Originally posted by BigMackCam I think Dave's point (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm mistaken) is that many trained photographers are looking for very similar things when presented with a subject or scene, whereas a wet-behind-the-ears 16y/o - especially one who isn't yet trained or experienced in photography, or bogged down with advanced equipment - might just see things differently, and chance upon something the trained folks might never have considered. On occasion, that can trump years of training and skills development...
I'm just basing this on my experience last year with my grandson and his iPhone. He's completely untrained in photography, but he's excellent at seeing a compelling image on the screen of his phone. After spending 3 days in the bush with him, he got some great shots. Was every one of my shots better than every one of his shots? Hardly. He came up with some great images. He was 20, not 16, but, still.
There is nothing as irrelevant to most of us as people saying they need this or that because they print big. Maybe there should be a section fo the forum for those who print big. (all 10 of them or whatever.) They don't seem to realize how irrelevant their experience is to others. I've shot 8x10 and 4x5 film as well as 645 film, and I can say straight up, I could never get with those cameras much of what I have taken with my K-3 even. Sometimes I'll scramble and bushwhack up to the top of a lookout I saw from my canoe, to get a view of a lake that only a few have even seen before, forget about photographed. That doesn't happen with a 70 pound 8x10 view camera and tripod.. Even Ansel Adams with his donkey couldn't get to some of these places.
So the suggestion you can drive everywhere just makes me laugh. You can drive anywhere that's really popular. Guides will show you exactly where Ansel Adams set up his tripod (then put their tripod there and their and leave you to try and find a better spot.) There are an aweful lot of great images that can be taken off road. Portablilty is just as important as it ever was.
Simple fact, heavy equipment is better, only if you get the shot. If you don't, it's costs you dearly. Having used the formats I have, I have no particular love for large format. I didn't even like carrying 645 gear. I like going light, and getting images others can't, because they can't shoot from where I'm shooting. Even with the guys I take out as a guide, many of them miss images I get because they use tripods etc. I just take 4-6 images and trust shake reduction will do it's magic on one of them. There are different ways of approaching these things, and though many assume slow and deliberate is better, sometimes it gets you nothing, and you pass on great images because your gear got in your way. A guy using heavy gear is trading many lost opportunities for a better result from the ones he/she does get. Now you can argue that's better, but it depends on the values of the person doing the shooting.
Some are going to be happier with their cellphone images. Not because they don't know any better, but because their preference is such that they'd rather be un-encumbered by heavy gear, while still getting a fantastic sunset or whatever.
I seriously wonder how many people have ended up following inappropriate (to them) advice from big printers who want extraordinary detail in large prints and are willing to do almost anything to get it. For those who want to get into the tilt shift options, that's different. But I've seen an awful lot of tilt shift photography that I wondered if just shooting with a DSLR wouldn't have been better. Shooting large format is no guarantee of anything, except that you better be in shape to carry a lot heavier kit.
You may get better images, but there's no guarantee. Having portable gear leads to a lot more opportunities. Feel like I'm talking to a bunch of people who have never lugged a 70 pound view camera kit all over Toronto. Those negatives are amazing. I wouldn't do it again without some serious dollars, like enough to pay a porter with some serious coin left over for myself, but if some want to do that for their hobby, more power to them. To me, a DSLR is a lot more enjoyable, but each to their own I guess.
You could miss a whole sunset series, to set up one shot, that in the end isn't any better than the DSLR would have been. You could miss the peak of the sunset messing around with the tilt shift controls trying to get everything perfect. I can't believe people discussing these types of options without mentioning the huge downside. My advice would be, use your view camera, but take your DSLR and make sure you get something, just to make sure you don't completely waste your time, energy and money.