RustyBug
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.8 #2 · Digital Medium Format / 35mm equiv difference | |
Krosavcheg wrote:
rather than me going over the edge in technicality I want to use necessary skill to pick my gear that will leave me concentrating on the light and composition.
Getting to a place of confidence in one's gear is a component in liberating oneself to where the real difference comes into play ... the vision and command & control necessary to generate/produce that vision. In some instances, the need for a sharper saw is pertinent, in other instances not so much.
Yesterday I pruned some 1" limbs with my Leatherman instead of getting a different tool from the garage. By most accounts, it was the not the "best" tool, but it still got the job done to my satisfaction and needs. I'm rather confident and comfortable with what I can do with my Leatherman. A master gardener would likely only be using Fiskars or some other finely purpose fitted tool. But I certainly didn't feel the need to go buy one.
Personally, I am very confident in my Kodak SLR/C (with it's duly noted foibles) and my 1D MK II N. They will never compete on a technical basis with a $100,000+ MF setup and a team of PP experts that someone like Annie uses. Nor will they compete on a technical basis with Blad's on a 60MP back. But even though I'm shooting on arcane gear @ vintage 2004, I am comfortable with my gear such that it allows me to focus on my subject/light study and evaluate it relative to my lens selections for a given vision goal.
Photography shouldn't be about prancing about choosing angles and complaining that you wish you had a better gear, Working with models should not have you talking CFA, Interpolation, LoCA, DOF - you need a social skill to direct them.
Amen @ social skill vs. technical. But, in order to liberate yourself to attend to them, you have to be able to forget about your gear ... see above @ confidence in your gear.
As long as I don't have gear that can produce results I need I can't concentrate on other things - it's just impossible to chase 4 rabbits at the same time!
Repeat @ confidence in gear/technique associated with the gear. I'm as confident in my SLR/C as I am the hundred year old wheelbarrow I got from my grandfather. The wheelbarrow is a tank made of steel and not plastic. Yet, it handles everything I throw (literally throw) at it. My wife, she much prefers using our lighter wheelbarrow. If she tries to use the larger one, she gets bogged down by the bulk of trying to maneuver with it. If I try to use the lighter one for heavy duty work, it slows me down because I have to be more careful to "place" items in it so it doesn't tip over. They both can get the job done, but I'm more "liberated from concern" (i.e. more confidence) about the larger one tipping over than the smaller one as I'm tossing stuff at it.
I saw Canon shots - amazing stuff hands down, but not my cup of tea, I saw Nikon D800 shots - Super! But not what I want. I see NEX shots - amazing! but you guessed it..
Then I see people shots with MFD and this is what I want.
There is going to be a difference between NEX and MF that's for certain. Diff sensor's @ diff profiles and responses to DR etc. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the other part of the diff is the fact that the optics generating the projected image have been designed for such a different sized image circle. Kind of like shooting with a 12 gauge shotgun vs. a 410, the barrel variance produces two very different patterns of buckshot projection as they "fan out" at different rates. As long as you're on target, both can hit their mark. But they certainly require a different level of skill/accuracy to produce a winning shot.
But then I look through the model shots I took and something is just not there:
I'd need to review more of your model shots, but ... contrast and falloff in the lighting are likely more significant than choice of camera as to what it is that you're not pleased with. I think that the fact that you are seeing shots with MF that are pleasing to you is also accompanied by lighting that you find pleasing. The skillful use of lighting that accompanies the talent of those shooting MF gear is often times lost in the assessment, with many folks giving immediate credence to the camera ... forgetting how critical a role the light plays.
But I do believe there is a right camera for the job!
And then there are those who would advocate that any camera will do. 
There is a myriad of options to which tool(s) to use. I've got some really nice woodworking tools that I thought would help make me a better woodworker. While a good tool is more of a joy to use than a mediocre one and it liberates me from thinking about the tool as much ... I've still not put forth the study and practice into woodworking that can produce the works of talented woodworkers that use good old tools. From that, I know that I am the weak link, not the tool.
True story ... I set out to make finely crafted cutting boards. My tools were chosen and used to produce pieces within .001 inch of tolerance. My first cutting board fell apart because my improperly aligned grain structure orientation along with a non-interlocking layout caused the glue joints to fail. My second board warps because of grain structure alignment issues when it gets wet (flattens back out when it dries). Different species of wood intermixed (very attractive) at different lengths created different tensions. So much for being worried about .001 fine detail capable tools.
I really needed to be worried about my knowledge of wood more than my .001 capable tools. So it is with our knowledge of light and processing vs. our camera selection. Until we understand the utilization of light and processing to achieving our goals for our vision, the tool may not be the reason we aren't getting the results we desire.
Getting a different tool only matters if the tool itself is the limiting factor. Tool mfr's always have a new tool that will make you a better carpenter ... a good carpenter ignores the new tool rave and keeps using his good tools that he has developed a confidence in. Yet he also knows the difference between a rip saw and a finish saw.
Evaluating which tool is right for a given individual and given application is a highly subjective and debatable topic ... but, imo the ".001" capable camera is rarely as important as your vision and your knowledge of light and pp/finishing. To some, this will sound like a weak attempt to justify not getting MF gear and minimize the diff it makes. But think about it this way ... if you took away the MF camera from those who are shooting what you like and handed them a FF camera instead, would they still be able to produce their good works based on their command & control of lighting, processing and their vision, or would they no longer be able to do it, claiming that it was all because of the camera?
Rambling @ perspective ... but, HTH.
|
