I still have the original Digital Rebel, all 6 MP. It worked fine back in the day with the 50 1.8 and I actually made a few, expensive, 11 x 14's with it.
jgoetz4 wrote:
Just imagine how much better it could have looked if you used an R5M2
But you could photograph a flying BIF with the R5 II, not just a perched one.
I was rather happy with the R5 II at 30FPS with the 100-500 and even the 500/4 IS II. The 5D would have no chance of locking onto the eyeball as the BIF approached at high speed. One might get one shot for every ten and not at the best wing angle.
(I moved to R system in 2019) - Reasons to move from EF to R are related more IMHO to the lenses than to the camera bodies, even if they are indeed equal or improvements relative to most EF bodies. Many of the new RF lenses are more compact and lighter with equivalent or better specs (for example the 2.8 trinity lenses have IS). And it is not always about the L or other high-end glass, for example the RF24-240 has no equivalent in the EF system, and of course it would not have been possible as it requires in-camera processing to deliver images of quite decent quality considering the size and price of the lens. The very compact RF10-20 makes UUWA realistic (I owned the EF11-24, it was splendid but way too big and heavy). Ditto the RF16mm 2.8. While the camera may not be the central motivation to switch systems, I am now hooked to the mirrorless WYSIWYG image in the viewfinder even in almost total darkness, and the preview after shooting in the viewfinder, no need to look down at the back screen to check lighting, etc.. Of course good pictures can be made with older-vintage equipment and a handful of simple and/or older lenses, each to his or her own. It took me a few months to transition, and many benefits were not immediately obvious as one reflexively tries to use new gear with the same workflow as the previous stuff. Once the mindset shifts it proved impossible to go back.
Being against technology in general would be a pretty bizarre thing for anyone who does photography, right? ;-)
Having more mixed and contextual views on specific technologies seems to make sense. Surely any of us can imagine one or two implementations of technology that are or were not wonderful, even as we can identify others that we think are great.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Being against technology in general would be a pretty bizarre thing for anyone who does photography, right? ;-)
Having more mixed and contextual views on specific technologies seems to make sense. Surely any of us can imagine one or two implementations of technology that are or were not wonderful, even as we can identify others that we think are great.
Again, not “black and white.”
Being against technology as a photographer is bizarre, so bizarre that no one really cares about film Leica M cameras
I might still be using my OM-1 if digital hadn't come along. So bizarre to use mf lenses and manual (M) exposure. No one does that on digital (sarcasm, of course)
I mean, you shoot Fuji, they're basically hot due to retro designs right now, vs other brands mostly going after the tecb. The X100VI has the leading 40mp, probably not a leader in AF and other tech, overall, really, though, and the instax looked more like a 70's Polaroid, doubt it had leading af. Even the older bodies have gone up in price, pretty clearly not leading tech vs later models
gdanmitchell wrote:
Being against technology in general would be a pretty bizarre thing for anyone who does photography, right? ;-)
Having more mixed and contextual views on specific technologies seems to make sense. Surely any of us can imagine one or two implementations of technology that are or were not wonderful, even as we can identify others that we think are great.
Again, not “black and white.”
For us amateurs, photography is not automatically about pixel-perfect images, efficiency, confidence in capturing the required pictures at e.g. weddings or sports events. My early photographic days (Canon FTb and 2 FL lenses, and a home B&W lab with a Durst enlarger) was a lot about enjoying the multi-step process of imagining the pictures while shooting, waiting to finish a roll of film and developing it, screening the contact sheet and working on the prints with choices of paper contrast, exposure, manual interventions to correct local exposures. The lab in particular was a sort of me-time, a couple of hours in the red light working on a set of prints while music on the cassette played in the background, going through multiple trials and errors working towards a given print outcome. As life accelerated, work, family, the lab ended up being too impractical, slide photography took its place, then came digital and the whole workflow can be done on the iPad connected to the camera in a few minutes from shoot to editied outcome, at amazing quality levels. A different world.
^^^ Same with me however a Canon FTbQL and a handful of early FD breech mount lenses. I come from a family of photography enthusiasts with B&W transitioning to me with the addition my color wet labs in 3 past homes. Years ago the digital age relegated my lab equipment to be packed and parked at the back of the garage in my current abode leaving me with no good reason as to why its still sitting there now.
AmbientMike wrote:
Being against technology as a photographer is bizarre, so bizarre that no one really cares about film Leica M cameras
I might still be using my OM-1 if digital hadn't come along. So bizarre to use mf lenses and manual (M) exposure. No one does that on digital (sarcasm, of course)
I mean, you shoot Fuji, they're basically hot due to retro designs right now, vs other brands mostly going after the tecb. The X100VI has the leading 40mp, probably not a leader in AF and other tech, overall, really, though, and the instax looked more like a 70's Polaroid, doubt it had leading af. Even the older bodies have gone up in price, pretty clearly not leading tech vs later models ...Show more →
Film cameras were (and are) a pretty advanced technology, too, which is part of my indirect point.
- - -
Some pretty advanced technologies:
Rivermist wrote:
Film…
Canon FTb…
2 FL lenses…
Durst enlarger…
a roll of film…
developing…
screening the contact sheet…
prints…
hoices of paper contrast, exposure,
interventions to correct local exposures….
music on the cassette…
slide photography…
digital and the whole workflow…
Film cameras were (and are) a pretty advanced technology, too, which is part of my indirect point.
- - -
Some pretty advanced technologies:
;-)
Touché ! The technology was indeed intense, and it involved a lot of solid knowledge of the parameters that came into play when shooting the picture, the choice of the film's sensitivity and "character", how to interpret the center-weighted in-camera exposure meter (assisted eventually by a light meter), how to nudge the ISO to influence the outcome when processing a roll of film. The difference was indeed the need to get the shooting right, and acquire enough practice and experience to make educated guesses since there was no ability to adjust exposure, contrast or color balance from RAW. Using color filters for B&W shooting was also an art. And you could not afford to bracket everything, film and processing were not free. Fast forward 30+ years and the 2003 Digital Rebel was some much more forgiving, and you could check each shot on the screen to correct for mistakes on the spot.
You had ISO? We had ASA back then.
I did tend to use C41 films in tough light as it had some decent lattitude compared to Kodachromes.
I often bracketed reversal films and that was expensive in 6x7 or 6x9 formats. Therefore I did not shoot a lot of frames for most landscapes.
The EOS 1v had downloadable digital storage equivalent to EXIF data. IIRC the camera stored shooting data for 50 or 100 rolls depending on which data was chosen to be recorded. That was quite advanced 25 years ago. Data was downloaded with a special cable and software that could output as CSV to be opened in Excel.
Touché ! The technology was indeed intense, and it involved a lot of solid knowledge of the parameters that came into play when shooting the picture, the choice of the film's sensitivity and "character", how to interpret the center-weighted in-camera exposure meter (assisted eventually by a light meter), how to nudge the ISO to influence the outcome when processing a roll of film. The difference was indeed the need to get the shooting right, and acquire enough practice and experience to make educated guesses since there was no ability to adjust exposure, contrast or color balance from RAW. Using color filters for B&W shooting was also an art. And you could not afford to bracket everything, film and processing were not free. Fast forward 30+ years and the 2003 Digital Rebel was some much more forgiving, and you could check each shot on the screen to correct for mistakes on the spot. ...Show more →
In essence this for me is where it all went wrong
I like many grew up in this era where as you say experience really was needed if you were to get a “successful” image - today and indeed the past 20yrs has totally rewritten the photography rule book as we once knew it
Pass a toddler a iPad and let him or her wander over to the dog (or cat) and you’ll get a fantastically sharp vivid picture of said dog or cat
Likewise pass a R5 (or whatever) and any modern lens to someone and by the end of day 1 they’ll have bagged so many pin sharp images of whatever it is they want… there’s really no limit these days.
Both of these would be unthinkable back then. And progress is good
What I don’t respect is when they try to pass off “they” got the shot 🤣
No no 🤣🤣…
Your input was swiping the card and switching it on……. From that point on you had very very little to worry about, except maybe keeping the rig pointed in the right direction.
If you think otherwise, then I’m sorry…. You’re just kidding yourself.
Brutal but truthful.
Modern cameras really are basically “ Painting By Numbers”….. for those that can’t paint!!
While I admire many things about it, it's going to be a tough road ahead to displacing the nearly 10 years of muscle memory built up from use of a 5D IV which was heretofore simply the best Canon camera I've ever used. Also, while certainly fast, the AF functions of the R5 II seem to need some real user input/wrangling. Yay, it focussed on an offstage Christmas tree..again!
Sirimiri touches one of the missing parts, getting the set up right, especially for AF. As with the photo lab stuff. You have to learn a lot of stuff, as I did in the lab. I found my wife there Every part of Life needs the right techniques. When you change the regime you have to adjust, to know where to place your fingers, or not to place them.
An other of the many thirds is the craft to capture the essence of the subject or object. I started with a used AT-1, still works. But now with the newest and coolest I still struggle to capture. Sure I get BIFs and DIFs like Wao!! But thats "just" the magnificent AF and fps combined. I still struggle with The Craft. I´m using new tech, but it´s still Bad O´ld me behind the screen of the VF.
Pixelpuffin wrote:
Likewise pass a R5 (or whatever) and any modern lens to someone and by the end of day 1 they’ll have bagged so many pin sharp images of whatever it is they want…
If that were true (it obviously is nonsense) why would it harm photography if photographs were more reliably sharp?
In essence this for me is where it all went wrong
I like many grew up in this era where as you say experience really was needed if you were to get a “successful” image - today and indeed the past 20yrs has totally rewritten the photography rule book as we once knew it
Pass a toddler a iPad and let him or her wander over to the dog (or cat) and you’ll get a fantastically sharp vivid picture of said dog or cat
Likewise pass a R5 (or whatever) and any modern lens to someone and by the end of day 1 they’ll have bagged so many pin sharp images of whatever it is they want… there’s really no limit these days.
Both of these would be unthinkable back then. And progress is good
What I don’t respect is when they try to pass off “they” got the shot 🤣
No no 🤣🤣…
Your input was swiping the card and switching it on……. From that point on you had very very little to worry about, except maybe keeping the rig pointed in the right direction.
If you think otherwise, then I’m sorry…. You’re just kidding yourself.
Brutal but truthful.
Modern cameras really are basically “ Painting By Numbers”….. for those that can’t paint!!
If you think all there is to a good photo is it being sharp…then any p&s would work for you. Many features of advanced cameras such as eye AF relieves the photographers from tedious things like trying to keep the eye in focus to things that really make a great photo like capturing the exact moment.
I see many photos posted that are shot with advance features that are technically great, but lack that thing that makes them a great photo. That is something that comes from the photographer, not the camera no matter if it’s a p&s or the latest digital.
EF is not archaic like a typewriter. They are still sold new and maybe production stopped in the 2020s.
Do you think a 2021-22 automobile or jet aircraft is old tech to be replaced?
EB-1 wrote:
EF is not archaic like a typewriter. They are still sold new and maybe production stopped in the 2020s.
Do you think a 2021-22 automobile or jet aircraft is old tech to be replaced?
EBH
Actually many airlines are replacing their fleets with the latest aircraft due to huge improvements in fuel efficiency...so yes, even technology that is a few years old can get replaced with something newer if there is a use case for it.
Every part of Life needs the right techniques. When you change the regime you have to adjust, to know where to place your fingers, or not to place them.