GAS and the Advice People get.

[Tronhard]

SO often, when I see posts from people asking for advice on what kind of camera they should get, advisors recommend something based on their preferences - based on their economics, type of things they capture (e.g. macro to landscape). While obviously well meant, to me, this is not serving the needs of those seeking advice without clarifying their needs and constraints, and in responding to such a question there should be almost a standard list of questions that the inquirer must answer so they get a decent solution for their needs:

1. What is the budget? Some of us are more affluent than others and that can have a big impact on what kinds of gear can even be considered. For many people who do not have an open cheque book (or its equivalent in the e-commerce era), that is a major limiting factor and other questions need to be addressed in that context.

2. What is the intended commitment? In this one we are trying get a context of the level of seriousness or commitment of the photographer - and this can link back to the cost/benefit consideration. Is the intent casual - e.g. the social context is more important than the artistic or technical quality of the images- e.g. photos of the kids or friends? Is the user intending to take up photography as a serious hobby or even has aspirations of going pro at some stage? The kinds of answers one gets give another context to the market space within which the user will purchase equipment. If the intended commitment is a long-term and more serious one, then the camera as a system needs to be considered. As most will agree, buying a bunch of bodies and lenses represents a decent commitment, and changing that system is not to be taken lightly. Bodies change quickly but lenses much less so, so for me linking the lens types to intended subjects is important.

3. What kinds of captures or subjects are intended? Obviously many people starting off may say general purpose, but it's not unreasonable to check that they don't have intentions towards a specialist space, particularly if they are not newbies. The gear that will work for macros will obviously not suit shooting birds or macro predators. Even knowing that the need is for a general purpose carry about lens, added to the other elements will help narrow down our recommendations.

4. What kind of output one wants, or to put is another way, what is the end product? One of the things I rarely see, and to me one of the most important, yet the end product is what we are all striving for. There is a massive difference in necessary camera investment between creating large, high-definition prints and posting on social media.

Producing images to be seen on screen is becoming more and more common in the general photographic community as a whole. Certainly my experience with people in clubs in NZ and Canada has been that the number of images offered in print competition has fallen consistently, while those for digital evaluation have increased - and that is just in the enthusiast community. Looking at the mass of people who capture an image: many are just using a cell phone or a camera (just look at the sales figures for cameras) and posting on line in some kind of social media - which often degrades images and for which the subtleties of technology are far less critical. Even for those with a decent camera, for those producing digital output the megapixel count is probably far less relevant as they will do just fine with much smaller file sizes, while of course that is not what the camera makers would have us do.

Recently I enrolled in photographic course and was talking to a couple of people who were convinced that their 2-3 year old DSLR cameras would not hold up to the quality required. That, despite the fact that the requirements clearly called for a camera that could work with manual, and other semi-automatic features and for all images to be delivered on line and with a maximum dimension of 1500 pixels. In true GAS tradition they were prepared to invest in new cameras, in come cased going into debt, in the belief that the new gear would make them better photographers. I might add that this was not encouraged by the faculty but by third parties: what the course intended was to develop decent camera and PP skills.

5. What are your prepared to Carry? A fantastic camera is pretty useless if it stays at home because it it too bulky or heavy to carry. Certainly as circumstances change - we age, or have injuries, our needs will change too and we may seek smaller, lighter gear that we can manage.

6. What about the ergonomics and interface? The performance specs of gear tell us many things, but not how it will feel to actually manipulate the camera's controls or use its menus - which can be a very personal thing. I have met people who have purchased gear on line, based on the technical capabilities they have read, then been completely thrown by the operation of their purchase.

Personally I still use cameras that go back 15 years, and for my purposes get images that I am quite comfortable with. I look at the printed images the people like Manfred and Donald produce with huge respect and admiration, but that will not be my purpose. We each have our own aspirations and restrictions, and any advice we offer has to be directed accordingly.

[Manfred M]

Trev - I have to agree with most of what you have written. Gear that sits on a shelf and doesn't get used is just a waste of money.

When it comes to my FF gear, the only equipment that does not get regular use are the specialty lenses like the 80-400mm and 150-500mm. These only get pulled out when we head out to shoot wildlife, so that tends to happen less often than I would like.

With respect to people wanting to get a new camera, the first question I will ask them is what about their existing gear is preventing them from getting the images that they want. If they can't answer the question, then I suggest they should stick with what they have until they run into a situation where the equipment, rather than their skills are the limiting factor.

If they have a hit a wall, the question I will ask is if spending the money is worth it for the gain that the new gear will give them. If the answer is yes, then perhaps they should upgrade. If the answer is no, then there are probably better things to do with their money..

[royent]

I was recently asked if I would go with a lady friend to buy a new camera ( point and shoot ) I asked her why she wanted a new camera and she told me that the camera she had, had come up with a message that the card was full

[Acorn]

Trev - I have to agree with most of what you have written. Gear that sits on a shelf and doesn't get used is just a waste of money.

When it comes to my FF gear, the only equipment that does not get regular use are the specialty lenses like the 80-400mm and 150-500mm. These only get pulled out when we head out to shoot wildlife, so that tends to happen less often than I would like.

With respect to people wanting to get a new camera, the first question I will ask them is what about their existing gear is preventing them from getting the images that they want. If they can't answer the question, then I suggest they should stick with what they have until they run into a situation where the equipment, rather than their skills are the limiting factor.

If they have a hit a wall, the question I will ask is if spending the money is worth it for the gain that the new gear will give them. If the answer is yes, then perhaps they should upgrade. If the answer is no, then there are probably better things to do with their money..

An interesting topic and I have to agree with Trevor and Manfred. My D7000 is now seven years old and only has roughly 6000 shutter actuations and works perfectly well as though it’s just emerged from the box. Nikon no longer makes them. I confess I’ve toyed with the idea of replacing it for more megapixels or even going full-frame. But my Yorkshire common sense soon comes to the fore: Am I dissatisfied with its output given that I use good lenses and do I require stratospheric ISO ratings or machine-gun-like shutter performance? The answer is NO!
Having worked with marketing professionals and seen how they have tried to make sows ear purses seem as though they were made of the finest silk, some of us may fall for the deception.

[Tronhard]

I agree with Manfred's comments.

To me the issue is the difference between features and benefits.

My definition of a FEATURE is some characteristic of a device or service that has no intrinsic value unless it is of use to the user.

A benefit is something that either improves performance or removes a constraint to performance - as such it represents specific value to the user. A feature becomes a benefit only if it can establish that link to the user's needs.

I see lots of products that offer many features that have no value to me for example lots of cameras have the FEATURE of shooting in 4k video. That's nice, but since I shoot only stills it is of no BENEFIT to me.

On a Canon website I just responded to a question about upgrading. A young person wants to upgrade from a Canon 100D to a 6DMkII or something with at least a 24MP sensor. To me the flaw in their request was obvious: they were listing a product and then a feature without any context as to how they would benefit them in their style of photography. Like Manfred my immediate response was to ask them to explain PRECISELY how their current equipment limited them in taking the image they want and how the equipment they listed would improve that.

[rpcrowe]

Great advice from all

To borrow a phrase from the hunting community, many photographers are over gunned. That is, the equipment that they are using far exceeds their needs. A point in fact is that many photographers who are shooting with APSC sensor cameras are pining for full frame gear with the thought that the full frame camera will magically elevate their image quality It's funny though, it seems that it is mostly APSC users who want full frame. I seldom hear micro 4/3 users complain that full frame is needed.

Many photographers use APSC entry level cameras with kit lenses and are perfectly happy with their gear.

However, there are often limitations to the use of many kit lenses. When I mention a kit lens, I am referring to the normal 16-18mm to 50-55mm lenses with a variable f/stop of f/3.5-5.6 (or there about)... It is often too slow to effectively capture things like your kid's indoor gymnastic competitions and often too short to effectively capture your kid's outdoor soccer.

One thing that I would recommend any DSLR or Mirrorless user to add to their gear is a hotshoe flash that is appropriate for their camera. The hotshoe flash can be used in many ways and with a reflector diffuser like the Joe Demb Flash Diffuser Pro can increase the utility of any camera.

I could recommend a specific first flash unit for people on a very low budget and who are shooting with Canon DSLR gear. These folks can often benefit from a flash that will produce better results than the onboard flash of their camera. A used Canon 420EX runs between $40 and $50 U.S. Dollars on eBay. It is the smallest, full size hotshoe flash that Canon ever marketed. It cannot do manual but, the TTL of this little unit on a Canon DSLR can give great results. It has HSS and slave (but, not master) capability...

[xpatUSA]

While agreeing with the conventional view against G.A.S., I can report an instance where a touch of G.A.S. has improved my photography in the form of better manual focusing. I have a mirror-less compact camera that has focus-by-wire with magnification. It has no EVF and the LCD is a mere 230,000 dots, 2.5". Following an illness last year, my eyesight deteriorated quite a bit and the magnified manual focus became less easy - especially with the focus adjuster being a small wheel on the back of the camera body.

And so it was that I upgraded to the next model, even though I did not need the extra MP. What a delight that LCD was - 920,000 dots, 3", three levels of magnification and the focus-by-wire had moved to a smooth long-throw ring on the lens (like Panasonic).

The earlier model is now stuck in a drawer, and G.A.S. has improved my manual focusing a lot!

[Tronhard]

While agreeing with the conventional view against G.A.S., I can report an instance where a touch of G.A.S. has improved my photography in the form of better manual focusing. I have a mirror-less compact camera that has focus-by-wire with magnification. It has no EVF and the LCD is a mere 230,000 dots, 2.5". Following an illness last year, my eyesight deteriorated quite a bit and the magnified manual focus became less easy - especially with the focus adjuster being a small wheel on the back of the camera body.

And so it was that I upgraded to the next model, even though I did not need the extra MP. What a delight that LCD was - 920,000 dots, 3", three levels of magnification and the focus-by-wire had moved to a smooth long-throw ring on the lens (like Panasonic).

The earlier model is now stuck in a drawer, and G.A.S. has improved my manual focusing a lot!

Ted your story is a perfect example of gaining a benefit to overcome a constraining factor. As long as you got the benefit to improve your vision, give you back manual control and be able to enjoy photography again I would not consider it GAS - I would say it was a valid and valuable investment.

[Tronhard]

Back at my story about the chap wanting to upgrade to a professional camera with at least 35MP, but no explanation why, someone has just done what I feared: namely rattled off a bunch of gear they should consider. Go figure...

[shreds]

A good list to consider.

Far too many people think they need x y z from a camera and one better than their friends, but whether they need or can afford it is another matter. Others think because they have spent (to them a lot of money), they automatically will take better pictures. That does not make them a pro!

Moreover, understanding the camera inside out, so it is an extension of your arm and can be adjusted to suit various lighting or physical conditions and situations blindfolded is essential.

I don’t believe in upgrading to the next model just to keep up with the neighbours. Buy the best you can afford and continue to use that until it fails or your competency means you are ready for a different challenge.

None of us ever stop learning, but if as much money and effort were put into learning technique and using critical self appraisal before spending money then there would be many more competent photographers out there, rather than those who believe they can do it but get disappointing results and blaming the camera. At least they do keep the money flowing into the manufacturers to assist them innovating.

[rpcrowe]

My recent GAS attack...

I began using Sony mirrorless cameras because I wanted Eye-AF. I have come to really enjoy Eye-AF especially animal Eye-AF which is a boon when photographing a fidgety and energetic puppy. Do I absolutely NEED Eye-AF? Heck no, I have been shooting for well over 60-years now and skipped a whole generation of film cameras (Canon EOS) because I didn't NEED auto focus. However, now, I do enjoy shooting with auto focus and, IMO, Eye-AF is just another incremental step in camera gear becoming more and more user friendly.

However, along with Eye-AF in the EVF; Sony has presented me with so many other benefits (use of legacy glass, focus peaking, better AF, significant decrease in size and weight of gear etc., etc., etc...) That I am committing myself to a full switch from Canon to Sony mirrorless. Will I get better pictures with Sony over Canon, probably not. But, very likely, I will get more good pictures simply because the Sony smaller form factor encourages me to carry the gear more often...

I even just received back a Sony NEX-7 small mirrorless camera from conversion to full-time 830nm infrared. I had previously used an ancient Canon D60 (not 60D) DSLR camera for infrared. However, I seldom carried that camera because of its weight, bulk and its inability to use any lenses except full frame EF mount.



I am sure that I will be carrying my little 12-ounce (340 gram) NEX-7 which is compatible with all my Sony e-mount lenses, much more frequently than I carried the heavier and bulkier D60.

Lots of reasons for GAS on my part is increased enjoyment of the gear, not necessarily needing it to improve my photography. I don't necessarily catch more fish with a better fishing reel and rod but, often have more enjoyment using the equipment even when I don't catch fish.

I have been reviewing my criteria for a full frame Sony mirrorless camera and why I need it: I want a full frame camera so I can better utilize my full frame lenses. The native focal lengths of my 70-200mm and 85mm lenses along with the C.Z, Sony 28-70mm Vario Tessar lenses will give me even more versatility over the equivalent focal lengths of my present crop format cameras. However, I have inventoried my needs and wants for the full frame camera and it seems that the A7Rii would give me everything that I need and buying it used would be half the price of the A7iii which seems to still be the ascending star of the Sony mirrorless lineup...

[William W]

People buy things for different reasons. To advise someone what is best camera for them to buy, you first need to know the (real) reason why they are looking.

Most people buy stuff to make them happier: there are many things that trigger that happiness and those things do not necessarily include: relevance to a budget; commitment to use the gear regularly; any great degree of involvement in photography; knowledge about where the journey might take them - or indeed where their journey is to begin.

I think it's a trap, when giving advice, to assume that what makes me happy (i.e. my range of the broad reasons for buying something), will make them happy.

WW

[rpcrowe]

Totally agree with you, Bill. The same goes for reviews of cameras. I know that video is a large part of the photography efforts of many folks and is obviously a major portion of anyone who does video reviews of cameras for online posting. However, just because one camera may be better or worse than another for video or just because one camera has or hasn't a fully articulating LCD for those silly selfie videos where a guy is walking down the street talking into the camera; doesn't mean that one camera is better or worse for the guy, like me, who has little or no interest in video

[Tronhard]

People buy things for different reasons. To advise someone what is best camera for them to buy, you first need to know the (real) reason why they are looking.

Most people buy stuff to make them happier: there are many things that trigger that happiness and those things do not necessarily include: relevance to a budget; commitment to use the gear regularly; any great degree of involvement in photography; knowledge about where the journey might take them - or indeed where their journey is to begin.

I think it's a trap, when giving advice, to assume that what makes me happy (i.e. my range of the broad reasons for buying something), will make them happy.

WW

Bill is right in that studies absolutely confirm that people often purchase on emotion (I know I have done so myself), which is why when they ask for advice it is important that we don't respond with our emotions as to what we favour. Inevitably someone will accept or ignore the advice they get, but my point on the questions asked is that in giving advice we should try to focus on a logical process to make a recommendation - often we are given totally inadequate information to work from so questions need to be asked.

By asking questions that explore their true needs and benefits we may make them consider things they were not aware they should consider. Recently I used this set of questions on someone who was considering purchasing a very large, very expensive lens to take on a specific multi-day hike and they were creating the images purely for social media posts. When I asked about carrying it, I had to do so very subtly as it was obvious they would have real difficulty carrying it and it was total overkill, but when the question was put about what kind of resolution was required for social media realization dawned and started a conversation of how to achieve their outcome by some other method.

This method of purchase analysis is used as a pretty standard one in the companies I worked for to reduce the knee-jerk or emotional purchase of anything from paper clips to buildings.

[Tronhard]

Totally agree with you, Bill. The same goes for reviews of cameras. I know that video is a large part of the photography efforts of many folks and is obviously a major portion of anyone who does video reviews of cameras for online posting. However, just because one camera may be better or worse than another for video or just because one camera has or hasn't a fully articulating LCD for those silly selfie videos where a guy is walking down the street talking into the camera; doesn't mean that one camera is better or worse for the guy, like me, who has little or no interest in video

My point about features vs benefits exactly Richard! Marketing is designed to make us want those features, but in photography there is likely a much greater distinction between videographers and still photographers. I recall the vitriol that was thrown against the Nikon Df when it was launched because it didn't do 4K video, or in fact video at all. They missed the whole point of the camera, which was a fusion (hence the f designation) between the experience of the film camera user and good digital tech - essentially they saw every camera from their limited view of value.

[William W]

Bill is right

Music to my ears!
OK, that’s my one joke for this year.

***
Back to Bill the Studious . . .

. . . when they ask for advice it is important that we don't respond with our emotions as to what we favour. . .

By asking questions that explore their true needs and benefits we may make them consider things they were not aware they should consider.

This method of purchase analysis is used as a pretty standard one in the companies I worked for to reduce the knee-jerk or emotional purchase of anything from paper clips to buildings.

Indeed.

This morning I re-read Post #12.

It occurred to me that some readers could interpret Post #12 as arguing the validity of the ideas proffered in Posts #1 and #2.

For clarity, I agree with the ideas and I value the suggestions in Posts #1 and #2.

Post #12 was intended to add another layer to that.

Had not Trev brought this possible confusion to my attention, with his skillful crafted word-smithing, it probably would have slipped by me. Thank you.

WW

[Donald]

All I want to ask is what does G A S stand for?

Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion.

[Tronhard]

All I want to ask is what does G A S stand for?

Sorry to lower the tone of the discussion.

Hi Donald!

G.A.S. stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome - basically the purchase of gear on an emotional basis, usually under the mistaken belief that better gear will make one a better photographer, as if the lack of such new tech has somehow held one back from achieving one's true artistic and technical prowess. Essentially the basis of much marketing, especially in the photographic industry.

Now, if one was to cast an eye at my profile you would see that I appear to be a GAS aficionado, but in fact I never thought that my purchases would actually make me a better photographer. Either I liked the tech for its own value, or it offered a benefit to me, such as when I could barely walk and lighter gear allowed me to do so and take photos.

In fact I probably take many of my images with the venerable Canon 60D, which is about 9 years old - but I like the body and in fact I still take photos with my oldest DSLR, the even more venerable Canon 400D, just to re-establish that it's not the gear, it how we use it... Perhaps, in a way that is GAS in reverse, by using really old gear I hope that it reduces my dependence on modern tech and make me a better photographer.

In fact I have just got excited over a new purchase, the Canon D30: which, as I understand it, was the first dedicated DSLR by them to come on to the market (I think previous versions used film bodies with digital stuff - mostly from Kodak - inside them). For the review see: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30

It looks good on the website, and if it works I hope to try some images and I shall share them: 3MP of RAW capturing power!

[Donald]

Hi Donald!

G.A.S. stands for Gear Acquisition Syndrome - basically the purchase of gear on an emotional basis, usually under the mistaken belief that better gear will make one a better photographer, as if the lack of such new tech has somehow held one back from achieving one's true artistic and technical prowess.

Thank you, sir. I think you could also apply it to the person who buys stuff as some sort of compensation for the loss of a partner, in the belief that buying it will make him feel better (notwithstanding it turns out that he is knowledgeable and skillful enough to get benefit from it).

EDIT - But I agree with all that is being said despite that.

[Tronhard]

Thank you, sir. I think you could also apply it to the person who buys stuff as some sort of compensation for the loss of a partner, in the belief that buying it will make him feel better (notwithstanding it turns out that he is knowledgeable and skillful enough to get benefit from it).

I take your point Donald but think that has a different name - retail therapy!