Fact or Fallacy or....

[Shadowman]

I thought this would be a good location to start a thread on common beliefs we've read about photography. If your subject matter is similar try to append to a thread already created.

[Shadowman]

Rather than suggest which one is better, I'll list which models I considered before purchasing my first DSLR.

Sony-had experience with their Mavica model so included it in search.
Canon-also had some experience, plus read about its capabilities, negative feelings with the white lenses.
Pentax-again had experience with this model, however only in point and shoot models.
Nikon-read about its capabilities, had some experience with point and shoot models.

There were a few other models available for thorough research, eliminated them based on lens availability.

[Shadowman]

Digital photography had a high entrance cost: camera, lenses, batteries, printing services or DIY over film which was pretty much already a big part of most of our experiences.


Quality of images: film beat digital for years until the megapixel wars started, noise interference became less of an issue, and battery life started to improve. Film images had grain but it was more acceptable by viewers; as opposed to the dislike of color noise in digital.

[RichardTaylor]

I feel the only high entry cost, for me at least was the DSLR (Canon 350D) entry level body. Lenses were always (M42 screw mount Takumar in my case) expensive, and forget standard zooms! Color transparencies were expensive, prohibitive if you were a hobbyst sports shooter. Colour print, both film and the actual prints, was reserved for very special ocassions.

I found digital (along with autofocus lenses etc) to be very liberating,

[chauncey]

With me it was entirely Thomas Kincaid's fault...how hard could it be if I used a camera. Right!
The Rebel had a good write-up in a mag, was off and running, then to the 5D>Ds2>Ds3, with my goal to remove potential gear errors and have one body that could do it all. Lenses...avoid 3rd party and always go with primes.

[Shadowman]

With me it was entirely Thomas Kincaid's fault...how hard could it be if I used a camera. Right!
The Rebel had a good write-up in a mag, was off and running, then to the 5D>Ds2>Ds3, with my goal to remove potential gear errors and have one body that could do it all. Lenses...avoid 3rd party and always go with primes.

Ten years ago, every book or magazine written about photography praised fixed lens quality over zooms. Within the last two years you rarely hear or read about quality issues with zooms unless it is referring to the light gathering capabilities; mainly some lenses have variable apertures.

[Shadowman]

I feel the only high entry cost, for me at least was the DSLR (Canon 350D) entry level body. Lenses were always (M42 screw mount Takumar in my case) expensive, and forget standard zooms! Color transparencies were expensive, prohibitive if you were a hobbyst sports shooter. Colour print, both film and the actual prints, was reserved for very special ocassions.

I found digital (along with autofocus lenses etc) to be very liberating,

With film photography it was a given that you would either get you images printed or converted to slides, with digital photography you at least needed a computer and back when I was deciding to go digital; computer and printer were a necessity to make the switch. Luckily, I already had both so part of the cost of entry was already absorbed.

[RichardTaylor]

Well if you consider the cost of having a dark room, which I never had, a computer is a good deal.
Now, with digital I have a "dark room".
And you are right some of all ready had computers, although the first ones (TRS-80 in 1978 for myself) were pretty basic compared to what I have now.

[chauncey]

TRS-80...amazing...I would have thought that I would have been the only one.

[RichardTaylor]

A few of my friends had them (or local variations). The only other choice was an Apple and they cost an arm and a leg!

[rpcrowe]

IMO, choosing a camera is like marrying a person with a large family. You had better like or at least be able to live with the family...

I am talking specifically about the lenses and other accessories that are an important part of the photographer's kit.

If you find that you just cannot live with the family; switching camera systems can be as (well almost as) expensive as some divorces...

As far as zooms vs. primes go... I shot with what I think was the first commonly available zoom lens for a 35mm still camera, the Nikon 43-86mm in the mid 1960's. I shot a couple of rolls of film with that lens and thought it was the greatest lens I ever used... Until, I saw my proofs. The results were so terrible, that I never shot with that lens again. However, at the very same time I was using a 12-120mm f/2.5 Angenieux zoom for my professional cinema work and that lens was superb...

I never again shot with a still camera zoom lens until I went digital with the Canon 10D. Now I use a pair of zooms: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 700-200mm f/4L IS for at least 90% of my photography. Although I also quite a few primes, I consider the primes more as specialty lenses (long telephoto and macro) and the two zooms as my bread and butter lenses. Even my "go-to" wide angle lens is a zoom: 12-24mm f/4 Tokina ATX...

[Shadowman]

IMO, choosing a camera is like marrying a person with a large family. You had better like or at least be able to live with the family...

I am talking specifically about the lenses and other accessories that are an important part of the photographer's kit.

If you find that you just cannot live with the family; switching camera systems can be as (well almost as) expensive as some divorces...

As far as zooms vs. primes go... I shot with what I think was the first commonly available zoom lens for a 35mm still camera, the Nikon 43-86mm in the mid 1960's. I shot a couple of rolls of film with that lens and thought it was the greatest lens I ever used... Until, I saw my proofs. The results were so terrible, that I never shot with that lens again. However, at the very same time I was using a 12-120mm f/2.5 Angenieux zoom for my professional cinema work and that lens was superb...

I never again shot with a still camera zoom lens until I went digital with the Canon 10D. Now I use a pair of zooms: 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 700-200mm f/4L IS for at least 90% of my photography. Although I also quite a few primes, I consider the primes more as specialty lenses (long telephoto and macro) and the two zooms as my bread and butter lenses. Even my "go-to" wide angle lens is a zoom: 12-24mm f/4 Tokina ATX...

Richard,

Interesting narrative, did you do any low light photography during your film days?

[Shadowman]

Which is best, RGB, CMYK or even LAB. Depends on who you ask and how they use it. Tom Ang, professional photographer, states "The most intuitive color mode to work in is RGB. It is easy to understand that any color is a mixture of different amounts of red, green, or blue, and that areas of an image where full amounts of all three colors are present give you white. The other modes, such as LAB and CMYK have their uses, but it is best to avoid using them unless you have a specific effect in mind you want to achieve." Digital Photographer's Handbook.

Whereas photographer Lee Varis works exclusively in CMYK mode, mostly for retouching skintones. I would also think that your choice of color mode depends on the editing software package you are using, for instance Photoshop Elements utilizes RGB, whereas LR and others allow the use of CMYK.

[chauncey]

John, that's kinda like saying "if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it" or "the best camera is the one in your hand when ya need it".

[Shadowman]

John, that's kinda like saying "if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it" or "the best camera is the one in your hand when ya need it".

William,

These type of questions are asked in forums or presented in texts, so might as well put them all in one basket and see what overflows.

[yogirajj]

Well, here are some of my personal suggestions as a hobbyist/enthusiast:

1. It is not necessary to attend an university to learn photography, before you can consider yourself a "photographer/hobbyist".

2. Not every single image needs to be blessed with HDR.

3. It's not about the "best camera", it's about what suits your need at a particular moment in time.

4. There is a fine line between giving real technical advice, and disguising your personal preference as technical facts.

5. Photography is about taking a photo through the photographer's mind's eye, NOT the critic.

Can't think of anything else right now. I'm sure there's a ton out there.

[Shadowman]

Yogi,

Thanks for contributing.

[yogirajj]

Yogi,

Thanks for contributing.

Thank you!

[dabhand]

The paradox of photography (1) - photographers have always seen unprecedented developments in equipment and technology yet the perception of image quality has always been rooted in their past.

The paradox of photography (2) - greater freedom to travel and the rapid changes in technology offer endless opportunities to try new techniques, constantly trying new techniques means means few, if any, are actually mastered.

The paradox of photography (3) - the more available to the general public photography becomes, the tighter the definition of what makes a 'good' photographer becomes.

steve

[chauncey]

That rapid improvement in technology has made it easier for moms and pops to take quite decent vacation pictures...has eased their reliance on the left brain (the technical aspects of photography).
However, it has done nothing at all to improve the right brain, if it exists in some folks, and it's ability to see/take a great picture.
We have not yet reached the point that the camera will deny the clown's right (the one behind the viewer) to take a bad/ugly picture.