshooting and Beginner Help". I'll bet you will get some answers. Let us know which exact model of camera and an example of one of these photos would be very helpful. I will give my brief thoughts but there are others on this forum that have more expertise than me.

Your observation about the ISO performance of the P & S vs. DSLR; this is a factor of the sensor size. The smaller sensors in P & S cameras are more prone to noise at high iso and low light situations. Comparing a 10 MP small sensor in a P & S and the larger sensor in a 10 MP DSLR, the larger sensor will out perform the smaller one. A full frame sensor will do better than APS-C and so on.

Your problem with portraits sounds like you may be shooting with a very wide angle lens? Most P & S cameras default to the widest setting. We had a P & S that had a 24mm equivalent wide setting and I found a lot of funny looking people pictures taken with it because the shooter didn't zoom in to a good setting for people. Many people would say something around 100mm (35mm equivalent) is the sweet spot for portraits, but IMO in the 50mm to 150mm range is good in general.

Just some thoughts...
01-18-2016, 01:44 AM   #58
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Llanelli, Wales
Posts: 5,435
QuoteOriginally posted by Clou Quote
This is an old problem, I like Andreas Feininger's take on it:
“Photographers - idiots, of which there are so many - say, "Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great photographs." That's the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It's nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest.”
I've always tried to act on the principle of only upgrading when I feel that it's the camera not me that is holding me back. This has resulted in more replacements due to camera breakage than any other reason

I started with an ME Super, which went for a dip. My next camera was an SHXn, which bits were beginning to drop off, Next came the Z-1, where the winding motor blew.I also had a second hand LX, which developed a back-focusing problem. I relied on my 67 and 67ii which I had bought to do commercial work in South Africa all the way through to the K10D when the cost of film for the 67s made too big a hole in my photography budget. The K10D was the only for personal use I've replaced while still in full working order - and that wasn't until August 2014. with a K-3, as 10Mp was getting a bit behind the curve and the low light capabilities of the CCD sensor were stopping me taking some of the shots I wanted.

As has been said many times above and in many other places, it's far more often us than our cameras that are the limiting factors on our photography. Does that mean I don't want the FF - Hell no!!! - but I'll have to push the K-3 a lot harder before I can justify it ;D
01-18-2016, 02:15 AM - 1 Like   #59
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 835
I read his review of the K5ii / K5iis and it's very complimentary:

Review: Pentax K-5 II & K-5 IIs - The Phoblographer

As it happens I agree with the premise of the article this thread is (was?) about. The same is true in most of life. Many years ago I was a very good dinghy sailor, and a back-of-the-fleet type was convinced he would do better in my boat than his - they were different types. So we swapped for a race and it was never so easy to beat the hot-shot as it was that day, sailing the same kind of boat, and he still trailed in at the back of the fleet. Sadly the resulting disillusionment probably was a factor in his ending his sailing career. (Mine has ended through moving, through major surgery and through the damage done to my joints by many years of very competitive dinghy racing)

---------- Post added 18-01-16 at 09:16 ----------

PS there is such a thing as a bad web-site, and the layout of the reviews section of his is a prize example!
01-18-2016, 07:54 AM   #60
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Minnesota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,756
QuoteOriginally posted by KC0PET Quote
hjoseph7, you may want to post this problem in a new post perhaps under "Troubleshooting and Beginner Help". I'll bet you will get some answers. Let us know which exact model of camera and an example of one of these photos would be very helpful. I will give my brief thoughts but there are others on this forum that have more expertise than me.

Your observation about the ISO performance of the P & S vs. DSLR; this is a factor of the sensor size. The smaller sensors in P & S cameras are more prone to noise at high iso and low light situations. Comparing a 10 MP small sensor in a P & S and the larger sensor in a 10 MP DSLR, the larger sensor will out perform the smaller one. A full frame sensor will do better than APS-C and so on.

Your problem with portraits sounds like you may be shooting with a very wide angle lens? Most P & S cameras default to the widest setting. We had a P & S that had a 24mm equivalent wide setting and I found a lot of funny looking people pictures taken with it because the shooter didn't zoom in to a good setting for people. Many people would say something around 100mm (35mm equivalent) is the sweet spot for portraits, but IMO in the 50mm to 150mm range is good in general.

Just some thoughts...


You maybe right KCOPET, since I was indoors I probably used a very wide angle to try to get as many people into the picture as possible. My camera has a bunch of Presets such as low-light, scenic, sports, action, close up, macro etc., but I may have not been using any of them, I don't really remember . What I do remember the second time around when I became aware of the distortion, I set the focal length to a about 35-40mm and moved back a little since I had the room. Still the pictures came out very distorted. The camera is a Panasonic Lumix DMC TZ15.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
attention, boat, cameras, cameras or lenses, car, chevy corvair, course, dof, engine, engineers, format, gear, happiness, image, images, k-5, k5ii / k5iis, keepers, photographer, photographs, photography, photos, post, review
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 for Pentax anymore? zeitlos Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 12-07-2015 12:51 PM
12 Takumar Lenses but no Pentax Body...? Djwillia33 Welcomes and Introductions 10 04-13-2015 06:54 AM
Why no new lenses or renewal lenses? sunshine7913 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 23 08-26-2014 11:57 AM
Film age dinosaur has K-5 body but no lenses! cccaaattt Welcomes and Introductions 15 04-29-2014 01:36 PM
What Pentax lenses and body in (this bad) picture? emr Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 11-14-2008 06:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:03 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top