Photo from 1978 taken with an old light fixture, a cheap, used SLR and an ancient
135mm lens. One of my favorites. And I didn't know what the hell I was doing...
thank goodness.
of disclaimers we can expect to see a consumer camera that has amazing data throughput. Canon says the new camera will shoot raw, 8K video using the full frame and offers the same performance in 4K. Given that their latest, top end sports camera, the 1DX3 can shoot raw video and generates (a 4K) files that are over 3000 megabytes per second we can assume that the raw data rate for the R5 will be about the same. This is a giant leap over anything from Sony, Panasonic, Nikon or Olympus.
It means that not only is their processor set a generation faster than anything from the competition but that their newest sensors can off load information to the processing engines at equally amazing speeds. With processor performance like this it would also stand to reason that the camera's autofocusing performance won't be limited by processor performance either. Pretty amazing stuff.
I guess this means we should all head over to our favorite Canon dealer's site in put in our pre-orders right now. We wouldn't want to get left behind...
But, putting on the brakes for just a minute, does this really have relevance to photographers who have no interest in video? I'd say yes, no or maybe. If you are making beautiful still images with your current 24 or 46+ megapixel camera it's likely that you'll see no real effect by moving to a new camera like this one; other than the hit to your cash flow (which I'm guessing is taking a bit of a hit right now as it is).
If you have a Canon 5DIV, a Nikon Z6, a Lumix S1 and you can't make good pix this sure isn't going to help. If you don't currently own a camera and have the cash then this may be (maybe) a camera to consider.
You probably know that I love to buy gear and I'm often hypnotized by cutting edge technology but this time feels different to me. Being confined to my home base now for well over a month has given me ample time to make some painful discoveries. To wit: I like some of the images I shot 40 years ago with a point and shoot Canonet camera and Tri-X film better than, well, anything I've shot in the past ten years...at least. I like prints and slides made with 35mm cameras twenty five years ago better than anything I've shot during the following years of my career as a professional.
What it boils down to, I think, is that the art of photography has morphed from something centered around capturing great images into something that's more about acquiring and mastering ever newer digital technology. A big ass dose of FOMO (fear or missing out).
So, 40 and 25 years ago we mastered black and white film and color slide film. While camera models got replaced every five to ten years there was absolutely nothing new that we were required to master. The aperture, shutter speed and ISO dials were all that really mattered. No function buttons to screw around with (and memorize) and no need to make endless choices when what we should be doing is concentrating on getting the picture in front of us.
We spend so much time now trying to get everything perfect that we've lost the ability to be spontaneous, careless, experimental, or to embrace the possibility of failure. We're trying to metaphorically swim a race with life jackets and floaties on. And it sucks and it's stupid.
Early on in digital I tried to master every aspect of the camera's menu only to find myself with one arm down a rabbit hole, both feet in a tar pit and the other hand holding a camera whose battery was rapidly failing. And cameras have only gotten worse and worse.
Oh yeah. The sensors (might) be better. And you can customize the camera anyway you want to but it shouldn't take a half an hour to set up a camera for the way you like to shoot. Turning on and off factory defaults left and right just to get your camera to the point that it's a tenth as usable as a Nikon FM or an Olympus OM1 from decades ago. Cameras that were ready to go as soon as you put a battery and some film in them. And the battery was OPTIONAL.
In our enforced STAY HOME segment I've been watching a lot of movies from the 1950's and 1960's. Great ones like Roman Holiday and La Dolce Vita, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, and even older ones like, Casablanca. The images are riveting and wonderful. Emotional and nuanced. Detailed and pristinely lit. Story telling that's head and shoulders above, visually, just about anything we see now.
But those movie productions were all done quickly, on tight budgets and with gear so primitive that directors of photography working for Netflix and Amazon now couldn't figure out how to make it work even if a producer held a gun to their heads (and it would be one of those guns that never runs out of bullets, like most modern thriller gun play). But the lack of options, the lack of extraneous and seemingly beguiling choices, and the resulting ability to ignore what they couldn't change meant that there was intellectual momentum and hard won craft in the movie making that's disappeared, mostly, from today's fare.
And it's the same in photography. We're so dependent on the special effects provided by post processing and the need, almost like a pacifier, to have every possible (mental) labor saving device on one's camera. Talk about the "nanny state" think about cameras that basically make it impossible to fail on most parameters except the ability to point said camera at the right subject at just the right time.
Photography while wearing a life jacket, a bicycle helmet, a dental guard and the rest covereded in bubble wrap.
So, should we be busy upgrading our gear? No, it's time to admit that if your gear isn't good enough now (presuming you own current stuff from any of the big companies) then the fault is solely with your technique, your laziness or your impossible expectations. I'd say we'd all be better off shedding everything for a while and going into hibernation until the economy restarts and then buying the cast offs from the bleeding edge heroes as they rush to do their own upgrading.
Me? I just don't care anymore. If someone gave me an extra $10,000 and said "this is extra. go buy anything your heart desires." I'd probably toss it into my brokerage account and go out looking for better coffee. Without access to anything, with no clients anywhere, and with no travel allowed, why do we even bother to try and make images?
I laugh and then cry when I see stupid articles on "ways to make your photography fun during a lockdown." My number one suggestion would be to make sure you are locked in with a bevy of incredibly beautiful models who are highly motivated to work on their portfolios with you. At that point would the camera model matter at all? And would an article about shooting through frilly drapes to get fun landscapes of the parking lot behind your apartment really have any relevance? I thought not.
I can only practice shooting an egg on a white backdrop so many times before it becomes a recipe for a mental health crisis.
So, will we all run to buy the latest cameras? We will even get to use the cameras we already have?
The market bets NO. Sales are down 80% (Y o Y) for interchangeable lens cameras in the US. And that didn't happen all of a sudden. It's been happening for several years. The virus just accelerated the trend.
The underlying reason for the collapse? All the friction and joy and challenge of making great photos left the room to be replaced by the rote learning of post production masturbation. More time in Luminar and Portrait Professional and Capture One and Photoshop. Less time in bars, coffee shops and fabulous locations filled with people and things to really get excited about photographing.
The rest is just an meaningless exercise. And I already get that for free every time I put on my running shoes...
A sad time for art. A very sad time for art. You might have a different opinion - maybe I should hear it.
So, upgrade gear? Not unless you are rich, bored and have too much time on your hands...
well I certainly agree with you. The best photo I ever took (and one of the few I've kept) was done 30 years ago with an ancient Mamiya TLR that I printed on wonderful Zone 6 paper.
ReplyDeleteThe menus, dials, buttons, options, customizations, post processing, etc of modern digital cameras makes them so not fun to use that I rarely use a camera other than an iphone and I've almost totally given up on photography as a hobby.
If camera sales are down 80% and people are moving to phones in droves I wonder why the camera companies think that more pixels, bigger sensors, more complexity, f1.2 lenses, and higher prices will save them?
Let's see, am I rich? No. Bored? Never. Too much time on my hands? As always, wishing for more time for everything. So I guess I'm not up for new gear also! Thanks for the reminder Kirk!
ReplyDeleteI agree with almost all of what you say. Except that this is not a sad time for art. Quite the reverse in fact. The high volume of camera sales in the years up to 2012 has been driven by artificial needs promoted by the marketing departments (can't blame them for that of course) of the camera companies. It is ironic that you have been proving the truth of your central argument for many years to us readers in that while you move from system to system, your photographs remain at the same consistent (high) level. (I am of course ignoring video, or convenience factors, which may be important for you.)
ReplyDeleteOnce everyone (Joe public at least) figures out that there is no more tech worth mastering, it isn't cool and doesn't earn you any respect, new camera sales will go right over the cliff. I think we are in the middle of that right now. But photography? Art? Now that we can all agree to forget about camera features, perhaps those of interested in the art and practice of photography can just get on with it. A happy time indeed for art!
Cheers, Peter Wright.
Same here. The best photo I ever made was taken in the late 60’s early 70’s with a YashicaMat 124, a 2 1/4 square TLR using Plus X. I developed and printed it in my overnight bathroom darkroom. In the light of the following day it was revealed to be an amazing exercise in dynamic range: stare at it hard and black shadow areas inside a dark barn magically appear as crossbeams and planks, while the exterior view seen through a small window remains perfectly exposed. You could find all those details in today’s digital files by simply lifting the shadows a bit, but these hide in plain sight and become visible only when you look for them.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it’s time to turn off everything (except stabilization in my case), put it in manual mode, manual focus and start over.
Not far off the mark, except this:
ReplyDeleteIf I was “locked in with a bevy of incredibly beautiful models who are highly motivated to work on their portfolios with you”, I wouldn’t be able to concentrate on any portfolios, frankly!
Otherwise your old photo shows all. It’s not the “tech specs” but the story, memory or feeling created by an image. Often by accident.
A few days ago I had some time experimenting with night photos on my Samsung Galaxy Note 10+. It was a clear, early spring night - chilly as always this time of the year - local lights, and even city lights in the far. Nothing memorable except a small spec, high in the night sky, resembling a smear, maybe 30 to 40 pixels wide, depending on where you “draw the line”. On a 4032 pixel wide image, that’s not much, but I had a hunch, that maybe, just maybe that smear could be something more, than just a smear.
To make a long story (containing web search, astronomy, angles, directions and whatnot) very short, it turned out that this little smear actually may be the globular cluster M3, barely visible by the naked eye in really dark places, but somehow modern computational smartphone photography widened my horizon a lot. My first black and white images were made in the late fifties, early sixties in the previous century. And now this insignificant smear may actually be a representation of half a million stars in a globular cluster 30.000 light years away.
Captured by pure chance, while playing/fooling around with a fairly reasonable modern smartphone.
This, single image, gave me far more joy, than most “technically perfect” images made in the digital age or before.
It gave me wonder. It gave me amazement. This little smear, hardly noticable, if you don’t look for it, this little smear gives me a tremendous joy every time, I look at it. Others may not see anything interesting, but you know - it doesn’t matter, since this little smear to me displays the wonders of modern photography. A technical wonder and evolution, that is now in the hands of billions of ordinary people all over the world. Inside gear, that also shines in creating contacts over any distance for any purpose. Now, and especially during a more or less world wide “lockdown” to various degrees and carrying different names.
When I look at this image - and on a smartphone I have to magnify hugely to see the smear in it’s full glory - I feel silent, calming joy and wonder. A near perfect outcome of severe imperfection. As others have mentioned “it’s the story”, but it’s really much, much more. Or?
Oh yeah, huge ego trip when ironically the best pix (ahem...images) are taken when we've stepped aside.
ReplyDeleteAll these fun projects are a bit hammy. But then again, I am jealous of those who seem to want to do them.
ReplyDeleteOn the gear front I am still with m43rds and don't seem to see many distressed sales yet. But as I type this on my phone I have my brand new 2 week old son sleeping on my chest. He is the mark 3 my wife and I produced... Better then mark 1 and Mark 2, well I haven't spent enough time with him for a full review ;)
I've never really enjoyed post processing images. Maybe after having spent almost my entire adult life working on a computer to earn a living it just feels too similar to work.
ReplyDeleteI actually miss dumping a roll of developed slides on a light table to search for the best ones. Then I'd hand the best ones off to the local camera lab to make Cibachrome prints along with any special instructions. I left the 'post processing' up to the experts. I've got 30 year old Cibachrome prints that still look like new hanging on my wall. Great stuff.
Ah the good ole days. More time spent on photography, less time futzing around afterwards.
Another huge plus was that a new 'sensor' only cost the amount of a roll of film! Why buy a new camera when you could experiment so cheaply?
Trivia question - anyone remember Kodak Ektar 25? Print film in 35mm that could be made into rediculous size grain free enlargements. The 'high res' sensor of its day. Kind of like being able to buy a Sony A7R IV for less than $10.
Kirk, you are right. I post lots of newly made digital photos on Instagram. But one of my most popular photos was taken about 20 years ago with a 4x5 camera. And (like yourself) it's been a revelation going thru old hard drives and finding superb photos that are considered ancient by current standards. Thus, recently I loaded a few 8x10 and 4x5 film holders. And 3 days ago shot four sheets of 8x10 film. An A7RIV for me? Ha!
ReplyDeleteSo I agree that pretty much every camera made today can produce outstanding images, and it’s unlikely any new camera will improve on that for most people in most situations.
ReplyDeleteHowever, my recollection of photography in the good of’ days 25 and 40 years ago includes Pop Photo and Modern Photo and others writing endless gear articles about cameras, lenses, filters, developers, enlargers, enlarging lenses, etc. And how-to articles that explained how to post-process - excuse me, enlarge and print - your images. So what’s changed, really?
So, Bassman, didn't the two or three magazines that most photographers read back then (in the film days) come out once a month instead of 50 times a day? And didn't Nikon produce a new top of line camera only about once every ten years? And didn't the OM-1 stay on the market for over 12 years? I can't see the point of your point. Drink from a teacup versus drink from thousands of full blast fire hoses? no difference? No? Really?
ReplyDeleteKirk, of course, you are completely right, a very nicely written rant, as always. If you happen to have the "Best of Popular Photography" book, you can find there the article "I don't like the Photographic Press" by Anton Bruehl from the January 1938 issue. The message is remarkably similar in spirit though not exactly the same. I would say yours is better written but I am genuinely curious when was the first rant of this kind written, do you have any suggestions? I am perfectly serious, must have been in 1890s?
ReplyDeleteOF COURSE, if a lottery ticket delivered unto me a small windfall, I just might buy myself a Lumix S1. Meanwhile, I have three camera sitting near the kitchen table, ready for use, and none of which I will upload to computer until either the self-isolation ends, or the cards fill up, at which time I'll see what I've wrought. And further meanwhile, I've unearthed a 4x5 neg from 35 years ago, made with a Speed Graphic, that I've scanned and am printing in different ways, just to see what I can milk out of my Epson P600 and the advanced B&W mode. That's the only post-processing I want to do. Bored? Not even close.
ReplyDeleteThe process of making a photograph with film leads to "seeing" in a manner that remains unique from that of digital photography. The same phenomenon can be observed in filmmaking and also recording music. Analog capture dictates a certain approach, its own rhythm, unique limitations to the media that, in almost every case, force us to slow down and approach the act of capturing art (image, motion picture, music) in a way that we desperately try to mimic with digital.
ReplyDeleteI have some specific images that I have captured on film, likewise in circumstances where I didn't really know what I was doing, and where it really didn't matter because I was so much more focused on the -what- than I am 95% of the time that I'm shooting digitally.
I think the other thing that has shifted all of this so much is that with the barriers of actually learning film and photography removed, there was (and continues) a gold rush of people who believe they, too, should be able to monetize photography. On occasion, in the midst of all that noise, you find some relevant and competent voice. But it takes much more effort/luck than in the "old" days.
I have no plans to upgrade anything. I may add a lens or two to my existing stable but no upgrade path for me. One of the reasons I read this blog is the opportunity for me to live vicariously through you, at least in terms of gear purchases. I admire the way you change systems every few months, constantly searching for that something. I get it completely. However, I have completely lost my desire for camera gear and this dates back to well before Covid-19. The more capable cameras become, the less I seem to be interested. I wonder what that says about me? I'm still very much interested in photography, just not the new gear. I've found two cameras to be liberating this past year: my iPhone 11 pro and my old Olympus EP-2 with a cheap $40 body cap lens. Those are the cameras I reach for now. The iPhone is easy to use and I enjoy using a few pretty cool apps for post-processing. The Olympus body cap lens just has something to it in terms of image quality, something that pleases me. I think it's the simplicity of the user experience in addition to the lower quality images. I don't think I'm going back to film but nothing tops the experience of using my Nikon FM or FE. It might be a fun experiment though and I definitely miss the user experience of those cameras. Such wonderful sounds they make.
ReplyDeleteUpgrade? No thanks. My Nikon D700 is my first and probably my last full frame camera I'll own. If you don't care about video and it's not broken, then why try and fix it with an upgrade? As far as megapixels are concerned, we knew years ago that it was more of a sales tool than anything else. For the photographers that say that they want the ability to crop and still print large, aren't they just confessing that they don't have the talent to get the shot in camera?
ReplyDeleteWhen digital cameras first appeared and we started using them for paying jobs we were plagued by clients who said "Why are you charging the same as film? You just download the pictures and deliver them." We eventually came up with a standard response: " In the film days we dropped off the film at the lab and went to the bar and told lies to girls about our glamorous jobs. Today we run back to the studio and download files and curse at a computer for hours to meet a deadline. So actually wehave lowered our prices".
ReplyDeleteAs for new gear, the slowdown has made me certain I don't need any new gear. The stuff I have now was the "ultimate" collection when I assembled it two years ago. Nothing has changed. The gear is not the problem. Five ounces off the weight in my bag will not put a single dollar in pocket nor will it relieve the stress on my back. Any minuscule (or even maxiscule) difference in performance will have zero effect on my product unless they have an auto idiot filter to prevent me pointing the camera at stupid images.
What a wonderful portrait of B.
ReplyDeleteFor 35 years my primary medium was color transparency film. I shot black & white when an assignment called for it, likewise color neg, mostly for portraits and weddings. But color slides were my medium of choice. Then I moved to digital in 2003 and into the morass of post-processing. I am sick to death of it.
ReplyDeleteA few days ago I found this comment by Albert Smith on one of Mike's posts on The Online Photographer:
"During three decades of slide shooting, there was no post processing. I use this same approach with the Fujifilm simulations. . .expose and compose correctly and it's like getting a box of slides back from the lab when I dump the images into the computer."
This is exactly what I was looking for. In film days I metered almost every shot with an incident meter, but my X-H1 meters so accurately I don't even need to do that. From now on, it's jpegs, unless I'm working a professional assignment and need to cover my behind by shooting RAW. Even then, it's RAW plus jpeg.
I mostly photograph my family and my dogs. I have been doing this almost everyday for years. And most of my photos are taken at home. I am good at this and have produced a nice body of work. So, I am still having fun. But I have not spent much time thinking about new gear recently. Most of my computer time is spent catching up on printing instead of shopping for new things. I am sure that if I survive this thing the G.A.S. will return.
ReplyDeleteEvery time, I hear "gear is not importance". The person who speaks that has the best gear in town.
ReplyDeleteChala, how else would we know it's true?
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I post this comment I'm going to go back up to the top and read the intelligent, insightful comments of the good people that have offered their wisdom. Me? I've got nothing to offer. I'm just here for the party.
ReplyDeleteOK, I've read the comments and they were pretty darn good. You really do have a great group of followers. I'm pleased to be among that group, I only wish I could actually be a part of it.
ReplyDeleteI only shoot snapshots and everything I have ever shot with film was worse than anything I've ever taken with a digital camera. I'll gladly take a few hours to set a new camera up the way I like it and take JPG pictures forever.
Ah Richard Burton the spy. A pitiful drunken bum but what an actor! TSWCIFTC is a great movie. Dark, cold and poignant.
ReplyDeleteMax from Down Under
Kirk, while i enjoy the humor in your latest 2 posts, i believe (of course) that you are stretching things to make a point!
ReplyDeleteTake current movies for instance. I agree... most of em are waaaay overdone orgies of violence and close escapes. But in the past week I've watched watched some amazingly artistic recent releases. 'Pride and prejudice' and 'the secret life of Walter Mittey' are beautiful works of Photographic art, especially P & P (w/ Kiera Knightly). =Wonderful physical settings w. gorgeous light! ' Also a masterpiece, 'Interstellar', is both brilliant photographically and for special effects. And last, i saw 'Avatar' again, which is a stunning piece of hi-tech to achieve gorgeous visuals.
Well done Kirk excellent article as per usual and well argued and rationalized,up there with your best efforts [imho]as a long time reader of your blogs.
ReplyDeleteA little voice in my head keeps interrupting me as I compose this reply as I feel it's my duty to respond once in a while if only to show some gratitude for your efforts to inform and entertain those of us who attend here on a regular basis, I try very hard to ignore this voice but it persists and if I'm to be fair it does speak a certain amount of truth as it puts forward the observation that everytime Kirk [always refers to you by your first name]comes out with a well thought out, convincing and forceful rant on the folly of changing gear, he inevitably proceeds in a very short time to ditch all his present gear for some absolutely wonderful alternative gear which does everthing his previous gear did but only better!
I'm doing my best to ignore this annoying voice in my head but I fear I may have to seek professional assistance as I seem to be failing to shut it off.
I had to pack up last night for a road trip to work today, and I asked myself, "should I take the K1000 SE or the FM2?" The FM2 won out, so I threw it in my bag with a couple of rolls of Tri-X. Good times, let's see what I can get.
ReplyDeleteLove the portrait and your point of view, btw. Thanks again. And the comments here are great.
Oh, I also brought my iPhone 11 Pro...
Well, I’d bought a new guitar recently, so the cameras had already been languishing from neglect. I charged the batteries a while back and I’ve taken a couple of snapshots. I am hankering for the X-T4 with grip, though – I hear you can change all three batteries at once with that bad boy!
ReplyDeleteBrilliantly written Kirk!
ReplyDeleteThe big "Lockdown" is also the biggest slowdown in modern history!
Many of us 'trapped' in our home, apartment or at my dearest friend!
Lucky me!
Equipment was never a major thing. I bought that which I needed for my pro work.
Color film mostly Ektachrome collected by scooter and returned within 2 hours!
A quick edit and off to Client! Yes! Tested in many ways, the lights, films and film batches.
NO sitting in front of PC. B/W was processed in my tiny darkroom. 16x20 or larger, required i hung off the wall, print on floor! I loved printing thru the night..
My friends buy all this new gear and i get to use play with it!
All pro type cameras have a Green thing for pro work..
I shoot for a few hours and compare to my ancient stuff mmm!.
Not worth the trouble or cost. Sure shoot so fast..why?
I hear pros at weddings etc shoot 5,000 images and here in Canada a couple do about 20,000 each! Of what? Of what? I would go on vacation if i had to edit that..
We are in real big trouble! If we don't change our way of life, as a species we could be doomed..
Hi Kirk, it's surely a sad time for some arts. This guy seems to be making a go of it though. Just heard about it the radio, driving home from the winery.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.monopol-magazin.de/fotograf-richard-pflaume-quarant%C3%A4ne-isolation-skype-screenshot
It`s interesting that so many still camera reviews now focus on video features and lens reviews of video AF performance.
ReplyDelete'And you can customize the camera anyway you want to but it shouldn't take a half an hour to set up a camera for the way you like to shoot."
ReplyDeleteWhen i purchased a pro level mirrorless camera a few months ago I spent at least 12 hours with the manual, youtube videos, and trial and error until I got it set up in a way I find intuitive and quick. In other words I set it up like I my old film cameras - if they had auto iso.