Downgrading vs. Upgrading

[xpatUSA]

I came across this today:

https://petapixel.com/2017/07/03/swa...one-available/



(Image courtesy of PetaPixel.)

It touched a nerve because I have recently "gone retro" and am currently shooting with an pre-Merrill/Quattro Sigma DSLR. Easy enough for me, because I am not a "Pro" and I only view my stuff on a 1920x1200px monitor.

Noticeable in the linked article is that the too-many photos in it have no links to full-size versions, the widest being 1000px on my screen making it hard to assess in terms of image quality.

Also noticeable is that nowhere does it say that the author actually sold his 5D Mk III, whereas I myself sold my Sigma SD1 Merrill right after the decision was made (head-wobble).

Thoughts?

[Mike Buckley]

Noticeable in the linked article is that the too-many photos in it have no links to full-size versions, the widest being 1000px on my screen making it hard to assess in terms of image quality.

I wonder if you missed one of the author's major points, which is his recommendation "to stop pixel peeping." Whether or not we disagree with him about that, his decision to provide only relatively small images is consistent with the message he is delivering about pixel peeping.

Also noticeable is that nowhere does it say that the author actually sold his 5D Mk III

Whether or not he sold that equipment is irrelevant to the primary thrust of his piece, which is "to get past the idea that the camera is the most important thing in photography and start viewing yourself and your skills and knowledge as the key element."

[DanK]

Articles like this are common.

This one makes the usual points. Yes, the sensors in inexpensive DSLRs today can produce superb images. After all, they are better than the sensors that were in expensive cameras not that long ago. And yes, under good conditions, kit lenses can produce great images. And of course, the 12 inches behind the viewfinder is more important than all the rest. And it is worth reminding people of this if they think better equipment necessarily produces better images.

But...Things are not always optimal. Under many conditions, better equipment WILL produce better images or--just as important to me--more keepers. It would be more helpful, I think, to delineate those carefully, rather than simply dismissing them, as the author does.

And displaying images at 800 x 533 pixels doesn't support his argument. Downsizing to that resolution will hide all manner of sins and is only the relevant comparison for people who don't want to display larger.

[Mike Buckley]

Under many conditions, better equipment WILL produce better images or--just as important to me--more keepers. It would be more helpful, I think, to delineate those carefully, rather than simply dismissing them, as the author does.

He didn't dismiss them. Instead, he kept the content of the text brief by focusing on the reasons he switched at least temporarily to non-pro equipment. Rather than go into great detail about the situations when a more capable camera system can be especially helpful, he acknowledged that "Yes, the tool will make a difference (e.g. a more expensive camera with higher ISO and a more expensive lens with a larger aperture) in some situations, but that’s a technical limitation that might be only needed from time to time." As one whose most advanced camera was discontinued about six years ago, I completely agree with both the facts and emphasis of his statement.

[xpatUSA]

I wonder if you missed one of the author's major points, which is his recommendation "to stop pixel peeping." Whether or not we disagree with him about that, his decision to provide only relatively small images is consistent with the message he is delivering about pixel peeping.

I didn't miss it. I ignored it because the command "Stop pixel peeping and start learning what makes a good photograph!" does not apply to one who shoots at 2268x1512px and who then views on a 1920x1200px monitor.

Whether or not he sold that equipment is irrelevant to the primary thrust of his piece, which is "to get past the idea that the camera is the most important thing in photography and start viewing yourself and your skills and knowledge as the key element."

Fair comment.

[Mike Buckley]

the command "Stop pixel peeping and start learning what makes a good photograph!" does not apply to one who shoots at 2268x1512px and who then views on a 1920x1200px monitor.

Insofar as the thrust of his article is concerned, I completely disagree.

[rpcrowe]

I would not NEED to "downgrade" for the author's reasons. I KNOW that the photographer is the most important factor in a photograph EXCEPT... Except when you are pushing the limits and stretching the envelope. Perhaps the author just wanted to prove to himself that top line equipment is not the only criteria for producing good images.

In that case, why choose portraiture I have produced good portraiture of dogs and people as far back as my Canon 10D wth 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens and would have no problems using that combination for future portraits. However, since I have nothing to prove and don't want to write an article with an "EXPO" type title, I will shoot with whatever gear I want to shoot. For portraiture, that combination is often the 70-200mm f/4L IS on a Canon 5D2.

As far as equipment goes... He should try shooting indoor sports like basketball and gymnastics in high school gyms with his new combination, he might have a hard time getting 50% keepers, and 50% is not a good enough ratio for me. Of course, not everyone wants to shoot that type of image but, there are other venues equally as difficult.

There are times that you need professional" gear to give "professional" results in difficult venues.

Being careful with shooting... This is the same lame excuse that people give for shooting film, "When I have only 12, 24, or 36 shots, I have to be very careful in my shooting." Hogwash and hogwash again, you can be as careful in your shooting with digital's almost unlimited exposures as you would be shooting 4x5 film.

It all results from whether you are INTERNALLY MOTIVATED or EXTERNALLY MOTIVATED. Internal motivation allows you to follow a course no matter what your equipment might be. If you need "special equipment" in order to be careful in your shooting, you have surrendered control to external forces...

[Mike Buckley]

It all results from whether you are INTERNALLY MOTIVATED or EXTERNALLY MOTIVATED. Internal motivation allows you to follow a course no matter what your equipment might be.

My hunch is that he was mostly externally motivated by the desire to produce an article accompanied by photos that serves primarily as a marketing piece that he hopes leads people to his photography services, courses and workshops. Not a single thing wrong with that.

[Ken MT]

"Photography is not about the camera. Having a more expensive camera does not make you a better photographer. To take the best images, you need the skills and knowledge of light, composition, and knowing what to capture and when. Yes, the tool will make a difference (e.g. a more expensive camera with higher ISO and a more expensive lens with a larger aperture) in some situations, but that’s a technical limitation that might be only needed from time to time."

I couldn't agree more

[JBW]

"Photography is not about the camera. Having a more expensive camera does not make you a better photographer. To take the best images, you need the skills and knowledge of light, composition, and knowing what to capture and when. Yes, the tool will make a difference (e.g. a more expensive camera with higher ISO and a more expensive lens with a larger aperture) in some situations, but that’s a technical limitation that might be only needed from time to time."

I couldn't agree more

Actually photography is all about the camera. Try taking a shot with a paint brush or an oar. Without cameras there is no photography.

How well the equipment is used depends upon the person. But the most talented and skillful person can only do so much with whatever equipment they use. Once those limits are reached you just might want to upgrade.

[xpatUSA]

Actually photography is all about the camera. Try taking a shot with a paint brush or an oar. Without cameras there is no photography.

How well the equipment is used depends upon the person. But the most talented and skillful person can only do so much with whatever equipment they use. Once those limits are reached you just might want to upgrade.

In my case, I upgraded past the limits of my personal viewing conditions. At the time, that was a 23" 1920x1080px monitor (86 dpi). My camera is 2268x1512px.

The upgrade was to a 4704x3136px camera. That meant:

Huge files 50MB v 8MB.
"Bigger" memory cards.
A cranky, slower proprietary raw converter (I was on Windows XP).
Inevitable re-sizing for just about every shot.

A month or two ago, I realized that the upgrade was beyond my viewing conditions, so I sold it.

Having said all that, in my shooting area, I can always move around to capture a well-framed shot. On the other hand, had it been my habit to shoot the moon with my 70-300mm, I might have kept the higher-resolution camera. As it is, I bought a 2X converter instead. Haven't tried it yet; I do expect some disappointment though . . .

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA
. . . the command "Stop pixel peeping and start learning what makes a good photograph!" does not apply to one who shoots at 2268x1512px and who then views [at 100%] on a 1920x1200px monitor.

Insofar as the thrust of his article is concerned, I completely disagree.

Of course you do. But "Insofar as the thrust of his article is concerned" are weasel-words, providing a straw man to disprove my statement. The straw man in this case being "the thrust of his article" whereas I was only talking about "pixel-peeping".

I understand "pixel-peeping" to mean the viewing an image at 100% zoom on one's screen. Some might be tempted to include 'more than 100%' but that brings in obfuscation due to re-sampling algorithms.

So, if I had an hypothetical camera that shoots 1920x1200px images, should I now stop "pixel-peeping" and what should I do instead?

[Mike Buckley]

But "Insofar as the thrust of his article is concerned" are weasel-words, providing a straw man to disprove my statement. The straw man being "the thrust of his article".

You're usually not so rude and I look forward to a return to your normal style of posting. The fact that I disagreed with you doesn't give you any civil reason to say that I am using weasel-words or that I am using a straw man. Moreover, I wasn't attempting to disprove your statement; I was only disagreeing with it in the context of the article being discussed.

[xpatUSA]

You're usually not so rude and I look forward to a return to your normal style of posting. The fact that I disagreed with you doesn't give you any civil reason to say that I am using weasel-words or that I am using a straw man. Moreover, I wasn't attempting to disprove your statement; I was only disagreeing with it in the context of the article being discussed.

Sorry to have offended. I retract "weasel words" which is indeed a pejorative phrase.

However, straw man arguments are common enough in the Fora, often unintentionally so. Therefore, I do not consider the straw man mention to be rude per se, no more rude than pointing out any other type of error in a post.

So, recanting a bit: Your phrase "Insofar as the thrust of his article is concerned" provided a straw man to disagree with my particular statement. The straw man being "the thrust of his article" because my statement was only about pixel-peeping.

Did you have an answer for my admittedly rhetorical question: "So, if I had an hypothetical camera that shoots 1920x1200px images, should I now stop "pixel-peeping" and what should I do instead?" ?

No matter, we've probably said enough for now. I'll leave the coveted Last Word to you.

[Mike Buckley]

The straw man being "the thrust of his article" because my statement was only about pixel-peeping.

There was no way to know that your statement was only about pixel peeping beyond the context of the article, especially considering that you didn't explain that, that it was you who presented the article here for us to consider, and that your response to the author's thinking about pixel peeping was also a direct response to the author's concluding statements. You should be ashamed for thinking that I can read your mind and that when I don't do so accurately, that you then level the accusation twice that I have used a straw man, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

Very, very rude of you.

[rpcrowe]

Actually photography is all about the camera. Try taking a shot with a paint brush or an oar. Without cameras there is no photography.

How well the equipment is used depends upon the person. But the most talented and skillful person can only do so much with whatever equipment they use. Once those limits are reached you just might want to upgrade.

Brian... You are the voice of experience on this subject. Your macro photography has increased in quality many-fold since you acquired your 90mm Tamron Macro,