Oh, no! Oncoming GAS attack

[Manfred M]

I fully agree with Manfred regarding the need for ultra high resolution cameras...

If you define "ultra high resolution" as any late model (less than 10 years old) mirrorless or DSLR with a mFT and larger sensor, I agree!

That being said, my wedding photos and grad photos were taken with medium format cameras and I remember my first passport photo (taken when I was in my mid-teens) was done with a view camera...

[rpcrowe]

The very best thing for my GAS is that I photograph the dogs for our rescue group... Gives me a reason for buying gear - or at least an excuse

[Tronhard]

I think the decision to upgrade depends on where you are coming from. People engage in photography for many reasons, one of which is to enjoy the technology for its own right. If that is what one wants and admits to themselves that this is true, then it is a valid reason. So, as Bill said, go and enjoy the technology for its own right.

The problem comes when one buys gear out of boredom or lack of photographic inspiration. If one can recognize this as the driving influence, then I would submit that doing one of the following might render a better RoI:
* Take on a project that will stretch your comfort zone
* Take a membership in a photographic group or society (if not already)
* Take a course on some aspect of photography that challenges or excites you
* Go on an inspiring photographic journey away from your normal environment.

I posted a list of questions for those who are not clear on their motivation for making a camera purchase:
GAS and the Advice People get.

To me (and your definition may be different) GAS is associated with those who believe that purchasing the latest tech will unleash their hitherto latent photographic skills - a philosophy supported by camera manufacturers who need to make sales to survive.

While people often focus on what they are going to take photos of (and that IS a consideration), they often forget to consider what they are going to produce. In that respect I tend to side with Manfred. If one is going to produce modest sized prints, or post to digital devices then the need for a high pixel camera is hard to justify IMHO. I have posted images that display just fine from a 20 YO unit that I would consider quite acceptable for digital output.
A Piece of History in Action

Moving from DSLR to MILC is now becoming a regular issue - and fair enough too, as the technology of MILCs is starting to mature. It seems to me that a lot depends on where one is on the photography life cycle. If I was starting out, or did not have a significant investment is DSLRs, I would seriously consider the new MILC market - it is certainly the way of the future. However, in my retired years, with a large inventory of gear, moving to the new MILCs is neither cost-effective or necessary. My stuff will do what I want.

[rpcrowe]

I agree with Trev... There are times when I buy a piece of gear just to enjoy using it...

The one time that GAS may not be effective is when one is not achieving images as good as they want and think that new gear may just be the ticket from the mediocre to the great.

Yep - there are some times when better gear will almost always improve images... That is in venues like wildlife when you do really need a long focal length and when you are shooting sports when a long focal length lens with a wide aperture and a camera with good accurate auto focus will go a long way to improve images over a setup with a kit lens. Try doing indoor gymnastic coverage with an entry level camera and kit lens

However, many people pine over full frame gear and think that buying a full frame camera and lens will magically improve their mundane images. Usually, it won't.

Generally, if you cannot consistently get very good to excellent imagery with a modern DSLR or mirrorless camera, you might be better off in spending time, effort, and possibly money in improving your skills...

However if a new piece of gear rings your chimes and you can afford it - why not get it an be happy?

[Tronhard]

I think mirrorless cameras are a great invention, but there are downsides as well. It's not all wine and roses.

With mirrorless, the one biggest drawback, for me, would be sensor exposure. Here is a copy of what one website says:- "When you change the lens on a DSLR, the sensor is mostly protected by that mirror that sits right in front of it. Dust can still get into the camera housing when you change lenses, but floaties in the air are less likely to land on the sensor.

Personally, and this is my choice, I never change lenses in the field - so I end up carrying multiple bodies if necessary. Still, when I do change lenses on any ILC I always make sure the camera is angled downwards and turned off to cut the power to the sensor, and I make sure the shutter is closed. Not perfect, but I very rarely have had to clean a sensor in 16 years of using DSLRs.

[MrB]

People engage in photography for many reasons, one of which is to enjoy the technology for its own right. If that is what one wants and admits to themselves that this is true, then it is a valid reason. So, as Bill said, go and enjoy the technology for its own right.

That has generally been my belief and experience of GAS. However, I am trying to regain control, as it has reached the level (actually quite modest, compared with some people) where it creates its own problem, even though it is all Pentax APS-C gear:- I never want to carry much weight or bulk (usually one body, two lenses and a flash), but which of them all do I take out? I often wish I was not so fascinated by the technology, and was back in the days when I had only one body and two lenses!

Philip

[Shadowman]

For me the best reliever of GAS has been the opportunity to test out the desired gear before making the purchase, sometimes testing a particular lens or camera just increases the GAS; especially if you enjoyed the experience but for the most part testing gear has shown me the limitations or cons of owning. For instance, I have long desired owning either the Nikon 200-500 or Tamron 150-600mm lens, I've tried both and each has their merits, however each is so heavy that it changes my typical excursion activities.

Whenever I go out for a full day of shooting I usually take at least three lenses with me carried in a backpack and usually two cameras, with the super telephoto lens I also have to carry my monopod or a tripod and each can (the tripod more so) slow down my style or increase the burden I have to lug around. My only option sometimes is to carry only one extra lens but limits my photo ops if I want to also carry an UWA or only use that lens for candid and/or landscape shots. The exertion of carrying extra gear or reducing said gear has worked wonders on controlling my GAS attacks, although adding the more compact Fujifilm with a pancake lens could work for me and also bring about my desire for the super telephoto combo.

[eiler m]

The book: 'Why It Does Not Have To Be In Focus. Modern Photography Explained' by Jackie Higgins, published by Thames and Hudson, gives a perspective on the never ending hunt for more megapixels. Enjoy!

Have a look on the series 'Hildring' by the well known Norwegian photographer Johs Bøe. He explains that he was struck by the beauty and the feeling of remoteness in the defocused image. https://johsboe.viewbook.com/fine-art

[Shadowman]

The book: 'Why It Does Not Have To Be In Focus. Modern Photography Explained' by Jackie Higgins, published by Thames and Hudson, gives a perspective on the never ending hunt for more megapixels. Enjoy!

There have been quite a few debates about the concept of image sharpness, for me its a measure of my skill with any particular camera, for me sharpness of capture is a component of vision; why wouldn't I want to revel in the details yet I can also be fascinated by sway of a leafy tree in a storm which technically is out of focus.

[DanK]

There have been quite a few debates about the concept of image sharpness, for me its a measure of my skill with any particular camera, for me sharpness of capture is a component of vision; why wouldn't I want to revel in the details yet I can also be fascinated by sway of a leafy tree in a storm which technically is out of focus.

I agree. We've been talking about print size, which is really a conversation about how much detail one can achieve. That's separate from what one wants to achieve.

There is a middle ground, photos where lack of focus in not the goal (e.g., your moving leaves), but it also isn't essential for an image. The image that really drove this home for me was this one that I took last fall:



I initially was dissatisfied with this image because I made some mistakes, and it is slightly unsharp. (I played with the new Topaz AI tools, which helped some, but it is still not quite as I thought it should be.) As it turns out, I am the only person who has been bothered by this, and I think I may be the only one who noticed it. One of the first people who saw it wrote back and said "I'll buy it in the largest size you can print." I told him my concerns and mailed him an 8 x 10 section magnified as a full 17 x 22 would be. He wrote back: I'll take the largest you can print. It's now on exhibit, although only as a 13 x 19, which I take as confirmation that the slight unsharpness doesn't matter. When I wondered out loud about this, my wife's response is that the image isn't one that demands tremendous sharpness.

In contrast, this is one for which detail and sharpness certainly does matter:



The other issue is cropping. I often find my self in a situation in which I can't come close to filling the frame. This happens frequently in field macro, and it happens often enough in landscape or architectural work where I find myself without a lens as long as I want. 22 mpx doesn't leave much room for cropping if you intend to print large, and even printing smaller, severe cropping is a problem. That's why I do my bugs with an old Canon 7D (first generation), rather than my 5D III, which is in every respect save one a much better camera. The 7D actually has slightly fewer pixels, but because they are crammed into an APS-C sensor, the pixel density is far greater, and I therefore get better results than I would with the 5D.

It's all tradeoffs. I just traded notes with an excellent night photographer who recently bought a FF mirrorless Nikon to complement his 850. I wanted to get his experience using an EVF at night. (Very positive, BTW.) He thought I was asking specifically about Nikons and advised me to get the Z6, not the Z7, which has higher pixel density:

get the Z6, not the Z7. I returned the Z7, because it is as noisy as the D850, which I had before.

So before I consider buying the R5, I will wait for reviews of its low-light performance.

[Manfred M]

The book: 'Why It Does Not Have To Be In Focus. Modern Photography Explained' by Jackie Higgins, published by Thames and Hudson, gives a perspective on the never ending hunt for more megapixels. Enjoy!

Have a look on the series 'Hildring' by the well known Norwegian photographer Johs Bøe. He explains that he was struck by the beauty and the feeling of remoteness in the defocused image. https://johsboe.viewbook.com/fine-art

Eiler - we have to be a little bit careful here because Bøe and Higgens are dealing with the Fine Art genre and in fact, the subset of Abstract Photography. I suspect that a few of us here have dabbled in this field, but most of the membership has not and likely has little or no interest in doing so.

Most successful abstract artists (and this includes photographers) have a very solid grounding in traditional photography before they move on to that genre. They recognize how to create a strong image and with their experience, they manage to push the boundaries and create a very strong image, even though it is abstract.

Bøe must have been a very strong classic photographer to have been hired to work in Irving Penn's studio for a few years. Penn was so highly regarded by that point in his career that anyone wanting to make a name for himself or herself would have wanted to work in Penn's studio. Penn would select only the very best to assist him.

[Manfred M]

* Take on a project that will stretch your comfort zone
* Take a membership in a photographic group or society (if not already)
* Take a course on some aspect of photography that challenges or excites you
* Go on an inspiring photographic journey away from your normal environment.

Excellent advice and something I have followed as well.

The only proviso I will add is that your camera gear has to be suitable to work in the genre you are trying to shoot. Your iPhone is unlikely to get you award winning bird in flight or sports action shots. Heading out to the wilds of Africa with your 50mm prime lens is unlikely to help you capture wildlife shots, etc. Getting a macro image without a macro lens is a bit of a challenge too.

So GAS for the sake of improving your photography can be an important factor. Let's not discount this, regardless of what the latest ads for the iPhone or top of the line Samsung Galaxy phones try to tell you.

[Tronhard]

Excellent advice and something I have followed as well.

The only proviso I will add is that your camera gear has to be suitable to work in the genre you are trying to shoot.

So GAS for the sake of improving your photography can be an important factor. Let's not discount this, regardless of what the latest ads for the iPhone or top of the line Samsung Galaxy phones try to tell you.

Absolutely agree, in fact as I mentioned, I hope I had covered that in the set of questions in this post:
GAS and the Advice People get. One question I would put in front of this whole list is:

What is it SPECIFICALLY that your current camera does not do that you need to improve your images?
That is critical, as it identifies the benefits you need to seek from any new purchase and sets the context for answering the other questions in that list. It certainly is apt for those changing to a different genre of photography or engaging more deeply.

To me, (unless one is enjoying gear for itself) the conversation should never start about gear features, it should start with needs and benefits...

[eiler m]

Thank you for your answer. Even if Bøe has done art photography his activities within commercial photography certainly is within our field with high demands on equipment as his website shows.
In really old days Bøe and I had our first photo education at the same vocational school were we was trained in b/w photography using Linhof 4x5". He continued photographing and I worked with publishing.
Luckily today photography is recognized as an art in its own respect - and it is as diverse as any other kind of art are.

[Manfred M]

Thank you for your answer. Even if Bøe has done art photography his activities within commercial photography certainly is within our field with high demands on equipment as his website shows.
In really old days Bøe and I had our first photo education at the same vocational school were we was trained in b/w photography using Linhof 4x5". He continued photographing and I worked with publishing.
Luckily today photography is recognized as an art in its own respect - and it is as diverse as any other kind of art are.

Carefully said, Irving Penn's work might have been "commercial" in terms of he was working in the fields of fashion and advertising, he is generally viewed as a fine art photographer today.

[rpcrowe]

The book: 'Why It Does Not Have To Be In Focus. Modern Photography Explained' by Jackie Higgins, published by Thames and Hudson, gives a perspective on the never ending hunt for more megapixels. Enjoy!

Have a look on the series 'Hildring' by the well known Norwegian photographer Johs Bøe. He explains that he was struck by the beauty and the feeling of remoteness in the defocused image. https://johsboe.viewbook.com/fine-art

And Andy Warhol made millions painting pieces of "ART?" like a Campbells Soup Can....

[Tronhard]

And Andy Warhol made millions painting pieces of "ART?" like a Campbells Soup Can....

Art valuation is a curious thing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

[Manfred M]

Art valuation is a curious thing... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire

One of the curators at the National Gallery of Canada recently told me that it currently appraised at close to $40 million. Not a bad investment; it was purchased for under $2 million.

And if we are writing about photographs, what about Rhein II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

[Donald]

And if we are writing about photographs, what about Rhein II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhein_II

By the artist who is a leading exponent of Deadpan. I think it is a haunting image.

Remember, the original is 190 cm × 360 cm (73 in × 143 in).

[xpatUSA]

Have a look on the series 'Hildring' by the well known Norwegian photographer Johs Bøe. He explains that he was struck by the beauty and the feeling of remoteness in the defocused image. https://johsboe.viewbook.com/fine-art

Hmmm ... back to square one:



https://mymodernmet.com/first-photog...raphy-history/