As someone who started on Film in 1999 and then went full digital in 2005. I find the better the gear the lazier we got. We never were able "spray and pray" like some photographers do. We learned the snipers rule "1 shot 1 kill" and it made us think more. About 5 years ago I started to use vintage lenses. Now I love them and my photos got better. I have all good AF lenses but I love using a old lens more.
Spot on. I had a video blow up a couple of weeks ago and as usual, there were people spouting the usual nonsense about needing more resolution and so on whilst missing the entire point. As you know better than most, Scott, there are many reasons why more MPs make sense and as many reasons why most people don't need them. The argument translates perfectly into your point in this video. Of course, you will get people who want to disagree, often because of confirmation bad or just a simple lack of knowledge.
Outstanding video regarding the subject matter. Too much windage on ISO, bokeh and (overrated) sharpness by 90% of youtubers and facebook-ers. This genre of content is a sweet spot.
I believe some of the youtube reviewers probably have to go on about these parameters to at the very least differentiate between products otherwise they would probably say the lens/equipment is very good. However I do theink they typically prattle on for far to long about such things. @TinhouseStudioUK videos such as this are opinions and thoughts and in my opinion are far better viewing than the ones we are reffering to. Cracking video Scott.
What I found so liberating about digital capture (back when the canon 10D came out) was the instant feedback. I could show the client what I was trying to achieve. It meant that they would accept suggestions to compose and light in a more daring way as they could see it without the wait to see film from the lab or interpret a polaroid, which takes some skill. The film purists were up in arms, but I loved it for the ability to push clients to go for a more edgy and creative look because they could see it in real time. The 10D was a 6mp camera, but the pixels were brilliant. Still shoot film from 5x4 to 35mm, but more for personal projects. For commercial work digital was a great step forward in my case.
But, but, but that shiny new camera recently launched... It could make me a better right? 😅 I have a neighbor who is a pro studio portrait photographer, and wedding photographer and he still uses DSLRs for his work 🤯 And one of the most famous portrait photographers from my country uses Fuji APSC for his great work 🤯
Manufacturers are flexing specs to sell you stuff you don’t need. Learn to shoot first, then worry about fancy toys! More megapixels, high ISO, and more money will still not make you a better photographer. As you proved, Scott, a pro with a 10-year-old camera will crush an amateur with the latest gear every time.
Yes and they could have been done today's best camera like 5 years ago but what would have been the point? Manufacturers must think how to make money for a long period of time. It's a dirty game on consumer point of view. Gear matters some. I'm watching these photographers who shoot Phase One cameras. Amazing pictures. I think it's more the sensor what matters. And not only the pixel count.
The funny thing is feature obsessed TH-camrs shoot under the least demanding conditions - sponsored camera company events and “model” shoots and talking head TH-cam videos.
Couldn't agree more. A relative is an artist who paints large, hyper realistic, conceptual portraits. These are referenced from photos he art directs. The photo(s) taken are never published and I don't think he's itching to call himself a 'photographer' anytime soon.
I couldn't agree more! Back in the day - showing my age :0) - a great photographer could take a "better" image on a Box Brownie, than a bad photographer with a Hassalblad! The same is true with the latest cameras and a smart phone. IMHO.
Thank you Sirui! Today i got my scans back for a roll TX400 on an Olympus EM4, Delta 100 in a Kiev4a, TX400 in a Pentacon Six TL with prism viewer. All shots are correctly exposed, they are all sharp(ish); i'm happy with all the shots. The joy i find in photographing with any camera is a bit part of my drive and want to get out of the studio and shoot. I shot all 3 of them the same day, the same walk. The camera is just the tool; if you love the result the device is just that. My GFX makes a million times 'sharper' images; that is not the point of the image sometimes.
I used a Sirui Ball head in my studio for years, a very precision made piece of aluminum. ( and cheaper than bigger names for what seems like equal quality ) I have found I many times take better images using older gear than the newer stuff. You have to think more with older gear and that makes the images you do take, much more thoughtful. Another reminder why you do really good videos. Thank you.
Bang on as usual. Offering opinion as fact in such a subjective medium is fraught with misunderstandings. Thank you for your continuing efforts to differentiate between the two.
When all photos were taken on film, HCB said "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst". Now that people start with digital burst mode, we should update it to "Your first 10,000,000 photographs are your worst"
When I started to shoot night sky, I had to uograde gear because my ilder sensor legitimately couldn't capture the images. But the newer camera is lower spec than most of what's out there, and objectively takes better night sky pictures that better specked cameras. Gear matters sometimes. But learning to use it matters more.
I do milky way nightscapes with a Canon 200d with a Tokina 14-20mm lens, the only thing that would make the sky images better is a tracker and if stsrted using PS/LR instead of using Canon DPP4. Yes a full frame would allow longer exposures, but from my observations the difference in a stack of 10 by each type of camera(mine and a friend's) is minimal and mostly down to the editing software we each use.
Thanks for your lucidity 😊 It’s brave, unique, refreshing, needed and (unfortunately for all of us) unmatched. Q: Would Picasso create “better” art with modern brushes? A: No! That’s why you don’t hear other artists talk about gear as much as photographers. This is an industry induced phenomenon. Let’s collectively snap out of it, please. It’s 2025, after all.
The best gear doesn't equal the best photos. I have seen some terrible photographers using Hasselblad cameras. Their photos still such. Ive also seen people use say a Canon Rebel and they create masterpieces. Great video topic mate.
This is such great advice!! I now dial-in grain on my Fuji X100V to "combat" that digital perfection of modern sensors. So sharp, so perfect, so ...... digital. My favourite DSLRs are my 5D and 6D. The 6D is basically good enough for anything I need (I don't really enjoy shooting my 5D SR) and the images are beautiful (it's a £350 camera now !!!!). My phone takes amazing images but I just realised I NEVER print any of them because they are actually bloody horrible, despite the technical specs blowing my 5D & 6D out of the water. Yes, if I'm doing your sort of Product work, then I'm using my 5D-SR as a minimum .... but I don't. I shoot people, places, and people in places. Cameras are good enough for that already, and were 10 years ago.
Always fantastic hearing your thoughts, Scott... I think this debate always makes us lose sight of the real point... It’s undeniable that in the past, incredible works were created, and at this point, the tool used doesn’t really matter (look at the pyramids). But it’s also undeniable that a more advanced tool can expand our horizons and lead to better photos (look at autofocus)-shots that were impossible before such innovations existed. Just think about shooting at 20k ISO, which wasn’t even an option back then, or freezing the exact moment a kingfisher breaks the water to grab a fish. Technology definitely allows us to capture better or even impossible shots. I don’t think it makes sense to focus on how photos were taken 50 years ago. I truly believe technology is an amazing help. And this is coming from someone who’s been shooting with a 5D Mark III for 3 years and was still using the original 5D up until three years ago. 😊
My response to people questioning equipment choices has been along the lines of: I go to Brands Hatch with, say, Rankin. At the gate, I’m given a latest mirrorless with 50mm f1.2, and Rankin is given an old point and shoot with 8mp. We are tasked with capturing the essence of the race meeting. If you’re into your betting, please don’t put a tenner on me producing the better image. I ‘see’ more than my friends do, but some people are on a different planet.
Good points, I speak several photographers who shoot always and only at high speeds, up to 120/sec saying "well, there should be something good in it . . ." I think they are goodluck-searchers and has nothing to do with making the essential photo, regardless of the fact how many searchwork there is to be done afterwards to find a good one, if any . . .
I upgraded from an R6 to R5 for the higher pixel count, and I also upgraded lenses for better sharpness. I'm doing big group portraits with 100+ people for organizations that want to print the photos two meters wide, and the upgrade has paid off because you can see the individual people that much more clearly. Artistically speaking, the photos are the same, but for the people who are featured, it matters because they are all clearly represented.
I have an A7III that’s like 8 years old and it is my main camera for all my commercial work which is the only type of work I do. My work gets printed on giant billboards and high end magazines all over my country and across the world and I haven’t heard a single complaint from a client yet. Are there jobs that warrant a Phase One? Maybe, but I could always rent one or just stitch pictures together since most of my work is still life. Way better work has been made on worse cameras and talented folks always got around the limitations of their gear by being creative.
The picture of Ben Johnson is iconic and would be mundane if it had extraordinary depth of field and no grain. I take pictures of hockey (field) and always try to have some motion blur in the feet, ball or stick to convey movement. However, I do shoot burst (Nikon Z9 at 20 fps) to catch the most interesting moment; I’m in awe of the film photographers who took some of the photos you showed without modern technology.
I bought that exact monopod. It literally snapped in half the very first time I used it…sending my Nikon Z9 and 800mm lens down 7’ to the ground. Good news: 1). Nikon was okay 2) they were quick to send replacement part. Turned out to be the plastic locking knob, not the carbon fiber. Is it a good monopod? No idea, still sitting in back of closet.
People just can't get over the fact that their snapshots taken on 6k cameras aren't going to go down in history as art because of their technical precision.
It's probably best to start with a new camera that's basically idiot proof and concentrate on the art rather than the tech. As you get more experienced you can go backwards to older less forgiving, but more characterful gear that's more fun.
I'm still very new to photography and I'm already fed up with the "you need" and "you should do" feedback. I want to make "mistakes" and enjoy the noise and a bit of fuzz. I bought the Zfc as I liked the look of it and I hadn't picked up a camera in decades and the only reason I picked a 2nd hand Zf is because of the IBIS and I hope that will go some way to offset my occasional shakes. I won't be getting rid of the Zfc as its a lightweight, easy to carry capable camera. Simple.
Totally agree with all of this video. Seems that most think that "Spray and Pray" is ok. What it actually does is show that no skill and very little knowledge is needed to "get" a good photograph. When I see people shooting hundreds or thousands of frames in a single outing, I cringe. All it proves is that they don't have any skill at all. Thanks from Canada.
5:01 not better just easier to get the same result which is meaningless without the knowledge and also, professionals don't talk about gear as much. So, yeah, you're completely right, I agree.
I agree the pictures themselves aren't improved by the modern camera though I assert my life is better with all the things that modern camera **body** brings with it nowadays e.g. HSS, tethering, digital memory, audio recording, and so on.
Maybe this is missing a point. Film photographs, back in the day, were made only with the idea of creating a physical print, on paper. The photographs you are making today are regretfully mostly seen on a small, hand held, pocket screens, with limited color range. The new medium is allowing now, already, any guy to sit behind a screen and create an imagine in his mind, by typing or talking to an artificial piece of software, and create an amazing image that will soon be so perfect that we won't even tell the difference. A photograph on photographic, chemical paper is totally different, you can see it with more or less light, turn it towards the light to observe details, see the grain, pull it back and see basic forms of the composition...it´s not a matter of better or worse, it´s a different medium to communicate through an image.
To say that an artist would ditch paint and shoot with a phase one, to me demonstrates a lack of understanding about art in the person making the comment. The tech really gets in the way these days.
When I hit play, this video started in french (I live in a french speaking region of the world), so I clicked to choose the original language, stated here as "English (United-States) original", ha ha.
100% disagree. Here's why; - Actually, having modern capable cameras secure me the bread and butter 'money shots' far sooner, leaving me with the remainder of the shoot to explore and be creative in other ways. It's the opposite way round. Maybe some stay in a comfortable lane, but don't box us all together. - Better photographs? Well isn't capturing the best moment (and the likelihood of doing that with a better tool) actually a better photograph than using a tool less capable and failing to get that moment at all? Maybe image quality is not better (in fact its arguable its worse), but always the piece of information left out in this conversation are all the duds and failures that came before with lesser tools and the frustration that followed. Showing a few famous moments caught in the past with lesser tools does not equal the same keeper rates as todays tools. Content matters > new tools increase delivery > period. - Cameras differ in many ways today beyond the basics like buffer and fps. I am using stacked sensor cameras, in silent electronic shutters modes, free from banding from strong artificial light and rolling shutter effects whilst documenting classical musicians during rehearsals and performances. I am given free reign to being on the stage with them because I am so unobtrusive to their processes. If my mirror or shutters slapped, or I am setting up large format (taking up too much space), these would be deal breakers to that process. And this is just one example that I am sure many on modern cameras have their own versions of. The whole argument is silly, cameras are just tools, everything is a pro and con thing. The Large Format guy covering sports or politics, cool, we need that, but his assignment brief is ENTIRELY different to the guy doing high fps/breaking journalism. You're ignoring briefs and instead hand picking. What you're saying (without realising it) is 'because the large format guy has a great shot, we don't need these modern tools, everyone should do the large format!', lets see how the media reacts to that shall we.... You've been stuck shooting inanimate things in your studio too long, of course many cameras (in your eyes) are up to the task. And always, give the right tool to a person with good skills is crucial (but skill level has never been a question in this hypothetical). If gear doesn't matter go do all your campaigns on a Logitech 2mp webcam from the 90's.
we need more videos like this...i almost have anything i need for my job and some nights while i watch a video with that big title makes me going to amazon page...with no reason ...just pure capitalist thinking...sorry for my English :D
I really despise gear p0rn and the race to find the "best" equipment. People wanting the "best" af, the "best" and newest camera body and lenses or the most expensive Leica... often lack connection to the process and their work.
Todays video is made possible by Sirui and their SVM Rapid System monopod bit.ly/3PytvbB
As someone who started on Film in 1999 and then went full digital in 2005. I find the better the gear the lazier we got. We never were able "spray and pray" like some photographers do. We learned the snipers rule "1 shot 1 kill" and it made us think more.
About 5 years ago I started to use vintage lenses. Now I love them and my photos got better. I have all good AF lenses but I love using a old lens more.
Spot on. I had a video blow up a couple of weeks ago and as usual, there were people spouting the usual nonsense about needing more resolution and so on whilst missing the entire point. As you know better than most, Scott, there are many reasons why more MPs make sense and as many reasons why most people don't need them. The argument translates perfectly into your point in this video. Of course, you will get people who want to disagree, often because of confirmation bad or just a simple lack of knowledge.
Thanks.
Outstanding video regarding the subject matter. Too much windage on ISO, bokeh and (overrated) sharpness by 90% of youtubers and facebook-ers. This genre of content is a sweet spot.
Thanks for watching!
I believe some of the youtube reviewers probably have to go on about these parameters to at the very least differentiate between products otherwise they would probably say the lens/equipment is very good. However I do theink they typically prattle on for far to long about such things. @TinhouseStudioUK videos such as this are opinions and thoughts and in my opinion are far better viewing than the ones we are reffering to. Cracking video Scott.
Standing ovation for this video, incredibly communicated.
Thank you! Somebody needed to say that.
What I found so liberating about digital capture (back when the canon 10D came out) was the instant feedback. I could show the client what I was trying to achieve. It meant that they would accept suggestions to compose and light in a more daring way as they could see it without the wait to see film from the lab or interpret a polaroid, which takes some skill. The film purists were up in arms, but I loved it for the ability to push clients to go for a more edgy and creative look because they could see it in real time. The 10D was a 6mp camera, but the pixels were brilliant. Still shoot film from 5x4 to 35mm, but more for personal projects. For commercial work digital was a great step forward in my case.
But, but, but that shiny new camera recently launched... It could make me a better right? 😅
I have a neighbor who is a pro studio portrait photographer, and wedding photographer and he still uses DSLRs for his work 🤯
And one of the most famous portrait photographers from my country uses Fuji APSC for his great work 🤯
this might be already one of the most important TH-cam videos about photography in 2025.
Manufacturers are flexing specs to sell you stuff you don’t need. Learn to shoot first, then worry about fancy toys!
More megapixels, high ISO, and more money will still not make you a better photographer.
As you proved, Scott, a pro with a 10-year-old camera will crush an amateur with the latest gear every time.
Yes, skill far outweighs gear
Yes and they could have been done today's best camera like 5 years ago but what would have been the point? Manufacturers must think how to make money for a long period of time. It's a dirty game on consumer point of view. Gear matters some. I'm watching these photographers who shoot Phase One cameras. Amazing pictures. I think it's more the sensor what matters. And not only the pixel count.
The funny thing is feature obsessed TH-camrs shoot under the least demanding conditions - sponsored camera company events and “model” shoots and talking head TH-cam videos.
Brilliant commentary Scott! This is why I still use my 5D Mark II
Couldn't agree more. A relative is an artist who paints large, hyper realistic, conceptual portraits. These are referenced from photos he art directs. The photo(s) taken are never published and I don't think he's itching to call himself a 'photographer' anytime soon.
6:06, absolutely it is, I was recently in a studio course and Iooked at one of the B&W photos shot digitally and it just didnt do it for me.
I couldn't agree more! Back in the day - showing my age :0) - a great photographer could take a "better" image on a Box Brownie, than a bad photographer with a Hassalblad! The same is true with the latest cameras and a smart phone. IMHO.
Thank you Sirui!
Today i got my scans back for a roll TX400 on an Olympus EM4, Delta 100 in a Kiev4a, TX400 in a Pentacon Six TL with prism viewer. All shots are correctly exposed, they are all sharp(ish); i'm happy with all the shots. The joy i find in photographing with any camera is a bit part of my drive and want to get out of the studio and shoot. I shot all 3 of them the same day, the same walk. The camera is just the tool; if you love the result the device is just that. My GFX makes a million times 'sharper' images; that is not the point of the image sometimes.
I used a Sirui Ball head in my studio for years, a very precision made piece of aluminum. ( and cheaper than bigger names for what seems like equal quality ) I have found I many times take better images using older gear than the newer stuff. You have to think more with older gear and that makes the images you do take, much more thoughtful. Another reminder why you do really good videos. Thank you.
Bang on as usual. Offering opinion as fact in such a subjective medium is fraught with misunderstandings. Thank you for your continuing efforts to differentiate between the two.
Yes, well said!
Really like your videos and find a lot of the information super useful. Thanks
When all photos were taken on film, HCB said "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst".
Now that people start with digital burst mode, we should update it to "Your first 10,000,000 photographs are your worst"
Thank you for reminding me of the BJoP. I used to buy it when I was in London now I can subscribe.
Great episode!!
When I started to shoot night sky, I had to uograde gear because my ilder sensor legitimately couldn't capture the images. But the newer camera is lower spec than most of what's out there, and objectively takes better night sky pictures that better specked cameras.
Gear matters sometimes. But learning to use it matters more.
I do milky way nightscapes with a Canon 200d with a Tokina 14-20mm lens, the only thing that would make the sky images better is a tracker and if stsrted using PS/LR instead of using Canon DPP4. Yes a full frame would allow longer exposures, but from my observations the difference in a stack of 10 by each type of camera(mine and a friend's) is minimal and mostly down to the editing software we each use.
Spot on friend.
Thanks for your lucidity 😊 It’s brave, unique, refreshing, needed and (unfortunately for all of us) unmatched.
Q: Would Picasso create “better” art with modern brushes?
A: No!
That’s why you don’t hear other artists talk about gear as much as photographers. This is an industry induced phenomenon.
Let’s collectively snap out of it, please. It’s 2025, after all.
The best gear doesn't equal the best photos. I have seen some terrible photographers using Hasselblad cameras. Their photos still such. Ive also seen people use say a Canon Rebel and they create masterpieces. Great video topic mate.
This is such great advice!! I now dial-in grain on my Fuji X100V to "combat" that digital perfection of modern sensors. So sharp, so perfect, so ...... digital.
My favourite DSLRs are my 5D and 6D. The 6D is basically good enough for anything I need (I don't really enjoy shooting my 5D SR) and the images are beautiful (it's a £350 camera now !!!!).
My phone takes amazing images but I just realised I NEVER print any of them because they are actually bloody horrible, despite the technical specs blowing my 5D & 6D out of the water.
Yes, if I'm doing your sort of Product work, then I'm using my 5D-SR as a minimum .... but I don't. I shoot people, places, and people in places. Cameras are good enough for that already, and were 10 years ago.
Always fantastic hearing your thoughts, Scott... I think this debate always makes us lose sight of the real point... It’s undeniable that in the past, incredible works were created, and at this point, the tool used doesn’t really matter (look at the pyramids). But it’s also undeniable that a more advanced tool can expand our horizons and lead to better photos (look at autofocus)-shots that were impossible before such innovations existed. Just think about shooting at 20k ISO, which wasn’t even an option back then, or freezing the exact moment a kingfisher breaks the water to grab a fish.
Technology definitely allows us to capture better or even impossible shots. I don’t think it makes sense to focus on how photos were taken 50 years ago. I truly believe technology is an amazing help. And this is coming from someone who’s been shooting with a 5D Mark III for 3 years and was still using the original 5D up until three years ago. 😊
My response to people questioning equipment choices has been along the lines of:
I go to Brands Hatch with, say, Rankin. At the gate, I’m given a latest mirrorless with 50mm f1.2, and Rankin is given an old point and shoot with 8mp. We are tasked with capturing the essence of the race meeting.
If you’re into your betting, please don’t put a tenner on me producing the better image. I ‘see’ more than my friends do, but some people are on a different planet.
Good points, I speak several photographers who shoot always and only at high speeds, up to 120/sec saying "well, there should be something good in it . . ." I think they are goodluck-searchers and has nothing to do with making the essential photo, regardless of the fact how many searchwork there is to be done afterwards to find a good one, if any . . .
I upgraded from an R6 to R5 for the higher pixel count, and I also upgraded lenses for better sharpness.
I'm doing big group portraits with 100+ people for organizations that want to print the photos two meters wide, and the upgrade has paid off because you can see the individual people that much more clearly. Artistically speaking, the photos are the same, but for the people who are featured, it matters because they are all clearly represented.
Thats a very special case. Most people dont make photos that need to be printed 2 meters wide and looked up close.
Well said!
"That was an incredible meal, you must have some fantastic saucepans!"
Well said!
The case of its good enough. Nevertheless I like the Eye AF feature on modern mirrorless cameras.
Brilliant!!!!
I have an A7III that’s like 8 years old and it is my main camera for all my commercial work which is the only type of work I do. My work gets printed on giant billboards and high end magazines all over my country and across the world and I haven’t heard a single complaint from a client yet. Are there jobs that warrant a Phase One? Maybe, but I could always rent one or just stitch pictures together since most of my work is still life. Way better work has been made on worse cameras and talented folks always got around the limitations of their gear by being creative.
The picture of Ben Johnson is iconic and would be mundane if it had extraordinary depth of field and no grain. I take pictures of hockey (field) and always try to have some motion blur in the feet, ball or stick to convey movement. However, I do shoot burst (Nikon Z9 at 20 fps) to catch the most interesting moment; I’m in awe of the film photographers who took some of the photos you showed without modern technology.
👍👍👍👍correct, we need more of this real world talk.
Thanks
Once again. Brilliant. Talent on loan from God.
I bought that exact monopod. It literally snapped in half the very first time I used it…sending my Nikon Z9 and 800mm lens down 7’ to the ground. Good news: 1). Nikon was okay 2) they were quick to send replacement part. Turned out to be the plastic locking knob, not the carbon fiber. Is it a good monopod? No idea, still sitting in back of closet.
People just can't get over the fact that their snapshots taken on 6k cameras aren't going to go down in history as art because of their technical precision.
well said
It's probably best to start with a new camera that's basically idiot proof and concentrate on the art rather than the tech. As you get more experienced you can go backwards to older less forgiving, but more characterful gear that's more fun.
What are your thoughts on photo contest?
I'm still very new to photography and I'm already fed up with the "you need" and "you should do" feedback. I want to make "mistakes" and enjoy the noise and a bit of fuzz. I bought the Zfc as I liked the look of it and I hadn't picked up a camera in decades and the only reason I picked a 2nd hand Zf is because of the IBIS and I hope that will go some way to offset my occasional shakes. I won't be getting rid of the Zfc as its a lightweight, easy to carry capable camera. Simple.
Totally agree with all of this video. Seems that most think that "Spray and Pray" is ok. What it actually does is show that no skill and very little knowledge is needed to "get" a good photograph. When I see people shooting hundreds or thousands of frames in a single outing, I cringe. All it proves is that they don't have any skill at all. Thanks from Canada.
1914 - 1918 book cover, an 8x 10 glass plate neg?
5:01 not better just easier to get the same result which is meaningless without the knowledge and also, professionals don't talk about gear as much. So, yeah, you're completely right, I agree.
I heard someone from Sirui saying it like: Sureej .. What is it!?
Scott says you get “A Sea Of The Same”. Yep. That’s it exactly.
I agree the pictures themselves aren't improved by the modern camera though I assert my life is better with all the things that modern camera **body** brings with it nowadays e.g. HSS, tethering, digital memory, audio recording, and so on.
100%
To the point 👌🏻
Thanks
Maybe this is missing a point. Film photographs, back in the day, were made only with the idea of creating a physical print, on paper. The photographs you are making today are regretfully mostly seen on a small, hand held, pocket screens, with limited color range. The new medium is allowing now, already, any guy to sit behind a screen and create an imagine in his mind, by typing or talking to an artificial piece of software, and create an amazing image that will soon be so perfect that we won't even tell the difference. A photograph on photographic, chemical paper is totally different, you can see it with more or less light, turn it towards the light to observe details, see the grain, pull it back and see basic forms of the composition...it´s not a matter of better or worse, it´s a different medium to communicate through an image.
To say that an artist would ditch paint and shoot with a phase one, to me demonstrates a lack of understanding about art in the person making the comment. The tech really gets in the way these days.
the reason you shoot with burst, is the fact that you will miss the shot, while you are waiting for your first snap to end.
When I hit play, this video started in french (I live in a french speaking region of the world), so I clicked to choose the original language, stated here as "English (United-States) original", ha ha.
100% disagree. Here's why;
- Actually, having modern capable cameras secure me the bread and butter 'money shots' far sooner, leaving me with the remainder of the shoot to explore and be creative in other ways. It's the opposite way round. Maybe some stay in a comfortable lane, but don't box us all together.
- Better photographs? Well isn't capturing the best moment (and the likelihood of doing that with a better tool) actually a better photograph than using a tool less capable and failing to get that moment at all? Maybe image quality is not better (in fact its arguable its worse), but always the piece of information left out in this conversation are all the duds and failures that came before with lesser tools and the frustration that followed. Showing a few famous moments caught in the past with lesser tools does not equal the same keeper rates as todays tools. Content matters > new tools increase delivery > period.
- Cameras differ in many ways today beyond the basics like buffer and fps. I am using stacked sensor cameras, in silent electronic shutters modes, free from banding from strong artificial light and rolling shutter effects whilst documenting classical musicians during rehearsals and performances. I am given free reign to being on the stage with them because I am so unobtrusive to their processes. If my mirror or shutters slapped, or I am setting up large format (taking up too much space), these would be deal breakers to that process.
And this is just one example that I am sure many on modern cameras have their own versions of.
The whole argument is silly, cameras are just tools, everything is a pro and con thing. The Large Format guy covering sports or politics, cool, we need that, but his assignment brief is ENTIRELY different to the guy doing high fps/breaking journalism. You're ignoring briefs and instead hand picking. What you're saying (without realising it) is 'because the large format guy has a great shot, we don't need these modern tools, everyone should do the large format!', lets see how the media reacts to that shall we....
You've been stuck shooting inanimate things in your studio too long, of course many cameras (in your eyes) are up to the task. And always, give the right tool to a person with good skills is crucial (but skill level has never been a question in this hypothetical). If gear doesn't matter go do all your campaigns on a Logitech 2mp webcam from the 90's.
we need more videos like this...i almost have anything i need for my job and some nights while i watch a video with that big title makes me going to amazon page...with no reason ...just pure capitalist thinking...sorry for my English :D
The reason I took up photography is because I can't draw or paint which I wish I could do.
A very well reasoned set of points/arguments, plus a fair amount to debate and ponder. Thoughtprovoking. Thanks.
I really despise gear p0rn and the race to find the "best" equipment. People wanting the "best" af, the "best" and newest camera body and lenses or the most expensive Leica... often lack connection to the process and their work.
More people with less skill have a greater chance of getting the best shot. That is the objective of technology.
@tomingrassiaimages8776 Like monkeys and typewriters? 🙂🐒📸
BJP is terrific, great photos and reproduction quality.
In my opinion modern cameras require less skill.
Give the "New" spray and pray photographers a film camera i.e Rolleiflex or a Leica M2/3 and ask them to get the "Money Shot"
Best of luck😂
1000%