How many (related) technologies should be packed into a single device? I haven't a clue. I truly love the multi-functionality of my iPhone. But when it comes to photography, the trend to produce more versatile and multi-functional dSLRs has me, uhhh.... yawning.It's not that I'm not impressed with some of these technological marvels. I am. Take Canon's 5DmkII. Even sans the HD video capability it's a very sophisticated camera capable of producing incredible images. And the price is right. I can buy one for less than what I spent on my 5D not all that long ago, significantly less in fact. (That, of course, annoys me to some degree.)
When I purchased my 5D, there was one driving force that motivated me: The full-frame sensor. Prior to the intro of the 5D, my only full-frame-sensor Canon option was their 1D line. But, frankly, I didn't want to plunk down the bucks for a 1D. Why? Practicality and frugality. Having a 1D wasn't going to net me any more work. My clients seemed pretty satisfied with the images I was already producing with my Canon 20D. (It ain't all about the camera when it comes to making good pictures.)
Unfortunately for my wallet, I wanted full-frame goodness. I wanted my glass to behave like it was supposed to behave. If I was shooting at a focal length of 85mm, I wanted that focal-length reflected in the imagery reaching the sensor. If I wanted to crop, I'd be the cropper, not the camera's reduced-frame sensor technology.
Now, we're seeing these hybrids that have popped up in the marketplace. Sure, there's other good reasons to upgrade to, for instance, a 5DmkII--other than its video capability--but I can't shake the feeling I'm still paying for functionality that I'm simply not too interested in having on board a still camera. In fact, hybrid technologies seem more apropos for point-n-shoots, IMO, of course. Call me old-school. Call me whatever you'd like. I don't really care what you call me. I yam what I yam. (Courtesy, Popeye, TSM.)
I also make some of my living as a videographer. I have a video camera, a fairly decent one: A Sony HDR-Z1U. When I'm shooting video, I'll shoot video with my Sony Z-cam, thank you very much. Are there times when it would be handy and convenient to have HD video capture on board a dSLR? I'm sure there are and I'm sure there will be. Are those times so frequent that I need to spend on a hybrid dSLR? Probably not. At least, not at this time.
I'm not going to delve into the technical and functional pros-and-cons of shooting video with these new-breed dSLRs versus a dedicated vidcam. There's plenty of places on the web where that discussion is taking place. I'm simply interested in using the best tool for the job (that I can afford) and, at this point, shooting video with a dSLR is not the most all-around effective tool for my needs.
Hybrid cameras are innovative, at least from the perspective of multi-functionality, but are they truly innovative from a still photography POV? I suppose that answer varies depending on who is answering it. What would I like to see in still dSLR camera innovation? How about a medium-format sensor on board a dSLR and at an affordable price?
As for bubbles, I certainly ain't an economist. But I've blown enough bubble-gum bubbles to understand the dynamics of bubbles: They expand until they burst! And that's what I think is happening with digital photography, e.g., digital cameras. I'm not talking about the price and profit aspects that the term "bubble" most often refers to, but the availability of so many new cameras in the marketplace. Yeah, *that* camera bubble.
It seems like every week another camera manufacturer is announcing a new version of their old cameras with, supposedly, marked increases in performance and quality and capability. I'm reflecting on dSLRs as well as point-n-shoots. And you can certainly apply the bubble analogy to other photo gear, stuff like lighting and such. (Think the new breed of "digital" monolights.) At what point is the market so saturated with these repeated and new offerings that consumers simply decide not to buy? (i.e., not to upgrade from what they just bought last year/month/week.) Perhaps we've already reached this point? If so, camera and other photo-gear manufacturers are going to have less money available for R&D and other things. But then, how much more dR&D do we really need?
When I look at the work of the masters, I can't help but wonder if their work would have been improved if they had the tools available that we have today? I'm guessing not. A camera might be your third eye but, when it comes to photography, the eye that truly matters is the one in your head: Your mind's eye. That's where your artistic vision comes from. Not from a computer chip.
The pretty girl at the top is Alexa from a shoot last year, captured full-frame with my Canon 5D and an 85mm prime.
12 comments:
I agree Jimmy.
My first dSLR was the Minolta 7D. First released in early 2005 I didn't buy one till late 2006. I didn't replace that camera until three months ago. Yes there were newer cameras that had more features, but nothing that would have made my pictures any better. The only reason I upgraded was because I got a really great deal on Sony a900, otherwise I would have stayed with the old Minolta.
Looks like you and Ken Rockwell agree on what the camera ought to be doing
When I look at the work of the masters, I can't help but wonder if their work would have been improved if they had the tools available that we have today? I'm guessing not.
I partially disagree. When I read Yousuf Karsh's biography, I learned that he used the latest and greatest technology at that time. In fact, his mentor was stuck in using only natural light. Karsh moved forward.
As an aside: http://www.karsh.org/
Furthermore, Karsh retouched his photographs, either by himself or by using his hired assistants. I recall one photograph where he photographed Pablo Casals in a small alcove of an abbey. He photographed Casals from behind while Casals was seated and playing the cello. His photograph captured Casals in a magical beam of light that revealed his strength and power of his shoulders.
One of the reasons for photographing Casals from behind was to hide his unsightly wart on his face. Perhaps, today we could just use Photoshop to remove an unsightly blemish?
Moreover, this photograph was retouched because there were some flies in the abbey, including one that had landed on Casal's crown. One of the tests that his assistants gave to prospective new assistants was to count the number of flies in the original photograph.
The points I am making with my Casal's comments are as follows: prior masters did use best available methods and technologies, and had today's technology been available, there would have been further opportunities.
Somewhat tangential to your main point, today's digital technology allows for more accurate transmission of the images. Karsh's famous works are analog and likely are reproduced with the same fidelity as his originals. I suspect too that the film quality then was poorer and that entropy has taken its toll on this originals. Because today's original digital images are simply zeroes and ones, the recipient of a image can have the same fidelity as the sender. And time no longer takes its harmful toll.
In reading about Annie Leibovitz, she always uses the latest and greatest. She has no qualms about switching cameras or brands. Granted, from looking at her images, we have no idea which camera she used. Nor does it matter. It isn't the camera that makes her pictures, it's her artistic ability.
I agree with you that raw innate ability honed by years of hard work and practice are the key ingredients to creating great images. Where I differ slightly is that the top people--in almost every profession--usually use the best that's available. If you're a swimmer in the Olympics, you use the latest swimsuits that have the least drag coefficient. If you're racing in the Tour de France, your bikes employ the latest technology. That said, for the overwhelming vast majority of us, our time, effort, and expense would be far better spent on learning how to utilize our current equipment rather than the purchasing the very best.
KS
@KS, Thanks for posting such thoughtful and knowledgeably articulated comments. I really enjoyed reading your POV on this subject. Very convincing! (Side note: Smithsonian Magazine -- or was it Vanity Fair? -- recently featured a really good article on Karsh.)
But don't you think there's a point, a threshold, that's reachable (perhaps already reached) where the latest and greatest camera technologies cease to be true, value-added tools? Can the technology continue to evolve and exponentially grow in terms of making the perfect pictures? And, if so, will photographers be needed to snap the shutters? Will some sort of omnificent sensor capture everything and all that's left for mere mortals will be to extract and enhance, with a creative sense, portions of what that sensor captured?
Hmmm. To boldly go where no...
the eye that truly matters is the one in your head: Your mind's eye
Ain't that just the truth?!
BTW, I always fancied you for a James T. Kirk, pushing the boundaries of photography and boldly going where no intrepid photographer has gone before....
Earlier I wrote, "Karsh's famous works are analog and likely are reproduced with the same fidelity as his originals." The "likely" should have been "unlikely." You most likely caught and mentally corrected my mistake.
But don't you think there's a point, a threshold, that's reachable (perhaps already reached) where the latest and greatest camera technologies cease to be true, value-added tools?
I seem to recall in Varis's book Skin where he postulated that a camera in the future might simply capture the light that hits a plane. Software will then act as the lens and create whatever depth of field desired. Perhaps if everything is performed via software, we can achieve infinite depth of field or multiple depths of field, or, well you get the idea. If this development were to occur, photographers will have yet more options.
I tend to agree with you in that we are reaching diminishing returns with each new technology release. Without larger sensors, the megapixel race is coming to a close. I expect further advances in dynamic range and more accurate reproduction of color. Moreover, I am sure that there will be added on features such as embedded GPS coordinates and the like.
I expect further integration of video. How that will change the photographic landscape remains to be seen.
(Side note: Smithsonian Magazine -- or was it Vanity Fair? -- recently featured a really good article on Karsh.)
I just searched Vanity Fair, and there doesn't appear to be a Karsh article. Smithsonian Magazine: From Castro to Warhol to Mother Teresa, He Photographed Them All. I haven't read this article, but since you have kindly flagged for me, I will be sure to read it.
Thank you for your great articles Jimmy.
The old masters of still photography produced work we still look at and admire decades later. Even with all the specialized gear and software now available, what have we seen lately that will reach that bar. Certainly not the I-did-this-because-I-could crap that floods are world now. We are awash in pixel-perfect mediocrity.
Just this morning, I was looking at a photo book of Cartier-Bresson's work and another of Paul Strand's and wondered why they looked so real--as if I were actually peering into their subjects' lives. By today's standards, of course, those prints are horribly imperfect, but what comes to the fore isn't that but rather the vision of the photographer--a vision unencumbered by the gear glut of today.
Take for example this famous Cartier-Bresson image shot in Paris in 1932. Can you even imagine Henri yelling at the man, "Hey... wait a minute while I set up a strobe for a little front fill!"
Very, very written. I happen to agree with everything.
@Lyn, I think I'm more like the result of Kirk mating with a Klingon warrior(ess)
WillT,
I don't think that Henri image would have been improved by front fill anymore than most silhouette shots would be.
It is all about using the right tool to do the right job.
When I shoot weddings, the flash in on the camera and it is a fast recharging system and I can turn it on or off in a blink. Looking ahead at the action and the location, I make the choice and the craft the image.
Notice most race cars still use stick shifts. It becomes second nature with practice.
My flash is an old Norman 200B with no automation at all.
It is all about what you get so used to, you don't have to think about the equipment, just concentrate on making the images.
@Anonymous
Sorry my point wasn't clear... Much of what we see today is about how cool the photographer is rather than how interesting the subject matter is. To show the humanity captured by Cartier-Bresson and others requires thinking differently. And today, most are so enamored with their gear that they haven't the slightest idea how to do that.
I Jumpred from body to body, UNTIL I found that one that fit in my hands JUST RIGHT!. For me it is the Nikon D200.
My next upgrade will be the camera body that adds lighting to the subject by itself by me just pressing on the screen where i want the light and what direction it should be adjusted to etc hehehehe
Post a Comment