Can Never Go Back to DSLR

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a poignant thread because it posits images which are more easily accomplished through technology vs images that need no such technology.

 

It is like Sports Illustrated images as Decisive Moments vs every in real life as the same.

[AlanG]

Along those lines, as photography has evolved, so have all of the technical standards. The technical and creative bar keeps being raised in many ways. And I don't mean just getting sharp well exposed images with good color... that's a given for anyone serious beyond novice level. But good lighting, good action, good expression, and composition are also "givens" now.

 

Now that so many things have been done over and over, coming up with something truly creative is very difficult.

[pico]

Along those lines, as photography has evolved, so have all of the technical standards. The technical and creative bar keeps being raised in many ways. And I don't mean just getting sharp well exposed images with good color... that's a given for anyone serious beyond novice level. But good lighting, good action, good expression, and composition are also "givens" now.

 

Now that so many things have been done over and over, coming up with something truly creative is very difficult.

 

You are entirely correct in a special way. Today compared to our yesterday when simply making a difficult picture differentiated the 'pro' from the rest of picture makers established our reputation.

 

At this point in history we might look to elemental, straightforward content which cannot be technically dismissed because the outcome can be the same, digital or not. Looking from the history of photography, technology has never trumped message. The digital enhancements the photographer today chooses not to employ is important.

 

Peace

[wildlightphoto]

I want to look at a photos that stimulates my imagination in some way that is to do with the subject of the photograph. I don't want to think about how skilful the photographer must have been, or how fine his equipment was. I want to think about what's going on in the photo, whether it's a bird in flight or a soldier in action or whatever. So in this regard, whether the photographer was a master of every single step in the process of creating the photo, or on the other hand relied heavily on automation, these would be irrelevant to me.

 

I might later want to know how the photo was made, but that ought to be a very secondary concern shouldn't it? Otherwise, aren't we becoming too inward-looking, and forgetting what the essence of photography is; the stuff that's on the other side of the lens from us.

 

Agreed completely! My problem (and I don't expect this to be universal) is that bird-in-flight to use a familiar example has become so common an image that it no longer stimulates my imagination. It was awesome the first time, very cool the second through 10th times, interesting up to about the 50th time and quite repetitive after that. One clue that a type of image has become common is that it has a widely used acronym, i.e., BIF (for Bird In Flight) is used frequently on nature photography web forums.

 

I also have problems with the technique frequently used and demonstrated to me once for photographing duck-in-flight. Two photographers work as a team at either end of a long channel of water and take turns repeatedly flushing the birds toward the other photographer. If that's what it takes to get BIF photos I'm perfectly content with static portraits.

 

I know where you live, and those Turkeys are tame, and protected. Regardless, when I live on a huge agricultural land Turkeys were easy game for lenses or firearms. We shot none of them with either method because it was a cheap shot.

 

I would never compare you tame experience with others.

 

A huge number of popular and widely-published wildlife photos are images of tame or semi-tame animals.

[pop]

... Looking from the history of photography, technology has never trumped message.

In some modest ways, technology perhaps has trumped message in a few cases.

Photography made it possible to depict a scene without any "human intervention". Looking at such a picture, knowing that it had been produced in such a novel way surely must have influenced the way people were receiving it. However, this necessitated knowing that the picture was a photograph and not a painting.

Muybridge introduced a novel way of looking at things in motion which most certainly must have shaped the way people were looking at movement and even at each other.

In a way, technology is the message in those cases, or rather, the scope of things that can be expressed using the novel technology.

The list goes on, but not for a very large number of developments, I think.

[pop]

... What I'm trying to say is that we often regard the craft more highly than the subject, which means that in photography, something that is difficult to achieve attains a higher place in our estimation than its subject may merit. ...

I would like to suggest replacing "photography" in that statement by "music" or "ballet".

In this case I would immediately agree that I value something which is difficult to achieve higher than something which is less difficult. By that, I certainly don't think of "mere" technical virtuosity only but of the simplicity of expression many great soloists have mastered, many of them quite elderly.

[hamey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Like this?

 

What was the approach speed.

 

As yet, I haven't seen any wildlife shots that has been any better then shot using AF and IS.

On occassions our local newspaper post some amazing wildlife shots all taken with the Canon's or Nikons.

They are simply stunning.

 

Ken.

[pico]

In some modest ways, technology perhaps has trumped message in a few cases.

 

Photography made it possible to depict a scene without any "human intervention".

 

In a way, technology is the message in those cases, or rather, the scope of things that can be expressed using the novel technology.

 

 

So be it, but in such cases has not the human forsaken his view and made what technology alone, or with little assistance, has made?

 

Frankly, your post is disturbing to me. So depressing, but that is my problem. Every day I find reasons that photography as it is today is uninteresting to me.

.

[KM-25]

I don't think we disagree here, except that for my kind of shooting I don't want to carry all the various system options around so I've settled on the M. With the image quality of the M240, I actually no longer see much, if any, advantage to maintaining a medium format system. And if I come across a scene that looks like it would make a good panorama, I'll shoot three or four frames and stitch them rather than carry an XPan. My XPan was actually the first camera to go after purchasing my first M8 and learning how to stitch photos.

 

From time to time I'll come across something that the M may not be the best tool for, but for me those times are too infrequent to justify keeping a dSLR around. Going back to the original question posed, I'm quite certain I'm done with dSLR shooting.

 

Well one big difference in preferred methods is that I work more than ever using black and white film and print in the darkroom. And it is not like I carry all kinds of different gear at once, I started this morning with my usual of contributing to a 20 year book project with my Mamiya 6 and then finished the afternoon on the slopes with a D750 and several fast primes for a New York Times assignment. The Xpan is my least used camera, I have considered selling it since getting a few 6x12 backs for my 4x5, especially since I am wanting to get an M6 / 35 lux.

[peterjcb]

Every format has it's pro's and con's. I switch between my Pentax DSLR's, my Leica M8 & M6 TTL and my old NIkon F2 film.

 

I like the variety. Actually my Pentax gear isn't really all that much bigger than my Leica gear. For times that I need auto-focus/auto exposure I take the Pentax. It's very difficult to get these shot's with a Leica rangefinder. When I'm feeling more creative and can take my shots more leisurely I'll bring the Leica.

 

On the other hand, I've seen and held some FF Nikon and Canon DSLR's and there's no way I'm carrying gear like that around...

I'm actually looking forward to the new Pentax FF at the end of this year. I've got a ton of Pentax primes that are waiting to be paired with it.

 

One last note...I've owned a lot of lenses in my time and there's nothing that compares to Leica glass. There's just something magical it. The quality of the images IMO are peerless to anything else I've used.

[wildlightphoto]

What was the approach speed.

 

Oh please! Is your mind set on discrediting my photos? You challenge me to show photos where the animal is approaching the camera, I show a few, then this question? The weasel was running, the gull's flight was leisurely, the falcon perhaps 35 miles/hr. Happy?

 

As yet, I haven't seen any wildlife shots that has been any better then shot using AF and IS.

On occassions our local newspaper post some amazing wildlife shots all taken with the Canon's or Nikons.

They are simply stunning.

 

I can't satisfy you if the photos you value aren't the ones I prefer to make. Lots of personal preference involved here.

 

These exemplify the kind of photos I like to make. If you don't think they rate as well as the ones you see in your newspaper, to each his own

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Mornnb]

That second shot, a humming bird (maybe, I'm no bird expert) captured in flight?

It seems to me to be an almost super-human skill to capture fast moving birds with manual focus and wide aperture lenses, how did you manage it?

[wildlightphoto]

That second shot, a humming bird (maybe, I'm no bird expert) captured in flight?

It seems to me to be an almost super-human skill to capture fast moving birds with manual focus and wide aperture lenses, how did you manage it?

 

It was near a feeder. This species often backs away from the feeder momentarily while getting a sip of nectar. Follow around viewfinder, tweak focus for sharp eye, push button. Takes about 1/2 second.

[hamey]

Oh please! Is your mind set on discrediting my photos? You challenge me to show photos where the animal is approaching the camera, I show a few, then this question? The weasel was running, the gull's flight was leisurely, the falcon perhaps 35 miles/hr. Happy?

 

 

 

I can't satisfy you if the photos you value aren't the ones I prefer to make. Lots of personal preference involved here.

 

These exemplify the kind of photos I like to make. If you don't think they rate as well as the ones you see in your newspaper, to each his own

 

No, I am certainly not discrediting your work, matter of fact you have some wonderful shots, my point is

that the modern cameras with AF and IS are that good that I feel they are superior to Manual focus system.

I enjoy photographing high speed trains, something you don't have in the US, they average around 300kmh

In my last trip to Japan, focusing with the M240 wasn't easy and most shots were out of focus where the

Fuji X-T1 was spot on, my Canon AF and IS system is very good as well.

With my Leica R, I can probably can get one shot at these trains doing 300 kmh but with the AF and IS it's so much easier as they thunder pass you at only a few metres away.

 

Two shots of the finest rail network in the world, what ever these Japanese people under take they become masters of it.

 

First shot taken with the Fuji X-T1 full AF.

Second shot taken with the M240, one of the few that were in focus.

 

We often read about the failure of the Leica R system and the reason Leica discontinued it because

I simply couldn't compete again'st Canon and Nikon after all they have AF and IS and the Leica R didn't.

Thats the most excuse given on this site, well at least the Leica S system has AF.

 

I still use my Manual R lenses because I have no choice, I still love slide film so I put up with it.

But for my Electronic photography I love using the AF and IS.

 

So Doug I opologise if I offended you, I have always admired your work.

 

Ken.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Peter Kilmister]

I love the photos by Wildlightphoto. It also made me chuckle to see the picture of a hare with Douglas Herr above it. Is that the hare's name?

[wildlightphoto]

I love the photos by Wildlightphoto. It also made me chuckle to see the picture of a hare with Douglas Herr above it. Is that the hare's name?

 

It is now

[DLS]

This thread has gone off is such interesting directions that as the OP I feel compelled to jump back in. I posted initially because I was startled by the sheer physical presence of the Nikon and Canon FF cameras, and even the step-down models (Nikon 7200, Canon 7D). I’d added the 280mm f/4 to my lens kit after a considerable amount of research (and in part because of Doug Herr’s work with and comments about it), and being able to use it effectively has required a fair amount of time. I should have expected no less. I am only interested in the hardware as a means to an end and when several friends suggested I look at the latest generation of dSLRs, I was surprised at my own, rather visceral reaction to picking up these cameras, thinking, “How could this ever get out of the way?”

 

I’ve known many people who have the latest cameras and manage to produce good photographs from time to time. I’ve known far fewer who have mastered technique and their equipment so well that they can consistently do so. And I’ve known one or two people who have produced photographs that move me. My reaction to the photos managing that feat has never been based on the technique; it’s always about the subject. But I’ve not been so fortunate as to know someone who can pull off that trick at will.

 

Whether we’ve seen one photograph or a million, the fact remains that technical competence on the part of the photographer is not in itself rewarding for the viewer. Yes, technique can be cool, but the power to astonish or even change someone’s thinking through a photograph remains a rare and precious event. I’m convinced that no matter how many automated (or manual) cameras you put in people’s hands, the absolute number of such images will not increase. I’m not one who believes if you have an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of keyboards you will eventually get Hamlet. And while I suffer no illusions of the stature of my art, I love the tool of photography as a medium; but damn, it’s hard work.

[bocaburger]

The issue is that as cameras have become higher res, we pixel peep at 100% and our standards have gotten higher. This pushes all focusing methods to their limits. I adjust focus very critically even when using a 17mm lens at f8 viewing tethered at 100%.

 

I used to project my slides on a 5 foot diagonal screen. Now I display them on a 5 foot diagonal TV. Then and now I have the occasional print made to a max of 16x20 inches. My standards for focusing have not changed, and neither has my eyesight to any great extent. If my pics pass muster for their end-use, that's all I need. I've never got caught up in pixel peeping just because it's there and available. I'm all for raising my standards, but only if it makes a difference in the end.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

What was the approach speed.

 

As yet, I haven't seen any wildlife shots that has been any better then shot using AF and IS.

On occassions our local newspaper post some amazing wildlife shots all taken with the Canon's or Nikons.

They are simply stunning.

 

Ken.

 

It would seem to me from your comments that you enjoy photography for the results you get. Equipment is probably secondary in consideration to "getting the shot".

 

For others, including myself, the process is more important than the result. I can go out shooting for a day and enjoy just being out shooting. I don't judge the success of the day by how many keepers I got. For someone like myself the "brush" is as important to me as the painting and my brush of choice is a Leica. Sometimes I'll take a different camera but mostly I'd prefer to push my gear and myself out of our comfort zones simply because it's fun. And if it's too easy it's not as much fun.

 

Even though I have been a working photographer for much of the last two decades, I still shoot because I love the process of photography. It's fun. And it's more fun (for me) with a rangefinder than a DSLR or a mirrorless. Yes, I need to get results for my clients and I use the appropriate camera to get the results I need but for my personal work I prefer to have a rangefinder in my hand over anything else. And like Brent, I've also managed to integrate the M system into my work after initially purchasing it for purely personal use. And I can't deny it has changed my professional work as well.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

I appreciate your interest in trains, but where is the sense of speed in these shots? They could have been taken with the trains standing in the station. (except for a spot of motion blur in the trains themselves)

Panning could provide a solution.

I notice a very deep DOF as well, making focusing less relevant than shutter lag. Prefocusing would work perfectly.

No, I am certainly not discrediting your work, matter of fact you have some wonderful shots, my point is

that the modern cameras with AF and IS are that good that I feel they are superior to Manual focus system.

I enjoy photographing high speed trains, something you don't have in the US, they average around 300kmh

In my last trip to Japan, focusing with the M240 wasn't easy and most shots were out of focus where the

Fuji X-T1 was spot on, my Canon AF and IS system is very good as well.

With my Leica R, I can probably can get one shot at these trains doing 300 kmh but with the AF and IS it's so much easier as they thunder pass you at only a few metres away.

 

Two shots of the finest rail network in the world, what ever these Japanese people under take they become masters of it.

 

First shot taken with the Fuji X-T1 full AF.

Second shot taken with the M240, one of the few that were in focus.

 

We often read about the failure of the Leica R system and the reason Leica discontinued it because

I simply couldn't compete again'st Canon and Nikon after all they have AF and IS and the Leica R didn't.

Thats the most excuse given on this site, well at least the Leica S system has AF.

 

I still use my Manual R lenses because I have no choice, I still love slide film so I put up with it.

But for my Electronic photography I love using the AF and IS.

 

So Doug I opologise if I offended you, I have always admired your work.

 

Ken.