A rant about cameras... (Sony A7R5 & Leica M6)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 มิ.ย. 2024
- Head to www.squarespace.com/james to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code JAMES.
Kai's video: • Sony a7R V - Key New F...
This week I rant about cameras, having seen the release of the Sony A7R5 and the Leica M6. Hopefully I make sense...
Antarctica 2024 Workshop: geni.us/Antarctica2024
Books: www.jamespopsys.com/store?cat...
Presets: www.jamespopsys.com/store?cat...
Prints: www.jamespopsys.com/store
Newsletter: www.jamespopsys.com/newsletter
---
My Gear: www.jamespopsys.com/gear
---
MUSIC:
Take your films to the next level with music from Musicbed. Sign up for a free account to listen for yourself: fm.pxf.io/c/3154674/1347628/1...
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs5zdBqLn_8/mqdefault.jpg)
![โอ้มายก๊อด! ไม่ถึงชั่วโมงหมดเป็นแสน 😅 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.42 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OH2ShXfO6tA/mqdefault.jpg)
I recently upgraded to a Z50 from a 10+yr old Olympus e-series camera with 7 auto focus points and ISO that looked like a lava field at 1000. Let me tell you, once I upgraded, I was getting shots I never could’ve dreamed of getting before…tac sharp in low light, fast birds, my kids running around indoors… I even became my kids’ soccer club’s official volunteer photographer for all 10 of their teams. It was a blast! Seeing such clear action shots that I took was an incredible feeling. A year later, I was actually gettin bored of nothing but clear shots. Whereas with my Olympus, I’d get maybe 10% hit rate, with the Z50, I hit over 90%! I was dreading going through so many photos every week and losing the love of photography. Until one day a parent came up to me and told me how much the photos of her kids that I took meant to her. Then another parent and another. I’d provided thousands of free photos because I loved getting the results but then the results became normal and mundane until I saw the impact my photos were creating on these parents and players who never would’ve gotten such “pro” looking photos (and for free!).
I guess my point is that it’s easy to think the gear is becoming too involved in the process of capturing moments. (Which I agree it can), but what’s more important is the impact your photography and the process has on others and yourself, and why you shoot. If I could afford to upgrade to a Z6ii or even Z9, I would! Getting better shots of more kids to provide their families with lasting memories is what has reawakened my love of photography. A camera that makes getting clearer shots easier is just the means to get there (for me). It’s also easy to forget that such a camera still needs competence and experience to capture “good” photos, not just “sharp” photos.
Thanks for the insightful video!
Absolutely with you!
But how can you get bored with "too good keeper rate"?
Despite i had a huge upgrade from EOS 550D to EOS RP to EOS R7 in wildlife, i still would wish a better keeper rate because sometimes THE ONE POSE in the 15 fps burst is affected by shutter shock and ITS ANNOYING AF!
The real issue i think is - after a while, you had many good shots already and the process of photography is getting even better, but there is a point where it get really hard to "get better", so you are "stuck" (with gear and/or skills) and then it gets boring/"always the same".
At least i always tried to improve until the point where i realized im stuck heavily with the gear, mostly old and bad, and every time the new gear was miles ahead from the existing one and improved my photography definately.
It could be for example:
- with a proper 1.4 prime and full frame even night photography handheld was finally possible in the city for example or wide field astrophotography
- telescope.... i had a little bit fun with regular camera gear on a basic tripod in AP, but only the telescope upped and automated it nicely
- with "proper" tele(zoom) lenses i was able to get jumpy birds and wildlife, impossible without more or less
- wide angle lenses.... i refused for a long time to buy one since they were expensive and big, since i got one i can try and enjoy it at least (even if im bad with it)
z50 is a great camera
I for once welcome our "way to expensive for me too ever consider buying" camera-overlords. Maybe in 10 years I can afford one of them used
way TOO expensive, not TO.
@@raybeer5213 And the most aggressive looking correction goes TOO……..
The discussion of “you took a great photo cuz you have a better camera” is starting to become a lot more of a true statement than i would like it to be
This might be part of why I enjoy artificial lighting so much. Being able to shape a beautiful scene in the blink of a strobe still feels much more like a type of magic than simply a technological feat. I experience a far greater sense of ownership over a well placed shadow than I do a tack sharp pupil, when I know that my modern pro camera and my modern pro lens completely took take of the latter.
Yeah I see that more instead of why do you love that camera and equipment.
I was thinking the very same thing!
@@Sidowse Archer not the arrow
@@SkiwithMike 2 Equally talented photographers will not get the same quality of photo if one was using an A6600 APSC camera and the other was using an A7III/IV/V full frame
But you can keep arguing that it's the "Archer not the arrow" while you're likely using an A7 IV
I think for most people, we don't want our hobbies to get too easy. Part of the fun of doing anything not "real" work, i.e. taking pictures, woodworking, driving a manual transmission, is the exercising of a skill set to get it done correctly and suffering the mistakes when we don't do it properly. Take that away and there's little point in doing it.
Yup. My guitar playing is testament. I wouldnt want a self playing guitar.
yea I think you nailed it.
It's not the question of is it good or bad. It is rather what is it I want to acchieve.
I don't want my models to be painted by themself, I want the creativity, the process to reach the final result - which for me often loses it's appeal the moment it's done. (I still love em, as they are my creation but I'm more interested in trying something new with the next - damn I sound like an addict)
But for work, I would not want to be tied down with the process but I want the result I need, to work with. I could calculate stuff myself, but that would tie my down and I would not get my actual work done.
James hinted as taht with the idea of the wedding-photographer, where teh process it not the primary goal but the satiscaftion of the costumer, and for that technology can realy help to not miss something important for them.
A large part of the joy I get from my photography hobby is learning from my mistakes. When I finally get an image I am proud of, I feel like I, and not my camera, have accomplished something.
@@manilamartin1001 Fortunately guitars don't have the ability to get as technologically advanced as cameras... no replacement for your fingers and brain.
Unless your goal is the best result.
I don't know why I've taken this out on the new A7R, but I've been thinking a lot recently there's too much tech now.
I don't really want to shoot film but I like the idea of being more connected to the process rather than basically shooting with a computer.
I'm going to go and think about this more with wine in the bath...
P.s sorry about the overexposed images. They don't look like that when I export them from Lr, premiere pro is winding me up...
P.p.s the comment sections in these videos are just the best. I love reading about other people’s set ups and thoughts. Looking forward to reading them all!
I took up photography recently, (bought an lx100ii and an a GX9, and still love both). But, I also randomly decided to buy some old russian film cameras, and an olympus om1n. Now, Those cameras cost me less than the MFTs (less than one of them), and they really just make life hard, BUT, they have one major feature.
They slow me down.
And that's exactly what I need. Especially as a learner, it forces me to think ahead, chimping is impossible, I have to plan. I have to have intent. And some people can learn that with digital I guess, but it's something I've struggled with. Film make it happen, I have to slow down, and it has helped no end.
I'm loving shooting film, and it's making my digital better.
So far, I always thought, that it is the old (e.g. retired) guys who start to reject further camera technology advances. I thought one of the reason for this is that an aging brain becoming overwhelmed with learning or coping with additional complexities.
You (and your brain) are still young obviously, so you wouldn't fall into that customer category 😉
I'd say though that an autofocus never can be "too good" or too sophisticated. If you are in a (somewhat agile) situation which benefits from AF, then the AF should better be damn good, shouldn't it?
If you are in slow situations (typical: landscapes or other stills) then that's a different thing, then it is 'legitimate' to enjoy the process of e.g. working out focus points manually, e.g. for focus stacking a landscape shot.
My threshold of "enough is enough" would be, if some AI suggests perfect compositions within a wide-angle frame, to zoom into. Unless it is educationally smart to suggest WHY it recommends a certain framing, then at least there would be a tangible benefit for beginners?
You need to shoot one roll on a mechanical camera and I think you'll love the process more.
From a pure technical standpoint, I am fascinated by the tec.
But form me, I chose a camera that feels great rather than the pure image/AF quality.
I enjoy the process and that's why I value a good felling camera system.
The M6 seems to be handmade in Germany, which would at least partially explain the high price tag, I guess..
As for the A7r V, I don't need actual 61 MP. But I want to be able to switch seamlessly between FF and crop-mode and the smaller 26 MP FF files are awesome for my stuff. And so are the general AF improvements, the better IBIS (I basically handhold everything) and the tiltyflippydoeverything screen. Or at least welcome additions which really make me think hard.. Next Year. Or so.. :D
As a professional portrait photographer I use exclusively manual focus, vintage lenses adapted to a Fujifilm GFX50sii - one major draw for me is the restrictions this places on me and the character that the almost 50 year old lenses give to my work - I moved away from "optically perfect" new lenses because I found them too digitally sharp. Maybe I'll be swayed by other lenses in the future, but for now, I find manually focusing is far more enjoyable and I have far better control of what's in focus. In fact, for someone who shoots wide open, such a small sliver of the frame is in focus that relying on the eye autofocus wasnt good enough (I had a Sony A7ii before), it would often focus on the eyelashes not the iris. But now, I can be much more precise - which is, of course, ironically, offset by the slight softness of the lens.
Funny enough, as a web designer/developer, sometimes I feel that services like your sponsor Squarespace make it too easy and take out all the fun of designing and coding websites
As a developer myself I had lots of fun building things from scratch at the beginning of my career, but now I jump at every opportunity I get to get the product out the door with minimal effort and creative input, like a wedding photographer would jump on the latest Sony. The less I have to think at work, the more creative energy I have left for photography or other things on my own time and on my own terms.
So true. I was a web designer back in the heady days of the late 90s and early 2000s. The tech was limited and restrictive yet the creativity was massive because it required a special person with the right mix of creative and technical skills to produce something good. Those skills were highly valued. These days web design is so generic: that’s great for usability (something we always weren’t so great with 25 years ago!) but hardly inspiring. Glad I got out ~10 years ago and did something else with my life.
Although Squarespace offers a lot of options it still ends up a bit cookie-cutter. I tried to use it for nearly a year to replace my custom built site, but gave up in frustration at all the design limitations. It’s also pretty expensive. I find it strange that so many photographers who obsess with developing their own style and individuality end up happy to present their work in such a conformist way…
Eh, I don't think it matters that much. The photos are the star of the show, these plain white templates they use are perfect.
Of course a static site generator would be much cheaper and you don't have the vendor lock-in. But if you're not technical and don't have time to become it I see the point with Squarespace.
Squarespace also takes the nightmare out of engaging web design companies who charge the earth for standard Wordpress templates then hold the buyer to ransom for changes 😅. I’ll take a limited design pallette for being self sufficient any time!
Each to their own, I suppose. I tend to think that the more advanced the camera, the more you're being freed up to focus on other aspects of a shoot, and spend less time to get that done (which, let's be fair, is hugely valuable to working photographers). In the case of this more advanced AF, it's creating opportunities to jump into moments that would otherwise have been harder to capture, with older cameras requiring more time to prepare for unexpected moments. Of course, as you noted, it depends greatly on the type of work you do. Your work is largely in capturing landscapes, which doesn't demand much in the way of advanced tech, and generally does allow more time to prep. If you're an action shooter, or even just a kindergarten photographer, that clever new AF is insanely valuable.
pretty much anything that improves my keeper rate encourages me to shoot more.
I agree, especially for professionals. But at the same time if something becomes too easy it becomes less satisfying. If all your shots are awesome that becomes the standard and boring.
Like you said, for professionals it makes sense. But for example for me that just loves to grab his camera and go into the wild and shoot, I just love the process of composing, setting my desire aperture and shutter speed and then focus, all done by me and not some automated AI system. Especially for enthusiast photography I think most people tend to run away from these automated systems as it takes the joy out of the hobbie. For professional use, completely agree with you
A truly professional photographer that does it for a living day in and day out, they know their cameras extremely well, they know where to be, when to be and all the things to get the required image. They probably don't need this tech in most of the cases. And I hear the voices: _"no but sports photo..."_ Have you seen the incredible shots of the Olympic games? or F1?.. _"no but wedding photogr..."_ Have you seen the work of seasoned wedding photographers, the ones that earn awards?. Let's be real. This tech ain't for them, they would do the same with the M6 all manual as it always has been. This is for the content creators, the advanced hobbyists and similar. Those are the ones that are going to talk about it more than shoot with it. I mean if anyone thinks that with a burst of 20 images per second (and that's nothing for today's cameras) even if only 5 or 6 where on focus you are going to be missing "the perfect shot" because it was in between. You are just lying to yourself.
@@juanQuedo this entire argument is completely disconnected from reality. The number of those "incredible shots" from the past that are just straight up out of focus is astounding.
Those photographers weren't these incredible manual focus savants, it was just all they had. There are far more incredible photos around nowadays because the camera gets out of the way and allows you to focus more on composition and lighting.
If what you are saying was true all of the seasoned professional wildlife and sports photographers who started on film wouldn't use large pro-bodies like the Canon 1DX or Nikon D(X).
There are so many photographers I see that spend thousands and thousands on cameras from Leica and Hasselblad and take absolutely garbage photos, but the entire personality of their photography is that they shot it fully manually. Doesn't matter how it was captured, a bad photo is bad, a good photo is good.
I think the "too much technology" line will be different for different types of photography like you eluded to in video. I am a hobbyist wildlife photographer so animal eye autofocus is very helpful for me. I still have the challenge of finding the subject and framing it in a pleasing way. Since the moment may be fleeting, if I have an autofocus that can find and focus on the eye I will embrace the technology. You probably don't care if your camera can do 30 fps, but I do. I guess what I am saying is that for me, once the camera can aim the lens and frame the animal before I see it, then it will have crossed the "too much technology" line for me.
I love your photography. You have an ability to frame the landscape and pick your focus point that I struggle mightily with. You are an artist creating art. I am sure you could use a fully manual film camera and still create great art.
"how much do you feel part of the process?" this is something I have been trying to put into words for over a year now but Im not intelligent enough to figure it out for myself. Anyway, thats exactly the point I was trying to make when having a conversation with people. it was getting to the point where all the technology in the camera, plus all the amazing things you can do with editing software starts to dilute your creative stamp on the image you take
As a wildlife fotographer I am more than happy about the technical improvement. Sometimes it is still a pain in the ass to get to the places where the wildlife is and then, you only see it for a few secs. If you can`t rely on your gear, you loose the moment.
The advancements in technology is frankly crazy and the people behind it clearly worked very hard to make it. For me, the enjoyment comes from the process. And to me the process is researching a location, lugging my gear up a mountain/round a city etc, setting up. Magic autofocus won't turn a bad photo into a great one, just a bad one into an in focus bad photo
Honestly never comment, but I think this video warrants one!
This has been my exact feeling for years, although I could never figure out why.
I was obsessed with photography around 2007-2014, but after a while I lost all motivation, I sat with tens of thousands of pictures without caring to do anything with them, it became a chore.
About a year ago I bought an old medium format camera and started taking film photos, developing and scanning myself and I don't even touch my digital camera unless it's for scanning. Sure you miss a lot of pictures you wouldve been able to take digitally, but you cherish the ones you have, and that's enough for me. It becomes a challenge.
you could do the same with digital. I only shoot around 300 shots during a shoot. most photographers mindlessly shoot 1000 of photos in hopes of getting a couple good ones which is terrible
As someone who is a big fan of polaroid I do get it. When it comes to those kind of pictures, it is (for me) the imperfections that makes the picture possible art. You will get results you can't really replicate and each picture often tells a story, because the paper i so expensive that the shots kinda need to be a bit "extra" to justify the pricing and enviromental damage those can produce.
The ability to compose a photograph is what makes or breaks an image. It’s what I find the most difficult but most enjoyable aspect of photography. Any technological improvements that allow for me to focus more on that process is a win in my books.
Different styles of photography is just that, different not better or worse.
You made some great points. So, I follow numerous photography channels, here on TH-cam. From experimental to landscape, however, my favourite subject is street photography. Having said that, I only follow 2-3 *(film)* street photographers, simply for the slowed down, more relaxed approach. It grinds my gear when I see many street photographers, up in someone's face, bursting 10 frames per second, hoping to catch that one "magical" photo (which is also usually HEAVILY processed). At that point, to me, it's no longer photography but more of a "scratch card" scenario.
I had this thought several years ago when I saw a video about a camera that would let you take a photo and THEN focus where you want to. It just seemed like too much of the enjoyment and challenge, for me, would be taken out of photography with that kind of focusing system. I still feel that way about that kind of technology, too.
I kinda get this sort of perspective, but at the same time, the new af systems of cameras as of late (specifically on the R5 with me), has actually further encouraged me to take part in my photography hobby. This kind of happens for me for 2 reasons. Logically speaking, if you don't find challenges with certain types of photography without having to worry about AF, you just move to other types of photography. For me, I found it very daunting getting into astrophotography because of the huge learning curve. Now I enjoy it immensely because of new camera tools that make focussing so much easier and help give rewarding results.
In addition, improved autofocus specifically but technology broadly has allowed me to increase my success rates with other types of photography (mainly street photography and aircraft photography). Instead of getting frustrated over missing all the time, you start focussing more on composition and making your photography even better.
First off, I'm a hobby photographer. My photography changed once I had a kid. Before, I shot with mostly manual lenses and enjoyed a slow, analog process. I loved wildlife, macro, and astro. After having a kid, I've grown to love documentary style photography as well as portraiture. After I borrowing my friend's R5, I was blown away. I immediately sold off a bunch of gear I wasn't using and bought an R6 and a couple of (EF) primes (My price ranges don't allow for the R5 + RF glass, but I can appreciate how amazing they are). The autofocus on this thing is an absolute gamechanger. Being able to successfully capture images of my wild toddler in action has led to some of my favorite photos I've every produced. Our walls are covered in beautiful action shots of our family adventuring. Even my wife, not into camera gear AT ALL, can now track me and my son while we play. I WANT a high keeper rate. I don't want to say, "man, that could have been a cool shot if he had been in focus."
So, while I get what you are saying, I am eternally grateful for the gear that I have and I treasure the moments I've been able to capture.
I really don't think eye autofocus is relevant to a landscape photographer but it is helpful for a TH-camr who films themselves and depends on it being in focus on the first take.
Makes it a lot easier to keep focus on a model that prefers moving during their shoots, too. Especially if you're shooting up close at anything wider than f/4. Or God forbid you're taking photos of a kid that won't hold still.
He mentioned wedding/sports/event photographers might appreciate the quality of that feature more than him.
It's essensual for getting the sharp focus on the eye of the running sheep!
@@sidekickbob7227 why is the sheep running 😁sorry,
@@daveyboy6210 You know why, Davey boy, -You know why.... ;-)
Speaking as someone who is a hobbyist and who does have the patience for film, I think the main thing is understanding different processes so that when you have a project or image in mind you know how to use the best process to achieve that. My last project used both film and digital. My current one is purely digital. Most of my favourite single images from this year have been film - but they wouldn't have been if I hadn't spent a big chunk of time learning how to do it.
Photography changed rapidly in recent times, the perceptions of the values behind each photo seems muddy due to the accessibility. Anyone from age 4 to 104 can easily take photos use their devices and share with everyone. I remember there was a time I had to wait for camera setting to dail in, everyone pose and take 1 or 2 shots then wait for a week for photos to be developed and back from the shops. The anticipation, excitement, process and joy is what's missing, and maybe why people still go back to film.
In 1971 my Mom gave my Dad a Canon FTb for Christmas. That camera eventually became mine and I used it until digital came along and I've lost count of how many cameras I've bought since then. I just had the FTb CLA'd and I'm completely thrilled to have it back, and I'm working my way through a roll of Portra 400. The simplicity of it is a relief. ISO, shutter speed, aperture. That's it. Better take your time and get it right because you won't know until the film comes back from the lab. Photography.
I started with film because I'm an old guy. Medium format, handheld light meter and manual focus. Loved the process and results. Would not go back. Just remember, you can dumb down the most technology-laden modern cameras to just use a single AF point and meter for light and leave the rest to your own sensibilities. The process of the photograph itself does not have to change that much from days of yore.
I've been doing strictly film photography for the past year now. I follow this channel solely for the wisdom and the concepts you provide. I've found that although I don't shoot digital, almost all of your tips can be applied to film photography because at it's core, photography is photography. I dabbled in digital for roughly one summer a few years back but was never hooked the way I have been with film and I think you've nailed why. For me, digital isn't enough of a challenge, and I think there are a lot of people that can agree with that. Well done James.
Very interesting point of view, thanks for sharing! I'll add my two cents: I very much enjoy film's slow approach. It makes for more deliberate photography imho.
It taught me (as a beginner) to take the time to properly set everything correctly on my camera, make sure my composition is great, etc. I mostly shoot in single-shot mode, and I use burst to get a clear shot when I'm using a slow shutter speed.
Film taught me to slow down and not be so trigger-happy. At $0.75 per shot, I want to make sure most of them are excellent.
@@jean-simondesjardins2819 Agreed 100%. I've considered trying out digital again now that I've had some film experience, maybe trying to go about it the same way. But also, as a mechanical engineering student one of the draws to film photography is the cameras themselves. There is something magical about a well designed fully mechanical camera. It's why, while I have no use and may not afford, I have a very healthy respect for the Leica M6. It's not just an icon, but a real marvel, as with many other film cameras.
and there's this one thing with digital that bugs me when I see photographs that are over edited to a point that the colours are hyper-colourized! Not a word, but then the images that are like that are not real either. Thanks for the interesting thoughts James and Cal - take care and be safe out there....
@@jean-simondesjardins2819 You can do that with digital too, but most people are just saying they do not have the self discipline to turn off the lcd screen an preview so they cannot chimp. You can do this with digital "properly set everything correctly on my camera, make sure my composition is great, etc. I mostly shoot in single-shot mode". To me people who run around saying this type of thing or. I only use film to make my life harder and the process more difficult so I am better than you and you should commiserate with me that I am able to produce images that are more "deliberate" I don't think you can hear how snobbish that sounds. Film taught me the process sucked back then and it was more about the process than the results. It doesn't matter if a carpenter uses a hammer or a pneumatic nail gun. Is the house well built. How many carpenters say, my house is built better because I use a slower antiquated process.
@@IAmR1ch Roofers. Hand nailed shingle roofs are better according to some. Pneumatic nail guns punch through roof sheathing too easy in many cases and there are a lot of people that roof (which is slow miserable work) the older slower way as it yields better results for them and the customer. There are people who shape metal with a hammer and heat instead of a six axis CNC macine. The analogy isn't apt though. Carpentry isn't art. I mean, heck, there are people still shooting wet plates and doing albumin prints for a living or as a passion. In the end photography, even diluted down in pure commercial work, is a form of art (art being an expression or application of human creative skill and imagination) and whatever works for the artist is what works for them, be it the latest and greatest digital body or a large format camera that takes an entire cow's worth of gelatin and a half ounce of silver salts per image. Oil painting and watercolors didn't go away with the advent of the Kodak Brownie, and apparently film itself will hang around for as long as people find it as a useful means of expression just fine art painting still exists.
You make some very valid and interesting points. Craftsmanship is the reason many people have these hobbies and interests. I can buy a sweater from the store, but knitting it myself is so much more satisfying (sometimes).
I’m 66 years old. I’m also a retired commercial photographer, but that is largely irrelevant to my point.
I’m not sure of the number of times I have heard this same set of comments during my life, in relation to various disciplines, but it has been numerous. Everything from compound bows in archery, carbon fiber everything in bicycling (now replaced by evil electrical assistance in bicycling), to computer image editing in photography. Now, imagine for a moment going back 100 years in time, and experiencing all the technological advances in every aspect of life up to this moment. Wow… mind blowing right? And yet, the world has still not come to an end. People still fish with hand made bamboo fly rods and hand tied flies… sonar scanners be gone! :)
I love both. With film, i acutally find the ediiting process much easier! The colors, skin tones, dynamic range are still more pleasing to me and require very little editing. With digital, i find myself shooting way more shots, way more filtering through those shots, i spend longer time editing those shots, but the run and gun style gives me more shots to play with. With that being said, having a photo in focus is really the easy part. Making a GOOD photo is the real challenge, always will be. Regardless of megapixels or autofocusing tech.
Some years ago a friend of mine who does woodwork said, that he loves his pieces with little defects more than the perfect pieces. Since then these words don’t get out of my mind.
And I slowly begin to like the non-perfect shots I do most. 😊
I think it’s good to have different levels of convenience in any hobby. Gear collection is a valid way to enjoy photography just as much as film photography. I think of some enthusiasts want to focus on story telling and don’t want the hassle of the technical aspects of of photography, it’s great they have the gear. As an outdoors photographer with limited time, I don’t want to worry about technical specs when I already have to plan and budget a trip,sleep on the ground, wake up before sunrise, hike in the dark, etc.
But I have a Pen-1 and GF-1 and I will from time to time pull them out going somewhere I’ve been before that’s locale and enjoy the challenge and outcomes of finding a photo I shot and enjoy. I thought if I could enjoy the why not film, only to become utterly frustrated by my lack of skill and knowledge around a film camera.
I've absolutely been feeling this for a few years now and it pushed me back towards using vintage manual lenses to give back some of that control, possibility of error and just pure enjoyment of photography.
With that said, if I'm gonna be shooting for a client I'll take all the autofocus help I can get in order to have a greater selection of usable images at the end of it.
I get where you're coming from, but with a camera like the A7R5, just stick a nice vintage lens on it and it's all about the photographer again. Great video, James.
This is the exact reason I switched from DSLR to strictly old manual film cameras. Film forces me to slow down and really think of what I'm doing and there is zero instant gratification. It's quite remarkable how much I've improved and the joy that analog photography brings.
This is exactly why I continue to do film photography - it's the love of the process that is my hobby, not just the results. Of course I do digital photography as well when I need to and the advances in technology are helpful and I really appreciate them. There is room for both approaches, although my wallet might disagree. #staybrokeshootfilm
I must say that is the first video that really nails why people like film photography. All this technology strips the fun out of shooting and just focus on the result. The fun of getting one good film photo is so much more pleasing than having 30 frames a second perfectly in focus digital images. Only because you made this photo instead of the camera doing al the work.
Great video. Thanks. I've also often thought how much photography is like golf. Now I personally hate golf and would gladly pay to not have to do it, but I completely understand why people love it. It's the fact that golf is extremely hard yet even a novice can have a great shot now and then and put the ball exactly where it needs to be. That's what makes people want to keep trying to get better. Same with photography. Most of my photos are crap, but occasionally, I take a shot which I know is special. It's the knowledge that I have the ability to take that good photo that keeps me going.
Good god, man. Who the hell would buy a camera that weighs five THOUSAND pounds?!
-my instant [American] reaction every time you mentioned the price of the new Leica
WE’RE DOOMED.
For as long as I can remember, I’ve always had a love for photography, the experience and the process. I’ve also always had a love and a fascination for Astronomy. Peering into a (once-dark) sky and seeing perfect points of light conjured up a million thoughts of places far away and gave me a sense of perspective about who and where I was in that space-time continuum as I struggled to keep my hands warm while racking to a perfect focus on my shiny new telescope.
I’m much older now and have more telescopes and better gear, even a computer controlled mount or two with digital camera systems costing more than a few Leicas, not including the filters. I don’t even need to actually go outside to check the sky conditions. There’s an instrument for that too. The entire process is automated from start to finish. I enter a plan into the software, the computer checks the weather, rolls the roof off of the observatory, warms up the telescope mount, cools the camera, takes calibration exposures, waits for the target to reach the appropriate height above the horizon, shoots the many required exposures for hours at a time, then shuts everything down, all while I lay in my bed snoozing the night away.
The magic is gone! And now we must contend with AI. Soon what we are doing today will be called vintage or antique photography.
This is incredibly on point and was my exact experience a year ago. It was the entire genesis of my channel and I haven’t looked back a single day. I pretty much don’t own a modern camera anymore. The passion and joy of the challenge was gone but I am in a similar camp to you - I do this for my own pleasure. My husband is working professional and the Nikon Z9 serves him brilliantly.
I was playing with my older Fujifilm X-E2 yesterday (now 9 years old) and was blown away (again) at how incredibly it performs! Agree completely with your sentiment. Thanks for sharing James!
I've started photography with a smartphone, than got a mirrorless, than got a film camera and couldn't be any happier. Having only 36 exposure, film is unforgiving!
Not seeing the result after taking a picture, it just forces you to get better and better everytime. Finding after a week or more that you missed exposure, your framing was wrong or maybe your shutter speed and a great moment is ruined, pisses you off more than you ever know. And that because of the waiting. :))
With digital you can review your pic instantly and correct your mistake. With film you just have to embrace that mistake and make sure next time you get it right! Shooting film changed my perspective completely, even now when I pick my digital camera, I only take less than 20 pics :))
I think both mediums have their uses and a photographer should try and use a film camera, it will only make him better.
I actually just recently got a used Leica Q for the a lot of the same reasons you describe here. It has most of the modern convenience features that make it easy to snap beautiful quick shots; but also has incredible manual focusing and modes for when I want to have that more “analog” experience, but without the hassle of film. All with the GORGEOUS glass and image quality Leica is known for. I feel like it hits that perfect balance, and I was able to be acquired for a decent price (in Leica terms).
I too re-mortgaged the house and got a Leica Q2 and really do love the “analog” feel of the camera. I find I have to think more about every element of the image especially given the fixed lens. But this has proved a joy and I believe also improved my photography skills. Which dovetails into James’ comments about the golf clubs. There is a great satisfaction to be had for getting something right when you know there is so much that could go wrong!
I’ve recently bought a Q-116 as well. Oh bugger. It’s my favorite now, rest of the (expensive) stuff is laying there, looking at me walking out the door with the Q.
i will say as someone newer in all this. I upgraded from a base DSLR to the a6600 as one main reason for the improved autofocus. As I'm learning photography it's encouraging to have the help of getting something in focus because i'm spending much of my time trying to work on composition and composing a shot. this is a hobby for me and I don't have a ton of time to dedicate but I want to improve my shots. So for me and I assume other beginners as we learn, the technology help to make sure I at least end up with something that is in focus and I can start to critique the composition and other aspects of the photo is a large help. I do completely understand though at some point if the camera makes all the decisions then what is the point of us.
That's a good point. And I agree that it is very personal.
Some will find drones high-tech and prefer helicopters to manually take photos on board.
Some will say that helicopters are too much technology, they will prefer balloons.
Some will say that balloons are too much technology, they would rather climb a mountain.
Personally, I don't give more credit to the photographer just because it's harder to focus manually or go to remote and exotic places to take the photo. There are many incredible work by people who never left their neighborhoods.
On the other hand, I don't like fake photos, I'm not a big fan of black and white, nor lots of editing or filters, I like them as natural and real as possible with maybe just a little pop as if the light was perfect at the moment of taking the photo.
I just like art and how it makes me feel. Purely for the result, not the process.
The process for me is personal, and I also like to follow your process and that of others, but as a story, as inspiration, as novelty and drama. Not because I value a more difficult process more. Even though I recognize it.
Gear and technology must be enablers, they must not hinder the desired result. They are meant to be tools to remove friction so you can completely let yourself go and make art.
For some, limitations and harshness will allow for inspiration and a sense of accomplishment; for some, it will be a dealbrake.
As long as we get art in the end and the person making it is happy with the result and the way it feels, others will certainly appreciate it.
Ultimately I care about the end result. My prefered way to shoot is with a digital leica. And this is because they have a perfect mix of high image quality and minimalism. Range finder makes composition easier, range finder is way better than focus peaking for manual focusing. And makes it almost as fast and easy as autofocus. I like having a sense of full control of the process without feeling like I'm losing anything.
I have no issues with autofocus and autoexposure, but as a user of mostly vintage glass, I have long been fully manual (both with film and digital) and it's a big part of my love of photography. I would never want to go back to using auto-whatevers, I just don't enjoy the process as much.
That said, if you personally use all those technowhatsits, your photography is just as much photography as mine is. It's just not for me.
I just sold my R5. As an hobbyist I found I was getting perfectly exposed, tack sharp photos with unbelievable dynamic range that made me feel.. nothing. I can count on one hand the number of images that I *love* that I took with that camera. That's 100% the photographer and has nothing to do with the device! It was a beautiful device. I'm spending more time thinking about composition, trying to distill an image down to what made me want to point the camera and less time thinking about the technical perfection of the capture. It's taken me decades but I'm finally looking at my camera and lenses as tools rather than venerated objects I must devote myself to.
Say Chris, I’m interested in your comment and more so what you chose post R5? I myself was amazed by the AF system; but not Canon’s approach to MILC bodies. Wanting IBIS badly prior to Canon’s late decision to adapt, I kept my DSLRs; but moved MFTs initially. I know the R5 is really popular and I get questions why I didn’t go there often. So, this is why I find your experience interesting and if you don’t mind sharing. All the best, Tim.
@@residenttouristprod The story of what camera body I ended up with is long and boring. My point was that the camera is a tool. The R5 is great but ultimately the key to taking great pictures is being a great photographer, not having great equipment. :)
I still shoot micro four thirds. There’s a big difference in capability if hardly any difference in technology between the G9 and the G85. When I need to get the shot, taking pictures for other people, I use the G9. When I’m by myself walking around town or hiking I use the G85. Same lenses. Coaxing a shot out of the G85 is most of the enjoyment, more than doing anything with them later.
Great video. Looking back, I remember feeling like this when one of my cameras had the ability to automatically crop the photo to try and make it a better composition.
I found that a very thoughtful piece James. I started with film way back when, and still have a few film cameras, which I am always going to fill with film but never do. I have no state-of-the-art digital cameras, just a Pentax K1 and a Lumix G9. They seem to me just about right for my needs, and I wonder if each of us can simply decide what works for us as individuals. A better golf club certainly never made me a better golfer, and neither did a more advanced camera.
I totally get your feelings. As a full time working professional commercial photographer, a camera for me is a tool and the better that tool is, the better I can do my job, the better outcomes I can provide for my clients. Advances in technology make my job easier and allow me to provide better service. This doesn’t take away from my creative process instead for me it expands the horizon of what’s possible and raises the standards required to be successful. Yes the bar is lower and competition is higher but it also means that the people who are genuine about doing this rise to the top and those who are not willing to put in the work and develop their craft are weeded out ever more quickly. It’s all progress as far as I’m concerned👍
I didn't expect to find this video interesting based on the title, since I use strictly Canon bodies and compatible lenses. I was pleasantly surprised because you talked about the ever-advancing technology crutch that is reducing the challenge of trying to take technically perfect photos. I agree with your opinion. Another wonderful video!
I still keep a manual film camera and a couple of rolls of film around for this very reason, plus it's good to keep your photography fundamentals sharp because of how easy modern cameras are to use.
I think your conclusion around use case and acceptance is spot on, and particularly like how you frame this around individual preference. I recently had a moment when I was in the market to purchase into an interchangeable lens system again. I'm firmly in the Fujifilm sphere, and the new wizz bang hotness of the X-H2 almost had me, but I opted to take a step back (or several, I suppose) and just pick up an older X-T3 (to complement my X100V). There were a lot of aids and features of the newer camera that are appealing, but ultimately I don't think they fit my use case or process. I do love your point about film photography as well, as I love it myself and found it really helpful to experiment with when I was first getting into photography.
For me, the thing that I like about film over digital is the opportunity to make interesting mistakes. I come from fine arts to photography so I know I'm coming from a very different angle, but the weird textures and flares and poor exposure or partially double exposure can be a really interesting and creative line that you'd never get with digital. I recently started getting more into digital photography, a friend of mine asked me to photograph their wedding so now I need to actually learn how to photograph people reliably, but I still prefer the happy accidents and mistakes that come with film. In digital, it feels more like the only accident you can make is being bad at focusing or not knowing how to do something.
Better AF is why I side stepped from A7RIII to A7IV, bird eye af is a game changer for me. The RIII was incredibly frustrating especially with really small birds hiding in foliage. With the limited time I have to actually get out with my camera to unwind in nature it is worth it.
I use film photography for all my personal work because it's limitations force me to practice under an extreme (Not being able to review photos, entirely manual exposure, lots of money on the line if I waste/mess up shots, etc.). Therefore, when I do commissions on a digital camera it's almost effortless due to the lack of any limitations on my process (comparatively). This mindset has worked for me because I avoid buying nicer film gear because I thrive under the limits it provides, and I rarely lust over new digital gear (past my own kit which I'm very happy with) because I rarely feel limited by my gear.
I really enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this, and your take on it is close to mine. I've made my peace with technology and photography by having it both ways: I use a (reasonably) state-of-the-art mirrorless camera when I feel the need, and a much older DSLR with vintage lenses when I want to work a bit for results. And I'm actually enjoying using the latter much more these days. But like you, I also change my mind, so who knows how I'll feel about it a year from now. Thanks again for this!
This is more or less why I shoot film. I wanted to be more involved and less distracted, so I bought a full manual range finder for $180. With no light meter, a solid 1/3 of my shots are pure garbage, but I love it and it quickly became the camera I always take with me. Don’t think I’ll be emptying my bank account for a Leica though
I'm not confident enough in my abilities yet to shoot film. I feel like I will waste film that others can better make use of.
Also, I think about having to ask people to develop the film for me and hide in my blanket. I can't deal with that, either 😢
@@thegrayyernaut you should give it a go. Once you have to really care about every shot, and once you can't "spray and pray", thing change. It's all much more zen.
I've been looking at getting an affordable rangefinder. What type do you have? Would you recommend it?
The Kiev3 andkiev4, if you can get an early one in working order, are well regarded and take contax lenses. It has the longest baseline (distance between the two windows) of any early filim rangefinder, which makes focusing easier.
The zork 4 has a nice clear viewfinder, but I find the shutter speed dial really annoying, and the diopter (though great), is to easy knock.
My fave so far is my zorki-s (aka zorki-c, but it's basically a zorki-1 or fed-1). Loading film is super annoying, but if is a lovely size, and with a collapisible lens, it's genuinely pocketable.
@@TristanColgate I def take a look at those. Thanks!
I always enjoy your videos. Thank you!!! Over the years I have moved more and more back to film. I enjoy its limits and the tactile aspect of the medium. Because photography is a selfish endeavor for me, it is more about the process than the results. I spend much less time in post processing now. It's either good image or it isn't. I applaud Leica bringing back the M6. Perhaps they will inspire other manufacturers to (re)introduce film camera options to the consumer at all price ranges. All things are relative. Who else remembers paying $5K for a 2.7MP Nikon D1 in 1999? Exactly!!!
Having recently got my hands on a film camera I can now understand the enthusiasm for old cameras and lenses. It has reignited my dying enthusiasm for photography.
Finally. You got it! You have skills to use. Use it. A Canon R3 lets your eye focus. Why? Making a sharp image, in focus…that’s all there is. I like your work, most of the time.
For me, it’s both: I like learning about new technology, including in cameras, and I do own and enjoy the newer models. But, having grown up shooting film (around 1960), there is genuine nostalgia regarding the look and feel of analog cameras, as well as the physical and intellectual process of choosing the film and loading it, selecting the exposure, and manually focusing. I owned primarily SLRs, but later included several Leica M variants. There is a real sense of satisfaction once you get the knack of accurately focusing a rangefinder, understanding how the central exposure meter reads a scene, and managing to load film without dropping the bottom plate. I owned several of the latter day manual M bodies, but sold them when I switched to digital. I realize the MP and M-A are still in production, but there is a certain thrill in seeing Leica commit to re-launching the beautiful M6 (with modern improvements). I’m sure there will be a long waiting list, and I am happy to be on it. I recently rented a manual shift car in Europe and thoroughly enjoyed it [That’s part of why I love motorcycles so much, too.]. I think the nostalgia surrounding a manual M is very similar. There is perfection in the imperfection of operating equipment by hand.
I shoot film on old manual focus cameras because, as a documentay style photographer, it slows me down and makes me think much more about the composition. I don't shoot fast action, so do with that what you will. It's also super intuitive to rack your focus point through the frame rather than pointing and recomposing. Plus, things like halation and "glow" happen on film, but not with digital, giving images a certain feel.
Your point of view is incredibly interesting!
Shooting on film myself, and only having gotten fully interested in photography when I started looking into film photography, I totally understand this sort of alienation with modern-day tech. Film fascinates me because it's an escape from this all-digital, non-tangible world. The resolving power of a mere 35mm negative blows me away, and to think that those colours are created by real, physical processes is marvellous. To me, it is essential to be in control: Aperture, shutter speed, film stock, manual focus. (I'm not the type of film shooter who loves the "unpredictability" - with experience and patience, you learn how to predict, or at least estimate, the result. I like the challenge.) The simplicity amazes me, and when I take a good picture, I can take pride in it. Perhaps the necessary patience before you can even look at what you've made adds to that. Previously, I'd taken pictures on my phone and a relative's DSLR. Neither gave me this satisfaction.
Of course, I don't see those who make use of modern-day tech as lesser in any way. I despise most modern cameras' convoluted layouts, but admire those who master them. It just isn't for me.
I am new to photography, so in an effort to save money but still try out different focal lengths, I started to buy old vintage lenses. Didn’t realize they couldn’t autofocus until I had one. Thing is though, I really like them. As of such, I am not using the ”modern” kit lens that much (even though it is a great lens too!).
In essense, the manual lenses help me focus on the important, fundamental part of photography: composition, subject and the light. Everything else is a distraction, to be honest.
(Still love autofocus now and then, but you get my point)
Thanks for encapsulating why I switched to film photography a few years ago . I have taken the best photos of my life on film and definitely the worst , it's that constant space between success and disaster that keeps me hungry
Btw you said in 15 years cameras will be flying around choosing compositions , I think they already are , it's called a drone
For me, the moment I came to the same realization you discussed in this video was when I left my DSLR at home because my RX100 II was going to get me a better result. The RX100 series is great, but it’s no fun at all to use. That’s when I realized I actually cared about the process more than the result. Now I shoot film almost exclusively and I LOVE the slow process of loading, shooting, developing, and (to a lesser extent) scanning. The constraints and challenges it adds to the process make the results much more meaningful for me. I totally get why that might seem crazy for many people, but for me the slow and intentional process and the lack of flexibility with film is what I love most about it.
Hi James, great point and article. I shot film 38 years ago and still have my Canon AE1. I own the A7r4 and the Leica Q2. Last week in Manchester I put my old manual focus Sony lens (28mm f2.8) on my Sony and used manual focus, manual iso and shutter and aperture. It was fun. I had more missed shots than hits. Some out of focus, some under exposed. But it took me back to why I love photography. I’m controlling elements of the capturing process. I’m involved and not just pressing the button on a computerised camera. I did miss the auto focus though. Love the channel. Keep up the great work. Gavin.
There have been many technical advances in camera design and for someone from a background of latent photography most of the advances are over engineering. But not focus. I don't know how many wonderful shots I have missed simply because I have taken too long to focus on the subject and subsequently failed to nail the shot. Back in the old times the misery along with the latency had a delay so another advance in camera design for me is that it is instant. Having said that the dark room, enlarger, colour correction and all that uses to be a great challenge even fun.
Hi James some interesting thoughts there. One thing I’d say is judging by the comments and the length and thought that seems to have gone into them that photography is a passionate hobby for so many of us and the views are as varied as there are people. I’ve had this hobby since I was 12 and I’m now 68 so I’ve come up through the “home dark room” , different film bodies , digital in 2003 and mirrorless just this year. As a hobby nothing has changed for me except the method of image collection is cheaper and the possibilities in the “darkroom” are amazing without the chemical smells ! Gear might seem expensive today but in doing the math cameras and lens I bought 40 years ago are way cheaper now with so many more useful features. Not to mention cameras that can do video and have more than just an exposure meter. While photography might seem “everywhere” it has always been “everywhere” just not so visible - who didn’t use those Kodak cameras in a cardboard box at weddings, parties on holiday ? I’m all for technical improvements and as many commenters have said its easy enough to get off the bus when you get to the “this isn’t fun” anymore stage. As an older person a question I’d throw out there is what is everyone doing for archiving and can you guarantee you’ll still have your images in 50 years when the grand kids come along and you want to prove to them you once had hair and a waistline 😀?
Well said James. I Iagree totally!! I am an amateur hobby photographer who owns a couple of old digital cameras and can say that the amazing feeling when getting things right in manual mode, i.e exposure, focus, composition, etc, is so very satisfying and gives me such a sense of achievement, that I wouldn't swap that feeling for anything!! its a rare occurence but its what we strive for and feels amazing when we achieve it. As you say about golf, if it was easy, it would be boring!!
I think if your job requires you to get sports events and you might miss a key moment then all the help in the world is necessary, because they are literally money shots. If you want to take your time, enjoy a day out, learn about how to compose and take the best photo you can, then step back and use something more 'hands on'. I'm still using the A6400 - and I would love an upgrade, but purely for a better LCD and viewfinder, and perhaps bird eye detect as I like wildlife. Apart from that, the dynamic range etc and all the other tricks I can do without because for me it is the joy of making the photo, not the iPhone experience of pressing a button and the computer does it all for me.
Well said, James. From a hobbyist POV, I only dream about cameras with all the advanced technology, but at the same time, the challenge of shooting on the more dated equipment (I use a Nikon D750) it requires a different skill set that I think helps bring you closer to your craft. Because not everything is done "for" me, I have to analyze each composition differently and as a hobbyist, I like that challenge.
YES! I love the idea of there purity of film, but its too much faff for me, so I've been taking digital images and not post processing them (even cropping or straightening) for 4 years now. I'm loving the challenge, its made me realise just how much you can do with any old camera if you just focus on what you're doing more and not relying on the camera and software to cover up your haste or cock ups. Its made me less gear hungry and made photography more enjoyable for me again.
I used to use film a lot for work as a field archaeologist using Nikon FM's and FM2's and my own Pentax K1000 and later a Nikon F3 as a hobbyist. i used to develop and print. I always said i'd stick with film. But once digital became good enough i jumped and have no regrets. The immediacy of it, being able to see the results and adapt to get what you want.
Have shot a range of DSLR's but am now very happy with the Sony A7IV having upgraded from a Canon 5DIV.
I set it up so that i can take advantage of the technology when i want or need it with user modes for Portrait , Action and Landscape. saves a ton of time but if i want to replicate the mindset of film i just stick it in manual and use the dials and lens aperture ring. The technology is just a tool for us to decide how/when to employ it. I agree with you about incremental gains, we just have to be careful not to get sucked into feeling the need to upgrade every generation. But the mind-blowing AF we have now is just too useful for portraits, action, street etc.
A great topic. My photography has always been a simple hobby for myself. This started back in the late 60's. There was a time where family life stalled my hobby. By the time I started up again the digital age was well underway, and I jumped on the band wagon. I have to admit it was a very long struggle for me changing to digital. Film photography required an intimate knowledge of your camera and surroundings. Digital does as well to an extent, but I most often disagree with what my camera light meter or live view tells me. Once I decided to look back at how I analyzed a film shot, and applied it to the digital world, I found I was much happier with the results. Maybe I am just an old dog that can't learn new tricks. Great video. Thanks.
I tend to side with you and your thoughts about this new Sony, but I also believe a great photographer will make great images with any camera, film or digital, and a not-so-great photographer won’t make great images even with the newest, best camera. My grandfather once told me we only truly appreciate that which we have to work hard to achieve. That seems to apply here as well, at least for me.
I feel what you say. I really do. The only reason why I keep shooting is because I repeat to myself "I can do better than this." Every single time. It's a quest to imrpove my craft, and that's the point: my craft, not my camera. I can do better - I - not my camera.
Edit: I also want to add that when I shout at my camera "Focus, you f***!" when trying to shot a moving subject in low light - we'll, it might sound a bit strange, but that's part of the fun. Missed shots are part of the experience.
You’ve made me think! Having spent 35 years as a tennis coach, I understand the journey, commit and challenge. If you take that away, you don’t have anything.
I also don't have the patience for film photography but I really appreciate the look and the process of taking images. So my workaround is to have "vintage" all manual proper metal and glass lenses which gives me a similar feeling as taking a film photo but has the advantages of digital post processing and instant reviewing of my shots.
Love your thoughts and videos
the best part about shooting with a camera like Leica M6, or any other film/rangefinder/manual-focus camera, is it slows you down and makes you appreciate and cherish every single moment/frame.
Great shout-out my man!! I started using 120film cameras 1-2 years ago and now I use them more and more on my family trips vs digital; Having only 12 shots lets me enjoy a lot more the moments without snapping like a maniac, I am more aware of a scene that may work instead, the value of those few pictures is so high and I dont have to sift through 100s of pictures each time...but most of all, the moment you press the shutter, you feel that moment slipping back in time, can't look at it and that is just priceless. It's a bit like comparing Michelangelo's David with a computer build, 3D printed copy..might look the same, but is it worth the same?
I don't look at this as a "crutch", it's just the natural advance of technology/technique; there are examples of it all around us. Anyone that has hand calculated statistics appreciates what is now easily done with a spreadsheet. I think the advancement of technology has allowed us to focus on the result rather than the process. There will always be people that will practice the process just for the novelty or nostalgia of it, go to a folk park and watch them spin wool into yarn...
I think your points are valid. Eye AF and good AF tracking are very important to me, though (I like shooting wildlife and portraits), and I wouldn't consider buying a camera without those features. There's definitely something to be said for slowing down and enjoying the process (using manual focus lenses, etc.). I have no plans to shoot film, though, haha.
James, you always have insights that I find interesting but this was next level observation. I grew up on film photography and loved it. I found the process challenging, and because of the need to be extremely selective (or blow whatever budget I had on film developing and printing), I was also able to better adapt my eye to a scene or image (something I still do to this day -- especially when travelling). However, when the digital age usurped film, I found I wasn't all that interested in sitting in front of a computer manipulating my own images as it took away from the joy of being out and shooting and sometimes days or weeks later learning the results. In fact, because I am not terribly interested in the computer technology and because my real joy was in-camera work, I have really lost my passion for taking photos. I mean, with the "right camera" and the "right software" anyone with half an eye can "create" great photos -- but not everyone can "take" great photos. You, sir, are blessed with both sets of skills and I admire that (and it's why I subscribe), but I would love to see a video or two of you relying solely (or as solely as possible) on composition and lighting (perhaps using manual-only settings) to create great art but without the need for extensive computer manipulation. That is my challenge to you! In the meantime, I'll keep shooting but will likely continue to do very little with the finished product because of my lack of wanting to sit in front of a computer to finish my work.
To anyone who has the budget and patience, I can only recommend doing film photography. Even if it's just on the side, it's so rewarding and the process is so engaging. It's gotten expensive, but that only makes you more selective and more careful, so it ain't all bad.
Hence why I use 1950- 90's film cameras for personal work and digital (and flippy screen, brilliant focus. dynamic range) for commercial. Don't forget though that connection to subject/ environment, vision, composition and colour/ tone balance is also a vital part of photography that separates image makers.
I've never been a (semi) professional photographer and am surprised how that realization can come so late for someone who's passionate about photography
amazing video!
i would listen to you rant about cameras for HOURS !
I totally get what you are saying, its the reason that whilst I am able to stream music, I love playing vinyl, and that although I have an automatic car on the drive I keep a 25 year old manual sports car in the garage for weekends . Convenience is one thing but the joy of connecting with technology that meshes with your own senses or creativity is what keeps us in love with the process, not necessarily with the end result. The camera I use is an extension of this, modern quality images but with tactile controls. Love the channel!
I am totally with you regarding the advantages of slow-paced photography and being in total control of the camera and process. This is how I work 80% of the time with a GFX camera fitted with adapted vintage manual focus lenses.
However sometimes I have a need for autofocus - for example when I plan to photograph my grandson in full action, or moving targets such as a cycling race. When I use AF I want it to work reliably. The worst scenario is having AF that sometimes misses target or loses track. This is why Sony AF technology is exciting; it is so good that when its needed it does what it's meant to do. But like you, I'd certainly get bored with photography very quickly if I used AF all the time.
I've been shooting since I received a Canon FTB as a high school graduation present from my folks(An incredible gift from a couple that barely could pay the bills). 50 years later, after using countless cameras and publishing many books, I enjoy, more than anything, my mechanical film cameras and old digital slrs. My newest camera is a Nikon D3 and my oldest is a Canon VT Deluxe. I only use manual focus lenses and I only use slow films and low ASA(ISO) settings and films. I'm relaxed, don't sweat the technical stuff. I know what I'm doing and am willing to miss a shot. I love photography. I love beauty. I love breathing, eating, sleeping and waking up to a cup of coffee with a table spoon of maple syrup and some cream. Life is too short to keep chasing perfection.
Excellent video, I enjoy (most of) your regular videos full of imagery however this one was different and informative - good to see some photographers are prepared to step up and have an opinion about where camera technology is heading.
Good video. I shoot both film and digital and I definitely feel most proud of a really good film shot because there was a lot more effort put into it. Thanks!
I don't shoot film, but I have used a Leica film camera. Even compared to my old Canon Rebel XT, which has less computational power than my iPhone SE, there's something very satisfying and challenging with the Leica(and any film camera) that I think is really touched on here.
Interesting video! I absolutely agree that there's going to be a point for everyone where it gets too much, for me it would be technological involvement in composition. Autofocus is not the problem, as achieving proper focus is just a necessary baseline element of a photo imho and all the creative stuff happens around it. I see that completely different: when I'm in some remote "once in a lifetime" region for example, I want my af to be as good as possible, as I never know if I can ever come back again and then I myself can "focus" on the creative stuff and the event itself
I am one that has gone back to the old days of film. Over the years I have collected many old cameras fixing many of them. Instead of using them once in awhile I have mostly been using just film. It is more of a challenge and make one think more of everything. Good vid today.
Love your videos James :) I begrudged going digital for a long time but when I did it was crop sensor, I have upgraded my crop sensors very recently and still not made it to full frame or mirrorless. I have a mirrorless at work and while it is nice it isn't necessary to get good photos. A good photographer can get good results without all the latest expensive stuff if the time is put in and the enjoyment of the moment is had by the photographer. We expect too much perfection these days but life isn't perfect.
Yeah, I used my film camera for many years, and I am really enjoying learning and using my digital camera, and being able to edit my photos in Lightroom. I feel like I have more control over them than I ever did with film. Especially printing at Walmart, or even learning bw printing in high school. I don't miss the darkroom and the chemicals and spending cold mornings in complete darkness. Though it was always exciting to see a picture appear when developing in chemical.
Great rant James, I think you've eloquently captured why some of us weirdos like to shoot manual! For me, I like a challenge, and producing a great image from a manual focus lens that might've been designed 50 years ago excites me.
I understand both sides of the coin - and I don't think those sides have to be mutually exclusive.
I recently started my photography journey - thanks in no small part to finding your channel! - choosing an OM System OM-1 as my first "proper" camera. Its high-speed capabilities are incredible: being able to shoot e.g. birds at 50 photos per second, at full quality, with continuous autofocus and metering, has already allowed me to capture moments that you'd likely miss without such high shooting speeds. Like the instant before a wagtail closes its beak around an insect mid-air.
But I also find myself drawn to Leica-style digital rangefinders, like the Pixii. I think the different restrictions and experience lend themselves to a different creative process. Similar to shooting with a prime lens rather than a zoom.
I believe both have their place, rather than having to pick one or the other. And ultimately, any camera is useless without the photographer taking them somewhere and pointing them at an interesting subject/composition. The best camera for any given person is the camera that gets them to go out and do just that. (That's why I jumped in headfirst with a dedicated camera instead of learning skills on my phone first; modern phones are very capable photography tools, but mine has never inspired me to go out and take photos, it's just something I've used to take photos when I happen to be out.)