Robin Smith wrote:
I read it as a bit of a strawman response, but there is a lot of underlying truth in his statement/rant/plea. There is always a lot of moaning about things that someone wanted but are not included and how these (in my opinion) generally incremental changes have suddenly become "essential" and how the camera I bought only 3 years ago is now a piece of junk etc etc. He seems to be restating the trope that it is the photographer that matters not the gear and this is particularly true over, say the last 5-10 years. If you can't get a decent shot with any of these then it is probably not the gear.
I'm not among those who will say my 4-year-old camera is now a piece of junk. As a wildlife specialist the original a1 allowed me to push the envelope in numerous ways, as did several iterations of its predecessors. The envelope has become much larger but is nowhere near as big as it can get.
One can certainly make the same photographs now that were possible 5 to 10 years ago but that's not the point of pushing the envelope. The technologies that have been developed since then solve specific problems:
LED light banding wasn't a problem before LED lighting became common.
A silent shutter doesn't startle my subjects like an SLR did, digital or otherwise.
Combine the silent electronic shutter with fast readout and distortion of a flapping wing is eliminated.
faster frame rates mean I choose the wing position that best suits the composition, and choose the image(s) without the nicititating membrane covering the eye.
AF on the sensor, subject recognition and eye AF means AF is 'Accurate Focus' instead of 'Almost Focussed'.
pre-capture means it's more likely I'll photograph the kinglet's head during the nanosecond when it's turned toward the camera,
RAW pre-capture vs. jpg allows more latitude when processing the images.
none of these technologies will make a photograph, it's still up to the photographer, but the tech features will make a successful photograph more likely in specific circumstances. Those who don't encounter these conditions will not make use of or appreciate these features but for those of us who do, the newer cameras with features that address these problems will be more productive.
For myself, the a1 II's new features that will help solve problems are the flippy screen and pre-capture, but I'm not in a hurry to switch from the a1 because I personally don't often encounter the conditions where these would be useful. YMMV.
Robin Smith wrote:
I read it as a bit of a strawman response, but there is a lot of underlying truth in his statement/rant/plea. There is always a lot of moaning about things that someone wanted but are not included and how these (in my opinion) generally incremental changes have suddenly become "essential" and how the camera I bought only 3 years ago is now a piece of junk etc etc. He seems to be restating the trope that it is the photographer that matters not the gear and this is particularly true over, say the last 5-10 years. If you can't get a decent shot with any of these then it is probably not the gear.
I'm not among those who will say my 4-year-old camera is now a piece of junk. As a wildlife specialist the original a1 allowed me to push the envelope in numerous ways, as did several iterations of its predecessors. The envelope has become much larger but is nowhere near as big as it can get.
One can certainly make the same photographs now that were possible 5 to 10 years go but that's not the point of pushing the envelope. The technologies that have been developed since then solve specific problems:
LED light banding wasn't a problem before LED lighting became common.
A silent shutter doesn't startle my subjects like an SLR did, digital or otherwise.
Combine the silent electronic shutter with fast readout and distortion of a flapping wing is eliminated.
faster frame rates mean I choose the wing position that best suits the composition, and choose the image(s) without the nicititating membrane covering the eye.
AF on the sensor, subject recognition and eye AF means AF is 'Accurate Focus' instead of 'Almost Focussed'.
pre-capture means it's more likely I'll photograph the kinglet's head during the nanosecond when it's turned toward the camera,
RAW pre-capture vs. jpg allows more latitude when processing the images.
none of these technologies will make a photograph, it's still up to the photographer, but the tech features will make a successful photograph more likely in specific circumstances. Those who don't encounter these conditions will not make use of or appreciate these features but for those of us who do, the newer cameras with features that address these problems will be more productive.
For myself, the a1 II's new features that will help solve problems are the flippy screen and pre-capture, but I'm not in a hurry to switch from the a1 because I personally don't often encounter the conditions where these would be useful. YMMV.
Nov 21, 2024 at 10:58 AM
Previous versions of telyt's message #16690361 « My take on the Sony A1 II »
