[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I said the following in 2009 in the dSLR thread.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Too true. In fact it is true for just about every aspect of the endless specification debate.

Samurai, Jeroen: not so true for certain genres such as wildlife. Wherever low light performance and AF become important, there technology advancements have a role to play. It is easier to take shots that would have been very very difficult a few years back. E.g. see this recent article (maybe just for the photos): http://oleliodden.com/photo-gear/fie...port-nikon-d5/

Technology advancements also make the playing field a lot more level. Advanced amateurs can take shots that earlier only pros could take.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

In general I'm not that bothered about the endless debate on specification and new kit. Once I have made my choice I will stick with it for years to come. I prefer to concentrate on actually shooting photographs, reading about photography other then the kit-review, courses etc.

Some people do enjoy reading/talking more about specs, and splitting hairs, than shooting. That is why I am skeptical of folks who argue masterfully about specs or technical details but seldom have any photo to share. Forums such as DPReview are notorious for that.

If someone makes a subjective statement, it is good to know where that person is coming from - experience, skill and genre. That holds true for internet amateurs as well as renowned 'experts'.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Wherever low light performance and AF become important, there technology advancements have a role to play. It is easier to take shots that would have been very very difficult a few years back.

Technology advancements also make the playing field a lot more level. Advanced amateurs can take shots that earlier only pros could take.
.

Absolutely! Lot more people claiming to be professional photographers these day! I also think it is part of the digitalisation of photography which allow to shoot a billion snaps and the likehood of a reasonable picture amongst all of those snaps does improve with no extra cost.

I took a course here in Delhi a few months ago at the Delhi Photography Club. One of the themes we discussed/were taught was to try and capture the essence of a place in just a few photographs. E.g. when you go for a holiday to Leh, can you capture the essence of Leh in 3-5 pictures?

Personally I like to think of my personal photography as a journey where I went from taking (holiday) snaps, to nice picture to meaningful photographs. Highly subjective of course. And yes, I still take snaps too, but I think over the years my ability towards meaningful photographs that really capture the essence of a scene has improved. Very little of it had to do with the kit I owned..

My Olympus OMD E5 MK2 has phenomenal image stabilisation. In combination with the Pro lenses I can still do night street photography without having to resort to a tripod and thus being much more flexible. My latest winning photograph in a contest was just that.

so yes, to your point, I agree there are certain technical features that will allow you to take certain shots, or at least more easily. But then again, on a more generic level, any F1.4 or better lens will give you better low light capabilities. How much better brand X F1.4 over brand Y F1.4 holds less interest to me. How you use that capability, low light capability or to throw the back ground out of focus is the photographers ability/skill.

But again, plenty of people there who enjoy debating that endlessly.

Jeroen

[VW2010]

I like the capability to crop. Higher MP does help as long as its available at affordable price. Between I still recommend a 50mm prime to start of with any camera for a year. Thats how i started and lens collection was more based on needs and affordability.

Between 2010 and 2015 there is a generation shift and the same we can expect in next few years.4K and ultra HD recording can even get those one frame extract that makes shooting wildlife or moving subjects much easier.

And more and more affordable features flowing into cameras that one can replace is a good thing.

If someone makes a subjective statement, it is good to know where that person is coming from - experience, skill and genre. That holds true for internet amateurs as well as renowned 'experts

Completely agree. I know a guy who uses the rebel from earliest edition, with a 18-55 and 55-250 lens till date.

His pictures will capture the artistic eye only he possesses. His Pictures speak and the first question anyone ask is "What Camera, What lens". His pictures are what i recommend to challenge friends blaming the equipment.

His eyes are special

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

Samurai, Jeroen: not so true for certain genres such as wildlife.

Even with wildlife, look at what John Shaw could do with Nikon in 20th century. How many people today can better him with 21st century tech?

People have been doing magic with the tools of their times. It looks like magic even decades later. Every time I open John Shaw's field photography guide, I get goosebumps.

I understand the reason why you want to upgrade. A little better IQ, longer range, better IS, faster lens, better DR, etc., are always welcome if you can afford it.

What Jeroen and I are talking about is photographers can't blame equipment for bad photos they take. The photography tools of any age were good enough for the good photographers of that age to make their magic.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Even with wildlife, look at what John Shaw could do with Nikon in 20th century. How many people today can better him with 21st century tech?

What Jeroen and I are talking about is photographers can't blame equipment for bad photos they take. The photography tools of any age were good enough for the good photographers of that age to make their magic.

That's like saying look Gavaskar could play the West Indian fast bowling so well with very little protective gear

There are always outliers. Besides, behind the making of a legendary master, there is talent, tens of thousands of hours of practice, and suitable lifestyle (say 200 days in the field in a year). How many 'normal' folks can do that?

I do agree with you and Jeroen. One might not get the 'perfect' shot one wanted - or visualized - due to gear limitations. But no excuse to get bad shots with gear launched in the last few years.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Even with wildlife, look at what John Shaw could do with Nikon in 20th century. How many people today can better him with 21st century tech?.

Actually, with 20th century tech, there were a few notable photographers. With today's tech, the number of people who can take very good photographs in the wildlife domain has become very large.

Back them shooting a bird with 400mm at 1/50 was a big challenge without a tripod. Today, with IS its a breeze and with ISO pushing you can actually get 1/400 shutter speed even in lower light.

So gear does help quite a bit. Of course, all cameras today are very good. If somebody cannot click good pics, its not the gear but the photographer.

OTOH, this is a gear thread. If you do not like discussing the latest and greatest, its best not to be here. I see this trend in some gear forums also like dpreview where every now and them somebody will come and say, don't talk about gear, go out and make pictures. Well mr go out, why don't you yourself go out instead of posting silly advice on a GEAR forum.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

OTOH, this is a gear thread. If you do not like discussing the latest and greatest, its best not to be here.

I think you mistook the discussion. I am not saying don't discuss or upgrade gear. What I am saying it don't blame the gear if you can't take good photograph.

But no excuse to get bad shots with gear launched in the last few years.

Consider this statement from nilanjan... it was true in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s...

[TheTeacher]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

see this recent article (maybe just for the photos): http://oleliodden.com/photo-gear/fie...port-nikon-d5/

Thanks for the link. Awesome!

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Actually, with 20th century tech, there were a few notable photographers. With today's tech, the number of people who can take very good photographs in the wildlife domain has become very large.

Back them shooting a bird with 400mm at 1/50 was a big challenge without a tripod. Today, with IS its a breeze and with ISO pushing you can actually get 1/400 shutter speed even in lower light.

So gear does help quite a bit. Of course, all cameras today are very good. If somebody cannot click good pics, its not the gear but the photographer.

OTOH, this is a gear thread. If you do not like discussing the latest and greatest, its best not to be here. I see this trend in some gear forums also like dpreview where every now and them somebody will come and say, don't talk about gear, go out and make pictures. Well mr go out, why don't you yourself go out instead of posting silly advice on a GEAR forum.

One has to see the top photos on 500px to see how many fantastic photographers are there today. Too many amateurs who shoot great photos. And demand for pros is falling all the time. Even photo-intensive publications such as Sports Illustrated and NatGeo are shifting from inhouse-photographer business model to contract or freelance model.

Disagree about DPReview. Some of the arguments and nitpicking are ridiculous. There are other forums where the civility of discussion is much higher, and quality of photographs much better.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Consider this statement from nilanjan... it was true in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s...

It is much easier to take good photos today. It was a lot more difficult during those times (especially certain genres), and photography was practiced by very few people compared to today. And pro photographers had a lot more advantage. Besides, the instant feedback and 'costless' shooting has evened the playing field big time. First, in terms of technical skills to take a good shot. Second, in terms of incremental cost of a shot.

Re wildlife photography, where luck is so important, the biggest advantage that top pros have is the numbers of days spent in the field. And also the support system.

If I spend 100 days in Africa, I have 10x more chances to experience special moments than if I spent just 10 days. And if I have rangers supporting me and the best trackers spotting for me, I will have good encounters a lot more.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

And demand for pros is falling all the time. Even photo-intensive publications such as Sports Illustrated and NatGeo are shifting from inhouse-photographer business model to contract or freelance model.

It is much easier to take good photos today. It was a lot more difficult during those times (especially certain genres), and photography was practiced by very few people compared to today. And pro photographers had a lot more advantage. Besides, the instant feedback and 'costless' shooting has evened the playing field big time. First, in terms of technical skills to take a good shot. Second, in terms of incremental cost of a shot.

.

I dont think the demand for good photographs has come down. If anything that demand is still increasing, but to your point, more people are able to produce good photographs these days.

Moving to a freelance model is more a cost issue, than anything else. My future son is a freelance journalist. He has worked for newspapers, local radio and now television. He needs to do everything himself, take the photographs, take the video shots, do the editing of all audio and video material and write the story.

For some that might make the job very interesting, for others it's a dilution of skill and competences. We'll see.

Jeroen

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

I dont think the demand for good photographs has come down. If anything that demand is still increasing, but to your point, more people are able to produce good photographs these days.

Moving to a freelance model is more a cost issue, than anything else. My future son is a freelance journalist. He has worked for newspapers, local radio and now television. He needs to do everything himself, take the photographs, take the video shots, do the editing of all audio and video material and write the story.

For some that might make the job very interesting, for others it's a dilution of skill and competences. We'll see.

Jeroen

Yes it's a tough world compared to before.

I meant demand for high overhead, dedicated pros. Because:
1. Print publications are under a lot of pressure in the developed world
2. Increasing supply of high quality photos
3. Huge supply of 'right moment' photos taken through mobile phones

I would think that 1, 2 and 3 have resulted in a downward shift of the 'price vs demand curve'. Haven't done any research though.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

My future son is a freelance journalist.

Um, future son? Sorry for asking, what does that mean?

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Um, future son? Sorry for asking, what does that mean?

Daughter's fiance?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Um, future son? Sorry for asking, what does that mean?

Sorry, my mistake, should have read "future son in law". That makes more sense I would hope!

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Sorry, my mistake, should have read "future son in law". That makes more sense I would hope!

Yes, I purposely didn't say "fiancee's son", since I know some wives browse the forum.