?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile ABMann.net Previous Previous Next Next
I'll interchange your lens. - Portrait of a Young Man as The Artist
abmann
abmann
I'll interchange your lens.

I assume a larger camera to be more capable.

Yes
7(38.9%)
No
11(61.1%)

I expect larger cameras to produce higher-quality photographs.

Yes
9(50.0%)
No
9(50.0%)

A serious photographer must have a DSLR.

True
5(29.4%)
False
12(70.6%)

assfingers DSLR'd your mom.

Yes
8(47.1%)
Wait, what?
9(52.9%)



In watching the trends for cameras, things on the smaller end are becoming ever more powerful. Powerful to the point that I'm considering swapping my Nikon d90 for a more compact camera with 4/3s interchangeable lenses. The immediate problem, though, is the image I try to project by having a DSLR and that is of the "serious" photographer.

I think there's some size bias, that real photographers only use DSLRs which is no longer true. The quality of equipment is drastically improving AND reducing in size especially know that the all-mighty megapixel is no longer king of the hill - that is, MPs only get you so far on a sensor. Realistically, you don't need much more that 12 or 16 as you can still create massive prints with great quality at those pixel points.

So, I'm just generally curious what you, a decidedly un-representative sample, think about cameras and a person's assumed ability.

Succinctly: Does size matter?

Or, I'll just find one of these:

Current Mood: good good
Current Music: NPR - NPR: 10-09-2010 Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!

7 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
tyskkvinna From: tyskkvinna Date: October 15th, 2010 01:58 pm (UTC) (Link)
I didn't get my camera because of the megapixel size. (Who REALLY needs 24MP? Not really.) But I did get it for the full-frame part of it. The way my camera behaves with lenses is just sexy. I may get some compact cameras in the future, but it's going to take a while to convince me to go back away from the full frame world.

That said - it would be nice to have something that was easier to carry. Oi.
abmann From: abmann Date: October 15th, 2010 02:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah. I would love to go from a 7 pound pack to 3 by switching to a smaller camera with the same power. The little 4/3s beasties are getting pretty impressive for daily use. I doubt I"d ever ditch my full rig for any formal shoots, though.

I lust after full frame sensors but the Nikon full-frame cameras are just too expensive. If I'm going to drop that much money on gear, I'm going to buy a Leica. And then never buy another camera again. Ever.
zesty_pinto From: zesty_pinto Date: October 15th, 2010 03:22 pm (UTC) (Link)
Size can matter... if poster is the size you want. It's certainly been emphasized with the medium format, which I'm sure I could make some nice wallpaper with if I can find a large format printer around here to begin with.

While I agree people tend to look at size, name is often more thrown around these days. If you read enough Craigslist ads, you start to learn that you're not a pro by most clients' standards unless there's a 5D Mark II or a D300s or higher involved.

The press photographer himself is probably what people think of, armed with a large flashgun festooned on a bracket and a 77mm or larger lens. Most people do get away with less. In fact, one of the more common scenes behind the red carpet involve people shooting away with a 1.4 lens and no flash. I can't do that since flash work has made me a bit snobbish about color tones and half of the time, what photos I do see people take look washed out from their fire-and-forget policy with photography (yes, I do notice these things).

In the meantime, I think that as artists, photography can take any form and involve any device, but there are certain standards expected for professionals who work outside of the studio and are working on a photojournalist basis.

I also admit that I need a full-frame too. These press events have a tendency to be poorly managed and have left me in situations where I am 3 to four feet away from the subject. 24mm will not cut it, and 16mm tends to distort the subject to something ridiculous.

Edited at 2010-10-15 03:23 pm (UTC)
dylsexia From: dylsexia Date: October 15th, 2010 04:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm biased, I think. I don't come from a photographic background. But I did learn about lenses, angle of view and depth of field in my layout class (composition/background for film and tv in animation).

So I know enough to know that I can get the same images regardless of the camera I use. The differences will be in the subtleties of DoF, sharpness and grain/noise. And while these may assist the overall image, they are not as important as good composition and nice light.

And with that also being said; I consider myself an artist rather than a photographer. So I don't care so much about what you use to get the end result so much as I like an end-result that I find appealing.
(Deleted comment)
thegelf From: thegelf Date: October 16th, 2010 01:39 am (UTC) (Link)
In my mind, a "real" photographer owns a camera with interchangeable lenses. Doesn't have to be a DSLR, it just needs to allow the photographer as much control over the photo as they want.
From: ex_hellocth126 Date: October 16th, 2010 01:53 am (UTC) (Link)
I went to DSLR for the shutter speed. As someone who abhors using the flash, I need something that will still shoot quick, and even the very nice compact digitals I've owned before weren't always up to the task.

Also, a big bulky camera at an event totally gets you cred and can help you get people to pose and cooperate and put up with you, even if you aren't an official photographer.
7 comments or Leave a comment