So... advanced cameras in the hands of "happy snappers" creating problems?

It's late, and I'm tired, so I'm going to go with my gut. Depth of field is where it's at, man.
But it's something you have to think about, and maybe even invest in a tripod or at least think about your camera handling technique. Some understand from the beginning that if you have the "best camera" you will have to grow into it. Some catch on that they have in their hands the opportunity to learn. Some never do understand why their photos don't "pop" when the just sit back and let the "best camera" do its stuff.
It would be the same for me with cars if I needed to do anything but get my regular maintenance when my father-in-law reminds me. If I had to deal with anything under the hood to get the car to perform, I'd have to move to a city with mass transportation!

Some great thoughts here, but I stand on my original response: it's simply not a problem. It's the same continuum of human behavior that infuses so many things -- like Ray was talking about with the racing bikes.

So: if someone is reaching for something, and they don't get it, they may keep reaching including reaching out to those of us who have also struggled to achieve something with our images. It won't matter what they buy, they'll keep trying to make a photo that satisfies them. They ultimately transcend their gear, or so I see it. People with vision and drive will find some way to realize that vision.

But I also still maintain there is a significant segment of our population who believe "bigger, better, more" will transform what they do. It shows in they way they buy homes, cars -- almost anything really. I think many such people are at the core so unsure of who they actually are, that this is a symptom. We have in this country helped to expand this way of living to our detriment -- although some would say it's good for business.

Finally, I do like it -- sadly -- that some peoples mistakes will result in an opportunity to get something better for myself used at a good price. Then again, I often sell below market value when I change out to something that I think may suit my work better.

So it's all a big circle that never ends, and at it's root is human nature itself. And that's why it is in no way a problem: it's just reality.
 
Maybe they purchase the "top of the line" because they think buying "the best" will make the experience better.

I've certainly done that in the past with ham radio equipment only to discover that it ain't necessarily so.

I think perhaps sometimes folks confuse "image quality" -- of which there is a lot of discussion on the various forums -- with taking good pictures.

Probably factored in here is the diminishing number of local camera shops whose proprietors could provide sage advice to the outright newbie who is about to purchase the photographic equivalent of a Formula 1 car.

Cheers, Jock

"I think perhaps sometimes folks confuse "image quality" -- of which there is a lot of discussion on the various forums -- with taking good pictures." That's a very good point. It isn't intuitively obvious that there's a difference between the TECHNICAL quality of the image, which is the means of sharing the image, with the CONTENT of the image, which is the bulk of what's meant by a "good picture." Nor is it intuitively obvious that the CONTENT itself is different from the SUBJECT. I'd be willing to bet I could take pictures of green peppers 'till I was blue in the face, and none would hold a candle to Weston's!

" Probably factored in here is the diminishing number of local camera shops whose proprietors could provide sage advice to the outright newbie who is about to purchase the photographic equivalent of a Formula 1 car." Also a good point. And many camera ads seem to be as bad as cosmetic ads these days - buy this camera and your photos will be amazing, buy this mascara and you will look (and therefore be) amazing. Of course, Kodak started it - "You push the shutter and we do the rest."
 
Some great thoughts here, but I stand on my original response: it's simply not a problem. It's the same continuum of human behavior that infuses so many things -- like Ray was talking about with the racing bikes.

So: if someone is reaching for something, and they don't get it, they may keep reaching including reaching out to those of us who have also struggled to achieve something with our images. It won't matter what they buy, they'll keep trying to make a photo that satisfies them. They ultimately transcend their gear, or so I see it. People with vision and drive will find some way to realize that vision.

But I also still maintain there is a significant segment of our population who believe "bigger, better, more" will transform what they do. It shows in they way they buy homes, cars -- almost anything really. I think many such people are at the core so unsure of who they actually are, that this is a symptom. We have in this country helped to expand this way of living to our detriment -- although some would say it's good for business.

Finally, I do like it -- sadly -- that some peoples mistakes will result in an opportunity to get something better for myself used at a good price. Then again, I often sell below market value when I change out to something that I think may suit my work better.

So it's all a big circle that never ends, and at it's root is human nature itself. And that's why it is in no way a problem: it's just reality.

I agree it's not a problem - except for the third set of people, who find themselves with the "holy grail" of a camera, can't figure out how to use it, and don't have the patience/don't have the time to master the basics. I myself never mastered the art of writing a topic sentence, so it wasn't clear which side of the fence I was on!
I "grew into" photography by outgrowing a fixed focus plastic camera and buying a used manual everything SLR in the days of film. But if someone wants to buy a top of the line camera, and keep it on auto until "desire drives technique," as long as they can afford it, more power to them! At least they don't have to "shed" the first camera and save up for one with the features they need to get the results they want.
It's just a shame that the ads - and salespeople at places like Best Buy - keep telling people "This camera will do everything for you."
 
and just in case there are any here who do not get the main message, I'll repeat it slowly.....
a better camera won't automatically take better photos.

Learn how how to use it. Everyone should be able to find some relatively cheap instruction locally. I just received this email offer today ( All Wichita Deals | LivingSocial ) , it won't help anyone outside of Milwaukee, but I think it shows that for $49 you can learn to operate your camera competently and get better photos. Knowing how to work a camera (ANY camera) will improve your photography more than a fancy new camera. If you afford both, go for it!
 
It's the same continuum of human behavior that infuses so many things -- like Ray was talking about with the racing bikes.
Seeing this again reminds me that guitars are probably even a better example. When I was relatively new to playing guitar in my late teens, I had a $60 pawnshop guitar that I learned on and played on for a couple of years. It was a TERRIBLE guitar - I had no idea just HOW bad it was until I actually played something better. Bad sound, horrible fretboard, horrible action - just a mess. Once I got the point of realizing that I enjoyed guitar playing enough that I'd probably stay with it for a while, I went a bought a better one. Not a great one, but a much better one. It sounded OK and, more importantly, it played right. Just stiff enough to get a good sound without buzzing, but sooooo much easier to play. The day I brought that guitar home I was no better a player than I had been the day before. But having a good tool to play on made a HUGE difference in my level of enjoyment, in the amount of time I spent at it, and my improvement just accelerated like crazy from that point. I don't think I'd have ever come close without getting a quality instrument. A year or so later I had a Martin D-28 and a Fender Strat and that was a huge leap forward in both playability and sound. I never got GOOD - never had the ear for real musical talent - but I got a LOT better pretty quickly and probably came as close to realizing whatever limited potential I had over the next few years playing with good instruments.

So better gear can't make you better, but it can make it a lot easier and a lot more fun to get as good as you're gonna get. And then maybe you find you can go back and do better with whatever quality of gear you have to shoot or play with. A couple of years after I sold my first electric guitar to a friend of mine, he got pretty friendly with Billy Gibbons (the guitarist from ZZ Top, one of the best blues players you'd ever find in a rock band). He had Gibbons over to his place one night when ZZ Top was playing in town and Gibbons played my old funky guitar. According to my friend, and I fully believe him, he pulled some simply incredible music out of that little piece of garbage. So talent and a good ear/eye always wins out, but nice gear doesn't hurt!

-Ray
 
Seeing this again reminds me that guitars are probably even a better example. When I was relatively new to playing guitar in my late teens, I had a $60 pawnshop guitar that I learned on and played on for a couple of years. It was a TERRIBLE guitar - I had no idea just HOW bad it was until I actually played something better. Bad sound, horrible fretboard, horrible action - just a mess. Once I got the point of realizing that I enjoyed guitar playing enough that I'd probably stay with it for a while, I went a bought a better one. Not a great one, but a much better one. It sounded OK and, more importantly, it played right. Just stiff enough to get a good sound without buzzing, but sooooo much easier to play. The day I brought that guitar home I was no better a player than I had been the day before. But having a good tool to play on made a HUGE difference in my level of enjoyment, in the amount of time I spent at it, and my improvement just accelerated like crazy from that point. I don't think I'd have ever come close without getting a quality instrument. A year or so later I had a Martin D-28 and a Fender Strat and that was a huge leap forward in both playability and sound. I never got GOOD - never had the ear for real musical talent - but I got a LOT better pretty quickly and probably came as close to realizing whatever limited potential I had over the next few years playing with good instruments.

So better gear can't make you better, but it can make it a lot easier and a lot more fun to get as good as you're gonna get. And then maybe you find you can go back and do better with whatever quality of gear you have to shoot or play with. A couple of years after I sold my first electric guitar to a friend of mine, he got pretty friendly with Billy Gibbons (the guitarist from ZZ Top, one of the best blues players you'd ever find in a rock band). He had Gibbons over to his place one night when ZZ Top was playing in town and Gibbons played my old funky guitar. According to my friend, and I fully believe him, he pulled some simply incredible music out of that little piece of garbage. So talent and a good ear/eye always wins out, but nice gear doesn't hurt!

-Ray

Ray, I fingerpick guitar and banjo . . . agreed, agreed, agreed!

Cheers, Jock
 
I think its like any hobby. I think the wrong tool can cause many bad habbits to try to overcome the bad tool. The best tool however might not teach how to get the most out of it, though. I think hitting square in the middle is the best place to start with many hobbies.

I've been bowling for over 15 years. I used to bowl 3 leagues a week and tournaments. I own and have owned many bowling balls. Many new comers spend tons of money on the "Best" bowling ball and never learn truly how to bowl. Others get the cheapest thing but end up developing bad habbits that can take some time to get out of because they are overcoming the cheap equipment.

I saw a lady at a concert with an RX100. Even though cameras supposedly weren't allowed, she was shooting away in P mode. She was sitting a few seats next to us and I asked her if she like it. She said it gave her good low light results. While her overall photography might not have improved, at least the low light stuff will look halfway decent and will produce better results than most phone cameras.
 
Possibilities--- they inspire.

I'm reading the posts, get a good camera and find a friendly forum and learn- mhmm.. get a good bike and be inspired to use it-- mhmm.. you don't need the pretty guitar but you do need one that sounds good and is playable like Ray said.. it has to be capable when you become more capable or you do need to swap up. You do need at least an acceptable tool to begin with as Djarum said. So if someone goes out and gets a camera that inspires them and it carries them a long way, delivering the quality when they learn to use it well.. great. There will always be fall-offs, people that say, eh.. bike riding is too much of a physical commitment- I don't want to do this anymore, just an occasional ride OR learning how this camera works is too technical, I just want to take pictures, auto is good enough. That's fine too. To each his own. The manufacturers try to make consumers believe they can buy talent, shame on the mfg's but shame on the buyers as well if they feel duped in the end. And yes then Luke can buy their cameras off them at a discount :D
 
As to bikes, road bikes, you can buy the most expensive one but if it doesn't fit you right it will be a horrible ride. I think the same as how a camera handles in your hand too.

Good analogy, but I don't think the phenomenon is anywhere NEAR as strong with cameras. There's a psychological element to which you're most comfortable with and people with really big or small hands might have trouble with a really small or big camera, respectively. But aside from the psychological "fit" and comfort, which I don't dispute the power of at all, just about anyone can shoot with anything. But bike fit has all of those same psychological levels, but is overwhelmingly more complex in terms of physiology and how you ride. Entire forums are devoted to little more than bike fit, bike geometry and design, and the physical interface between rider and machine. So I don't want to go too deep into it here. But the difference is that with cameras I may strongly prefer one over another, but I can probably go shoot with just about anything and do OK well with it for a day or a week or a month. With an ill-fitting bike, or one designed for a different kind of riding than I do (putting a tourist on a TT bike, for example, or vise versa!) I might not be able to ride more than 10-20 miles before having all kinds of pain and discomfort issues and not being able to recruit the proper muscles to ride worth a damn.

So I think the analogy is sort of right in concept, but not even close in degree...

-Ray
 
It would be useful if every camera came with a simple instruction booklet or video to explain and demonstrate basic photographic concepts... things that would be necessary to understand even if the consumer never even planned to take the camera off "Auto" mode.
 
All things being equal, a larger sensor and faster AF will increase the chances of getting a good shot. Automatic modes are getting better. In another 10 years it will get even better. I'm still amazed that some cameras still let the Tv go down to 1/6 s when there's ISO headroom left.
 
Ray, I like the guitar analogy. I would say in both cases (cameras and guitars) there's a big step-up in usability somewhere in the lower-mid price grade... below that step, the tools are basic, not well designed or made, and don't do much to make the job easier. Above that line, however, the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty hard pretty quick.

Guitars: $150 Rondo from Indonesia = awful action, incurably bad intonation, bridges often not installed in the right place from the factory. "Makes noise," little else. $500 Mexican Strat = 90% of the way to functional perfection, honestly. Everything between the $500 mexistrat and the $5,000 custom shop USA is the remaining 10%, and cosmetics, and resale value, and pixie dust.

Cameras: $150 Coolpix = Tiny sensor, slow glass, bad jpgs, little / no control even if you DID want to learn what you're doing and take some control. $800 M4/3 body and kit lens = 90% of the way FUNCTIONALLY, or something thereabouts. At that point, you have enough sensor to do just about anything, fast enough glass to get things in any reasonable light, and most importantly you can control all the important aspects of shooting manually... etc etc. Everything up to the $10,000 Leicas is that remaining small %, and ergonomics, more options that are incrementally less useful in the real world, and pixie dust. (Notice I didn't say "resale value.")
 
As for the bike analogy, I've never been in a hurry, so money spent getting lighter / faster is usually just not my bag. I chuckle at the guys who drop $3k on a featherweight thing, only to ride it around town over pot holes, dodging cabs. This country LOVES to romanticize.
 
It would be useful if every camera came with a simple instruction booklet or video to explain and demonstrate basic photographic concepts... things that would be necessary to understand even if the consumer never even planned to take the camera off "Auto" mode.

My Leica M-E manual goes into quite a bit of detail in explaining how to use the camera in an easy to understand way.
 
As for the bike analogy, I've never been in a hurry, so money spent getting lighter / faster is usually just not my bag. I chuckle at the guys who drop $3k on a featherweight thing, only to ride it around town over pot holes, dodging cabs. This country LOVES to romanticize.

Lose 5 pounds of body weight and you've saved a lot of money compared to what lighter titanium parts cost!
 
I don't think its a new phenomenon resulting from the evolution of high end compacts. I think it's more likely that people would buy DSLR's rather than high end compacts and shoot them on 'auto'.

I'm also not convinced that huge numbers of people are that frustrated by the end results. From personal experience over the years for every person frustrated that their $600-700 DSLR isn't giving them better pictures there are ten who are more than happy with the results and willing to show and post them.

The former are people who will benefit from learning more about photography and who will have the attitude and discipline to develop their abilities. The latter are satisfied and won't want to be bothered trying to work out how to move beyond 'auto'.
 
Back
Top