[BrianR]

I've been to a couple of workshops by a pro who owns and operates his own studio, shoots fashion campaigns, magazine covers, was in the running for F-Stoppers Photographer of the Year … shoots almost everything with a previous model Canon and humble 50mm like our own venerable FA50.

Great lighting, direction, prep work, vision, models, location, etc ... are often the great equalizer when it come to lens & camera combos, but they are so much more work than plunking down the credit card on a new lens...

In my university days, I had a few art students as roommates and was often drawn into their critiquing sessions. Near as I could figure, the purpose of art school critiquing is to make keen observations about a work while making the artist cry but not looking like you were trying to make the artist cry. My skin was thickened during those years.

Oh no, I'd never dare doing that! I do it the coward's way - I post images in friendly places where you get only positive feedback. And when you get just the odd "well focused" or "nice colours" you know the image sucks

True. Of course "You must use a Canon!" should be taken as the ultimate compliment.

[Rondec]

I use the K-1 for some snapshots and landscape as well. SO what you're saying is, "if you don't shoot what I shoot, you don't need what I need." Fair enough.

I think the new APS_c flagship will blow the K-3 away and will probably close the gap between the K-1 and K-3 at least in terms of low light performance, since the K-P is already close in some regards.

But that won't matter to you, you still won't need it.

When are you going to give us a couple of photos illustrating the difference? I've already explained what happened when I tried to do that.

I thought I could see a difference it too, before I actually shot 16 MP K-5 and 36 MP K -1on the same tripod set and zoom lens minutes apart and compared.

Kidding aside, I'm always interested in seeing why people think what they think.

The thing for me is I often shoot at the minimum focusing distance or maximum reach and can't fill the frame as I'd like so those are two circumstances the k-3is lights out better. But as you said, you don't do that. 50% of my images are like that.

I hate shooting comparison shots. The end result is that people pick apart what you've done and tell you how the images should have been shot differently to be a true comparison. At the same time, it isn't hard to see that you can use 12K photos from a K-1 II where you wouldn't have anything usable from a K3. I get the same feeling with shooting landscapes and trying to push K3 images. I can typically under expose a sunrise shot by a stop and a half with a K-1 and push the shadows and have things turn out fine. Not so with the K3. With the K3 I end up shooting multiple exposure and doing some HDR. I don't prefer it and so, of course, I gravitate to my K-1 or K-1 II.

But as I say, this is my experience. Plenty of folks shoot different styles of photography and if you shoot jpegs straight out of camera or mostly wildlife, you may not see as much of a difference. I guess my quibble was mostly with your whole focus on the only difference between a K3 and K-1 was resolution and that it only helped 5 percent of images. I understand that those are just made up numbers, but they still don't jive with my experience.

(My daughter at 25K iso, K-1 II. Sorry to inflict her photos on the rest of you, but she happens to be one of my more cooperative subjects at the moment).

[UncleVanya]

I hate shooting comparison shots. The end result is that people pick apart what you've done and tell you how the images should have been shot differently to be a true comparison. At the same time, it isn't hard to see that you can use 12K photos from a K-1 II where you wouldn't have anything usable from a K3. I get the same feeling with shooting landscapes and trying to push K3 images. I can typically under expose a sunrise shot by a stop and a half with a K-1 and push the shadows and have things turn out fine. Not so with the K3. With the K3 I end up shooting multiple exposure and doing some HDR. I don't prefer it and so, of course, I gravitate to my K-1 or K-1 II.

But as I say, this is my experience. Plenty of folks shoot different styles of photography and if you shoot jpegs straight out of camera or mostly wildlife, you may not see as much of a difference. I guess my quibble was mostly with your whole focus on the only difference between a K3 and K-1 was resolution and that it only helped 5 percent of images. I understand that those are just made up numbers, but they still don't jive with my experience.

(My daughter at 25K iso, K-1 II. Sorry to inflict her photos on the rest of you, but she happens to be one of my more cooperative subjects at the moment).

Cute shot. Amazing detail and noise for 25K iso.

[Sandy Hancock]

When you get just the odd "well focused" or "nice colours" you know the image sucks

Am I really that transparent?

[normhead]

But as I say, this is my experience. Plenty of folks shoot different styles of photography and if you shoot jpegs straight out of camera or mostly wildlife, you may not see as much of a difference. I guess my quibble was mostly with your whole focus on the only difference between a K3 and K-1 was resolution and that it only helped 5 percent of images. I understand that those are just made up numbers, but they still don't jive with my experience.

Cute subject, poor detail. But I think you know what I'm talking about, do I need to shoot some example images to show the K-3 advantage. Here's the criteria.
Less than 640 ISO.
At minimum focusing distance (which I use for many macros and small flower shots, 50% more resolution on the subject.
On bird images at a distance where you are going to have to crop to less than the APS_c frame, 50% more resolution on the subject.

When I take the images, I can take the image with both the K-3 and K-1 to show what I'm saying, if you really don't get it.

[reh321]

I've never understood that sentiment (and it's common), Savoche ... getting better doesn't cost anything but time, and as you say, it's time spent doing something we love!

Why wouldn't we try a panorama, ask a stranger in the street if we can take a picture of them, or shoot everything for a week with a square format?

To answer the last question - for the first years of my photography experience, the only cameras I had were made by Kodak and produced square pictures; I hated it!! I got my first 35mm camera 50 years ago, but I still remember those square pictures with revulsion!

On the other side of the coin, in recent years I got a Sigma 10-20mm lens, and every so often it provides an enjoyable new experience for me.

[Rondec]

Cute subject, poor detail. But I think you know what I'm talking about, do I need to shoot some example images to show the K-3 advantage. Here's the criteria.
Less than 640 ISO.
At minimum focusing distance (which I use for many macros and small flower shots, 50% more resolution on the subject.
On bird images at a distance where you are going to have to crop to less than the APS_c frame, 50% more resolution on the subject.

When I take the images, I can take the image with both the K-3 and K-1 to show what I'm saying, if you really don't get it.

I don't take bird or flower photos very much. I'm sorry, but I find them kind of boring. Obviously if you crop your K-1 image to roughly APS-C there is no advantage in shooting a K-1, that is a given and should be obvious to everyone. But you certainly can shoot macros with a full frame camera. I fall back on equivalence, which is to say that if you have equivalent focal length and other settings on your K3 you should see no advantage on the K-1 versus it. But -- and it's a big but -- I don't shoot equivalent settings on my two cameras. I will push my iso as high as I think I need to, when shooting landscape, I shoot low iso stopped down.

If you are issuing challenges, then I want to see some of your iso 8000 and above images from the K3.

Here's a random flower shot, for what it's worth.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[reh321]

Buying new stuff definitely has an increase in something quantifiable - more fps, megapixels, wider aperture, etc. This has an instant appeal. Actively spending 2-3 hours per week for the next year working on creativily photographing things should have a positive effect on your photos, but it's not one that's easily quantifiable. Are you 10% more creative now? 15%?

I'm not interested in being creative. I'm interested in accurately recording what my world looks like today {at this point, I've lived through over fifty years worth of "capturing today before tomorrow comes and everything changes"}. That is why good high ISO performance is my touchstone - it gives me more freedom to select appropriate shutter speed and aperture.

[normhead]

I fall back on equivalence, which is to say that if you have equivalent focal length and other settings on your K3 you should see no advantage on the K-1 versus it.

If you are shooting at the minimum focusing distance on a K-3 and are frames as you wish to be, your subject will be about 30% smaller on a K-1 after you've cropped the extraneous MP from the K-1 image.

I you fill the frame with a crop sensor on a long lens, you will have the same issue, Cropping away useless unwanted parts of the image on the K-1, and a smaller less detailed subject.

Here I found you a couple. Two shots taken from my blind. Taken of a squirrels on the same stump, from the same position in the blind.



K-3


There's noting you can do to get the K-3 image with the K-1 with the same lens. Since the lens used is the Tamron SP AF 2.8 with the 1.4, if I want the K-1 image, I can remove the 1.4 TC. At that point the K-1 image might be better, if and only if there is subject detail the K-3 can't resolve and that's unlikely. Squirrel fur is pretty course, the K-3 will resolve it at this distance.

The K-1 image is less detailed and smaller than the K-3 image.The K-1 image even if you crop the image and blow it up more will be 2000 lw/ph as opposed to the K-3 2700 lw/ph, and 15 MP compared to 24 MP. The K-1 simply does not always produce more resolution on the subject, depending on circumstance it may produce less, as in this case.

If that doesn't illustrate the concept, I'm not sure what will.

[clackers]

Oh no, I'd never dare doing that! I do it the coward's way - I post images in friendly places where you get only positive feedback. And when you get just the odd "well focused" or "nice colours" you know the image sucks

Oh, I understand.

But you don't get better with only positive feedback, being told what you want to hear.

When you encounter genuine feedback you can curl up and cry, claim you're misunderstood, or just pick up the camera and get better.

Sure, photography is a personality test, no different from any other artistic endeavor.

[clackers]

Yep, but make sure that the portfolio review is done by people whose opinions you respect. I know that everyone will have seen these before, but I'm going to post them here anyway:

The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet
The Online Photographer: Great Photographers on the Internet, Part II

Have bookmarked both of those Dave, outstanding stuff.

I like that people joined in the fun in the comments, with one saying he couldn't see what made a good picture, signed 'Ray Charles'.

Obviously, you pick your reviewers. You've got to respect them.

There's so much talent on this forum, I'd definitely run ideas for sensitive treatments of outdoor areas by both you and Rondec, for example.

[clackers]

I'm not interested in being creative. I'm interested in accurately recording what my world looks like today {at this point, I've lived through over fifty years worth of "capturing today before tomorrow comes and everything changes"}.

Don't you be copping out on us, now, Reh!

You can capture the world of macro better with focus stacking, a landscape with bracketing exposures and combining in Photoshop, and get subject isolation with bokeh panorama ('Brenizer method'), there's always something that we're not doing right now that will make our pictures better.

You don't need to hit the credit card and buy the equipment the kit pros have, when their techniques and strategies can be followed for free.

As for the square format, you of course compose differently, and suddenly, symmetry is more attractive in more situations.

Others, like many landscapers, say that 3:2 on 35mm doesn't suit them as much as a more square format like 645.

The key is that you're now thinking differently, and there's really no better way to get out of a creative rut than that.

[mee]

I don't know if I'm just going through and end of mid life crisis, whether it's just the dilution effect so many images out there, or whether I'm just getting jaded - but I find fewer and fewer pictures on Flickr (I don't operate on instagram or others) that actually hold my attention.

One possible explanation is the number of training courses and many free YouTube How To videos, which tend to lead to everyone going to the same places and doing the same things - which is an issue, but I don't consciously do that, and I'm also finding my own images less interesting. ( )

I've also noticed that since being a regular browser of PF contributions, for better and worse, I've become much more kit aware.

What I am wondering is this: is modern kit so good that it's too easy to produce images that have an immediate impact, and does this too often stop us from going that bit further to produce something exceptional, meaningful - and memorable?

Any thoughts?

I'm just now seeing this thread. But I feel something similar... well maybe an offshoot of what you're discussing..


I think there is too much focus on being creative and unique that most of the images I see are not unique, because so many are trying to follow the 'recipe' that gets the most likes or attention. Or they just set into the notion that the person that is getting the likes or attention for their work has THE way to do it... so they follow that cookie cutter mould.


It is so bad that some places are having trouble keeping their picturesque settings picturesque... too many people trampling these places to get their own photos they saw someone else already take online. Same model poses.. same landscape themes.. same post processing presets.. all high quality and very 'artsy'.

An entry DSLR with the newer kit lens outputs better quality than what a lot of pros likely had 20 years ago... coupled with a 10 dollar a month Photoshop and Lightroom rental.. throw in some freebie (formerly) Google Nik suite and it isn't even really difficult to get interesting shots, make presets, and churn away.

While that's fine.. if one likes copying the well-liked stuff they see in a book or online then go for it. But I find it is played out personally. Unless you're a commercial shooter and you are asked to photograph in a certain way or were hired because of you shoot in a certain way based off your portfolio of course.. that's different. But otherwise I find value more in documentation. That's where I think the real treasure lies in photography.

In 10 years what we think looks chic will be lame.. and many of these popular PS and LR presets will be yawned at. But, like a traditional business suit, documentary style shooting never goes out of style.


In the 70s leisure suits were trendy... now I think you look like a clown in one. In the 80s it was more the Miami Vice look for awhile.. same effect today if you looked like that as the 70s. And so goes the current photo theme and look of images from today seen in the future.. they will look dated.


Yet I look at the documentary style shots from then.. or even turn of the century.. and they just look real.. some I have difficulty dating because they lack a lot of the cultural trendiness that makes them easy to date. I like that. Others, even if you can spot the era through the culture in the shots still are appealing without all the glam and photo 'make up.'


I think wedding and people photos shot today will be amusing to look at in 20 or 30 years from now.. the artsy creative stuff that is... when the next generation are looking at these and then comparing to the generations before that... much of it will be cheese and dated (in an unattractive way) I suspect.

[savoche]

But you don't get better with only positive feedback, being told what you want to hear.

Oh, but you do - provided you do it right. You have to be conscious of how you meant the image to "work", and if people give you positive feedback on those elements they probably work. If nobody seems to notice what you tried to achieve, try again.

Obviously, you pick your reviewers. You've got to respect them.

This, of course, is the most important. I don't care at all what some random visitor on Flickr leaves for a comment. I mean, nice if it's someone who's actually looked and not just a comment bot, but I don't really care what they say.

When you encounter genuine feedback you can curl up and cry, claim you're misunderstood, or just pick up the camera and get better.

I agree. My "I don't dare" comment above was mostly made in jest. I don't submit my images for "real" reviews, though. As long as I don't put a lot of effort into them I can't well ask others to make an effort to tell me what I should have done. It's a bit like asking someone to do a google search for you because you can't be bothered to do it yourself. No, do your homework to the best of your ability, then ask others for advice.

[clackers]

Oh, but you do - provided you do it right. You have to be conscious of how you meant the image to "work", and if people give you positive feedback on those elements they probably work. If nobody seems to notice what you tried to achieve, try again.

I of course don't think that's improvement, Savoche, it's looking for validation of the status quo, but it has a separate value in itself, no doubt.

If nothing else, it's certainly a confidence building exercise.

IMHO, getting better is a confidence challenging exercise, because it involves leaving our comfort zone and making mistakes.

As an example, I have crept too far forward to an individual bird in an attempt to lay the maximum number of pixels on it, and it's flown away, no keepers, just pics from further back with no feather details. But every now and again, the subject stays a little longer and I'm rapt with the result.