John Power wrote:
I would think that this would depend on the photographer's main interests. A portrait specialist doesn't need a camera capable of catching a baseball half way across home plate. The ability to interact with the model is far more important. That baseball shot would be a boring photograph in any event although I know the point you are making.
By the way, the most iconic photograph in sports history is, in my opinion, Cassius Clay standing over Sonny Liston. We all are familiar with it. A film camera totally incapable of capturing your suggested image took that shot so again, the purpose of the camera is the real consideration. ...Show more →
Good point for the opposite side there! With an R1 the photographer would have captured the infamous "phantom punch" when it did not find its target, Sonny went down and the mob ruled boxing.
The faster the action, the better the R´s! And a few other things as well.
In response to Imagemaster's last post, while I can't argue that point certainly haven't seen any baseballs over home plate as the successor in interest to the Clay/Liston shot. Yet
John Power wrote:
By the way, the most iconic photograph in sports history is, in my opinion, Cassius Clay standing over Sonny Liston. We all are familiar with it. A film camera totally incapable of capturing your suggested image took that shot so again, the purpose of the camera is the real consideration.
That's purely happenstance. If that fight took place today, not a single photographer would have been using a manual focus film camera to document the event - there might be a few luddites with DSLR's, but the majority would have been using mirrorless cameras.
Well for me, my camera is a means to an end...to create the photo I have envisioned. The more features they have to "disappear" in my hands and just let me take my photos, the better. That is why things like accurate Eye AF is so crucial for my work.
When I have a model posing and I am using my fast primes, I dont want to miss a great pose or even candid moment just because I couldnt focus on the eyes on time.
So instead of fiddling with focus stuff, my attention is all on the composition, lighting and posing.
Of course other people may have different things in mind for their photography like people that prefer film and developing themselves, or manual focusing etc because they enjoy that aspect of the process.
To each its own.
Cliff L. wrote:
That's purely happenstance. If that fight took place today, not a single photographer would have been using a manual focus film camera to document the event - there might be a few luddites with DSLR's, but the majority would have been using mirrorless cameras.
So when your DLSR still 100% produces the work you need you still a "luddite" is you use it? Seems like a silly notion to me.
chez wrote:
Obviously old tech gets superseded by new tech. The typewriter was new tech when it came out…not so much today.
I wouldn't really call a typewriter, Commodore 64, or old printing press tech today except maybe old tech. There is a new connotation on technology regardless of the dictionary definition
For those still confused about this, "technology" does not have to be new or even current. The wheel is "technology," as is the system of locks used to move boats across higher elevations of the land. The pencil and pen are technology, as are the violin and the printing press.. A photograph is technology, as is a sailing ship. So is an older computer...
https://www.britannica.com/technology/technology -- "technology, the application of scientific knowledge to the practical aims of human life—or, as it is sometimes phrased, to the change and manipulation of the human environment."
Old technology, new technology, defunct technology, simple technology... it is all technology.
- - -
jamesdak wrote:
So when your DLSR still 100% produces the work you need you still a "luddite" is you use it? Seems like a silly notion to me.
A luddite isn't a person who uses older technologies. It is a person who is opposed to the use of newer technologies. If someone chooses to use film, or a DSLR, or a pinhole camera, that doesn't necessarily make them a luddite. If they rail against newer technologies, for example mirrorless cameras, and think that people are making a mistake in using them, they might be a luddite.
So continuing to use a DSLR because it works well for your photography doesn't make you a Luddite. It just makes you practical.
jamesdak wrote:
So when your DLSR still 100% produces the work you need you still a "luddite" is you use it? Seems like a silly notion to me.
You are missing the point. If you are a pro sports photographer today, you are competing with other pro sports photographers to capture that "fleeting moment" of action that fans want to see. The photographer that gets the best action shot also gets the paycheck.
He did not say When your DLSR still 100% produces the work you need you are a "luddite".
He said If that fight took place today, not a single photographer would have been using a manual focus film camera to document the event - there might be a few luddites with DSLR's, .......
AmbientMike wrote:
I wouldn't really call a typewriter, Commodore 64, or old printing press tech today except maybe old tech. There is a new connotation on technology regardless of the dictionary definition
Reread what I wrote. I said the typewriter was new tech when it was released…not new tech today.
Imagemaster wrote:
You are missing the point. If you are a pro sports photographer today, you are competing with other pro sports photographers to capture that "fleeting moment" of action that fans want to see. The photographer that gets the best action shot also gets the paycheck.
He did not say
He said
Those are not the same thing.
, still amused. So by your reasoning if that sports photographer is there with a DSLR than wouldn't it be because it's still paying off for them? So how are they a luddite?
I'm really not interested in debating semantics, but I sure do find some of these comments amusing.
jamesdak wrote: , still amused. So by your reasoning if that sports photographer is there with a DSLR than wouldn't it be because it's still paying off for them? So how are they a luddite?
I'm really not interested in debating semantics, but I sure do find some of these comments amusing.
Maybe learn how to use the quote feature properly. Then you could quote where I said anyone using a DSLR is a luddite.
If you believe that every pro sports photographer is getting paid for every shoot the cover, I think you are mistaken. Some are on a salary while others are freelance who only get paid for the images that get chosen as the best to publish.
If you want the best chance of getting that 'action moment' your best odds are to use the camera with the best AF and most FPS, whether you are a luddite, amateur, or professional.
To add to this interesting thread: I recently hired a photographer to take pictures of a family event (since I was part of it, I could not be the guy with the camera). I found a chap with a good online portfolio, costing us 4 figures for 4 shooting hours and some post-processing. He used a 5D mk4 and the EF 28-135mm lens of old. To verify his lighting and use of a fill-in flash, after the first 3-4 shots of every setting he had to take the camera off his eye and look at the camera's back screen to check the image, taking his attention off the subjects and in some instances tweaking some settings on the camera. With any R camera, even the RP, he could have seen the image directly in the viewfinder and kept himself on subject after a quick review. In the shots where he did not use the flash the WYSISYG viewfinder seconded by the live histograms and the EV compensation ring on the lens or the EF converter would help allocate more of his attention to composition and the particulars of the people being photographed, posture, clothing, hairstyle, etc.. So to the point of this discussion the 5D mk4 is a very good camera with a quality sensor and a very competent set of features but it's equivalent R5 mk2 or R6 mk 2 would simplify getting to the right settings while shooting and offer more convenient QC workflows. Would any of that improve his business's bottom line to justify at least $5,000 of new gear, good question....
Now an answer to the most important question please. Were you satisfied with his photos and did you conclude that your money was well spent?
If so then the points you have made may be correct in theory but that's about it as far as I see going it as would any other person viewing those photos since the viewer could not care less those observations if they love the photos.
Imagemaster wrote:
Maybe learn how to use the quote feature properly. Then you could quote where I said anyone using a DSLR is a luddite.
If you believe that every pro sports photographer is getting paid for every shoot the cover, I think you are mistaken. Some are on a salary while others are freelance who only get paid for the images that get chosen as the best to publish.
If you want the best chance of getting that 'action moment' your best odds are to use the camera with the best AF and most FPS, whether you are a luddite, amateur, or professional....Show more →
jamesdak wrote:
I'm really not interested in debating semantics, but I sure do find some of these comments amusing.
You appear to be debating semantics quite a bit for a person who isn’t interested in debating semantics. ;-)
- - -
Bottom line: In some cases it really does make sense to use cameras with more current technology. In other cases it isn’t nearly as important, and more recent technologies may have much less (or no) effect on the work. (Or, looked at another way, in some cases “current” may refer to larger or smaller amounts of time.)
Good enough is good enough, but how good “good” needs be in order to be good enough varies? ;-)
I'm sure they'd adapt fine, but nobody is really making a serious 150-200mm macro these days (maybe Nikon but i don't think so,) Canon’s 55-250 hasn't made it to rf (yet.) Wouldn't I want a 55-250 + aps EF body , even if I had unlimited funds to spend?
I like the older bodies. It's nice to have a 30D around, probably my most used Canon body. I like the smaller file size, and it's surprising the sharpness in DPP, not sure if the 18 & 24mp are much sharper, if any.
I did look at your 7 assignment winning photos and they are fantastic photos.