[Blue]

[Canada_Rockies]

Hey, Blue - I've got one of those!

[normhead]

For me, it's the instant review. Despite what you can know, (eg. I always start sunsets at -1 EV), it's rare you can go into a high contrast situation and anticipate what the final image will look like. In really tough situations I use the 5 frame auto-bracket. The image I end up using is not always the one I thought I'd use. I can understand some people don't chimp. I did a year in the studio at school and got so I could calculate exposure without a light meter.. in controlled lighting situations all you should really need is a month of experience. In fact before I had a coupled light meter, I shot outdoors the same way. By thinking you understand the effect each setting will have on your image, my experience would suggest you might be missing some shots, because you didn't anticipate how a picture might look with more or less light, or more or less depth of field.

Sometimes a picture looks much better using settings I would never have anticipated. If something looks good, I take as many shots as possible, EV changes, f-stop changes, sometimes even ISO changes, you might know so much about photography that you can get the shot you want with one exposure... and if you think that, you'll never know different. You can take 15 shots of every scene, or you can chimp, and narrow it down to maybe 4 or 5 shots. I don't see taking one exposure, without chimping and just going for it with what you got a real option. There'd be too many wasted opportunities. I still miss the occasional opportunity, because I didn't have the discipline to try a few more ways to take the picture. In the field I think 5 exposures is enough, but I get home and wish I'd taken a couple more with different settings. Of course in snapshot mode none of the above applies. Taking snapshots, I'm like everyone else, one or two exposures , a brief glance to see what's there, and off I go. But with snapshots, by definition I'm not really concerned with IQ or quality of light.

So for me, it's the instant review.

[woof]

Ah, that's trickier. I've been shooting for over a half-century. What's affected me the most? Some prospects:

* Miniature cameras, from the 1934 Kodak Retina folder that really taught me to shoot, to the Olympus XA, to the Sony DSC-V1 that's still always with me. Being able to pull a cam from my pocket and shoot quickly without lugging major hardware has a real impact. No more 9x12cm Graflex!

* PaintShop(Pro), which I've used for PP since about 1995. Since I started digital editing, I consider everything I shoot not as finished products but just as grist for the shooping mill. It's changed my focus from photography to imaging. I don't see what the picture is, but what it could be.

* Online fora, like PFC here. The fast exchange of ideas, information, inspiration, and the process of researching questions and answers, has driven me to areas I hadn't explored in depth before. These exchanges shape my gear purchases, technical usage, ways to look at subjects, etc.

I'd say those are my top 3. Which is #1, I can't say. Gotta think about it some more.

Yep... 1, 2, and 3 for me.

1. I recently got a Panasonic LX-5. Very small camera with near SLR capabilities. Having a capable camera at all times is a game changer.

2. I also use PSP. Have to say that this is on the money... I see what a picture can BE...

3. Being able to discuss and share photos with others has very clearly influenced me and made me better. Well, that's subjective. But I still feel I am better.

Great post Rio.

woof!

[Canada_Rockies]

Does anyone agree that the ability to access all the good folks on Pentax Forums for help and support is one of the top items on the list?

[SpecialK]

As I think someone else said, the digital sensor itself. I can't imagine going back to the film days of proof-print numbering and negative filing, or the cost of even cheap processing.

[jaytee]

Normhead said well, instant review is about much more than exposure, it helps with creating the picture you see. The camera often does not see the way our eyes do, maybe you need a different angle or DOF, maybe a different lens. That little screen is a tool and in time you will understand how accurate it is or isn't but I also benefit from it's "suggestions" ,So to speak.

[ve2vfd]

For me the biggest game changer then and now has been the easy availability of affordable cameras to the masses...

From the Kodak Brownie to todays disposable box camera, from the 110 instamatic to the latest camera phone, I think small affordable and portable cameras have over the years completely redefined photography and made it a "normal" part of everyday life, just like running water and sliced bread.

If you think about it, before the availability of "the peoples cameras", photography was the exclusive game of the professional photographer or the very wealthy. For the average family, having your picture taken was quite an occasion back then, often a one in a lifetime experience.

Now that the camera has become as prevalent as clothing, we are living thru the most visually documented period in history. And that is thanks to easily available, affordable and easy to use cameras.

Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.

Pat

[jeverettfine]

I used to shoot film SLR's before digital, and I would have to say that the instant review was the biggest game changer.

Instant review is huge as far as learning is concerned. If you wanted immediate feedback you had to use Polaroid film and that cost some extra money.
When advising someone on how to learn, I would always suggest getting a Polaroid camera and limit yourself to only 2 or 3 images per hour (along with putting the camera on a tripod). There is no substitute for slowing down and being able to see the results right away. My best work was alway with a view camera. It is too easy to just fire away and hope you catch something good with a hand held SLR (or rangefinder).

[joe.penn]

To me, my game changer has been the Gear Bag - bag's these days allows for not only equipment, but provide an ample amount of extra space to carry plenty of beers along on my journey's...




---

[Stone G.]

Looking at all the threads on gear has got me to thinking...


...I started out in photography over 50 years ago.

......What gear improvement has made the most real-world practical difference to the way I actually use a camera and/or what has actually most improved the final over-all image? -Anyway what have you found that has really worked for you? - ignoring all the hype about what others have told you should matter.

I started out in 1960 at the age of 11 (with a used and fairly simple but fine Dacora Super Dignette).

For me, the first significant "discovery" was the SLR principle itself: With my first SLR (a used Topcon Wink-Mirror) I could actually see what I was shooting!

The second step up the ladder was TTL-metering (with my Pentax K1000) which took much of the guesswork out of whether I was shooting correctly what I could see.

But looking back, the most important step was the transition from analogue film to digital imaging. Film, development and printing cost was a serious issue and experiments and tests (in macro- and astro photography) not only involved lots of waisted film but also eternal periods of anxious waiting from exposure to development.

Now I can just shoot and shoot and shoot - and delete and delete and........

[GlennG]

Digital. Quite simply, it made engagement in photography possible for me. I'm not saying that was a good thing for photography but it was great for me.

+1 for me, absolutely. The reason is that I'm basically pretty cheap. Back in the film days I was very hesitant to actually do much photography, though I liked it a lot, because of the expense. That limited my learning a lot. Digital disconnected the cost aspect a lot.

[Boris]

For me it was A 50/1.2. I used it for like 2 years and it taught me great deal about photography and myself as a photographer.

[jeztastic]

1. Pentax K1000 and M50 f1.7 given to me by my dad. Learned so much in a few months, including how beautiful a good lens can make things look.

2. Getting a digital camera, for all the above reasons.

3. Realising how much I enjoy and prefer shooting film. It makes me slow down, think about each shot, and search for the decisive moment rather than blazing away. For the same reason I prefer prime lenses. Then there's the suspense and satisfaction of getting it back from the developers and going through the prints, rather than the chore of dumping 4 GB worth of RAW files onto my laptop and trawling through them, sweating over each delete and edit.

I've now got 4 film cameras, and looking to expand. Getting a K5 very much on the back-burner!

[JenniferLeigh]

The LCD screen, for immediate review, i.e. chimping.

Dito. This has made the biggest impact in my photography, as I can try out new techniques/ideas and get instant feedback. Having access to EXIF data without having to record it myself is also huge.

On the flip side, it is pretty exciting to get prints back from a roll of film. I miss prints, and I find I don't get prints nearly as much with digital.