In spite of what some of you may think, I try not to make derogatory comments. I know my tastes and they are limited to certain types of photography. I’ve been a photographer for about 50 years (49 to be precise) and there are discussions I will not take part in. I still shoot with film, not somebody’s sensor dreamed up in a tech lab in China or Japan which mirrors the best efforts of a team in the US to mimic a best selling chip most of us don’t know about. There is such serious money in chips, that few on this list have a clue about what goes into making and selling them to the highest bidder without seeming to do so. As to the previous sentence, I may be talking through my hat as I prefer not to study the latest CMOS chip news as I find it extremely boring. I own a CMOS chip in a 5D, but I am comforted by the knowledge that it just sits there shaking itself from time to time to knock off any dust particles which may have tried to land on it despite the fact that it is only open to the air when the shutter is open, and then there is always a lens to contend with. I am not one to whine about excessive dodging or similar tactics on a digital shot. I mean if y’all bought the sensors, y’all must be comfortable with how they work otherwise y’all would not have written those big checks to cover the costs. Or did I get that wrong? Y’all are really suckers and we know not to give a sucker an even break. I feel certain Nikon and Canon feel that way, which is why they try not to give away phenomenally high production numbers. If one takes the total number of camera bodies produced for film from 1950 to 2001, and compares them with the numbers for digital bodies, it is like comparing the water content of a swimming pool with that of the Atlantic Ocean. Have any of you wondered about why it is that various amateur shooters on FB proudly show off their $9,000 D1X with a $12,000 lens on it? Amateurs still use pea shooter cameras, but when I was an amateur I had never seen a 400 f2.8 lens. Now they are everywhere. I feel photography in general has suffered from this parade of pricey bodies and lenses now used by many to take really boring photographs which could look different if there wasn’t that inherent laziness in digital photography which comes with everything happening at the push of a button. What we need is good ideas, not Nikons with 400mm f.28 and 800mm f4 lenses on them. I know a doctor who travels with $50k in Canon lenses and a single D1X body and goes to potentially exciting places, only to return with unexciting images. I have suggested about 20 times that he take a workshop at Maine or Santa Fe, but he claims his time is too valuable. Instead he goes to Africa with his Canon and comes back with crap he forces his waiting room guests to look at as they sit waiting for a bit of his very valuable time. But as he is somewhat short, I imagine his dreams to being taller are what really drive his photography. Jan On Mar 29, 2014, at 8:54 AM, Robert J McCulloch wrote:
Art Faul The Artist Formerly Known as Prints ------ Art for Cars: art4carz.com Stills That Move: http://www.artfaul.com Greens: http://www.inkjetprince.com Camera Works - The Washington Post . |
