Is good, good enough?

woof woof

woof woof

I like a nice Chianti
Messages
43,978
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I read and watched this on LL and it made me think...

https://luminous-landscape.com/is-good-good-enough/

I do like the gear but I wouldn't say that I'm a total gear head as such, I don't feel the need to ditch last years camera to buy the camera released today. I had my Canon 20D for over seven years and I was happy with it although I did replace it with a 5D when I wanted to give my lenses a new lease of life on "FF." The 5D kit gave way to mirrorless but for size and weight reasons rather than in a search for better kit or more quality. I don't usually feel the need to own the absolute best state of the art kit and I tend to buy more on specification than in search of absolute quality. So I do mostly agree with what these guys are saying... Maybe kit is good enough these days?

But, one thing that occurred to me is that technology does move on and maybe at the moment we can't guess what's on the horizon. Maybe some new technology will come along to blow our socks off and we'll wonder how we managed with that old creaking 2015 kit? :D For example maybe we were happy in the days of film and manual cameras and then along came... something... Metering? Auto focus? Maybe we were happy before the introduction of digital and then digital came with the ability to change ISO from shot to shot and to shoot hundreds or even thousands of shots without changing the film/memory card?

At the moment despite a couple of niggles (with my MFT cameras I'd like auto ISO with the ability to dial in compensation in all modes) I'm very happy but I'm prepared to realise I could be even happier if something I haven't realised I'd really like to have comes along :D

What do you think? Are you happy or looking for something better?
 
Always looking at something better but there's a compromise at every turn.

Also if I buy a top of the line body and lenses I've got no excuses when my shots aren't good enough!
 
As a wildlife (mainly bird) photographer, I'm never fully happy with my gear. For one I can't afford the top lenses that cost over 8 grand and also they weigh a tonne and are really difficult to carry around! If there was some new technology that revolutionised lenses and allowed the reach without the cost and bulk, that would be fantastic.

So as it stands no I'm not, I want more!
 
I suspect an entry level SLR with 18-55 kit lens is far better a camera than 95% of us actually need or can even justify.... It's just are we willing to admit that.....:D
 
Brazo said:
I suspect an entry level SLR with 18-55 kit lens is far better a camera than 95% of us actually need or can even justify.... It's just are we willing to admit that.....:D
Click to expand...
I'd get frustrated with the kit lens as it'll mean being limited to f3.5 to 5.6 and if it's soft wide open by the time it's stopped down a bit many of my shots would be at ISO 1600 to 3200 and at 1/15 second so I'd be lusting after a f1.4 or 1.8 lens but it wouldn't have to be the best on the market :D
 
Last edited:
htid said:
As a wildlife (mainly bird) photographer, I'm never fully happy with my gear. For one I can't afford the top lenses that cost over 8 grand and also they weigh a tonne and are really difficult to carry around! If there was some new technology that revolutionised lenses and allowed the reach without the cost and bulk, that would be fantastic.

So as it stands no I'm not, I want more!
Click to expand...
That's the problem, expensive means big, heavy and difficult to carry. Definitely a trade off and I find I much prefer working with lighter kit.
 
Brazo said:
I suspect an entry level SLR with 18-55 kit lens is far better a camera than 95% of us actually need or can even justify.... It's just are we willing to admit that.....:D
Click to expand...

I could live with the Fuji 18-55mm kit lens :)
 
Last edited:
This is obviously very subjective, everyone sees things differently and so what might be perfectly acceptable for some might not be for others. I am particularly picky with things, or should I rephrase that and say that flaws in things tend to leap out at me and so I've been pretty critical of gear. Having now bought some high end lenses I am now finally happy and do not see any reason to upgrade (unless they bring out a D750 replacement with much wider AF spread ;))

The only trouble now is when I use my CSC for travel etc it's not quite up to standard :banghead: ;)
 
rob-nikon said:
That's the problem, expensive means big, heavy and difficult to carry. Definitely a trade off and I find I much prefer working with lighter kit.
Click to expand...

You're right and that's why I stick to my very portable 300mm and 1.4tc. But I can't help but wish for more reach whilst retaining pin sharp detail! If the only way to get that is to spend £10k on a 600 or 800mm lens then I'm not going to do it, but if their was a way to get the same for a fraction of the cost and portability, I'd be much happier than I am now :) I think it's slightly different with birding than with many other parts of photography. If you're doing portraits, does another 10mp on a new body really make a big difference? I suspect not as you're not cropping much if it all. Birds however are very difficult to get close to so the higher mp allows for more cropping, faster af gets more in flight shots. So I think with birds you'll always want more...usually the better the camera the higher % of keepers. That doesn't tend to be of much concern if you're doing other types of photography.

*disclaimer* I only do wildlife so please don't shoot me if I've just offended all none birders who think I'm talking a load of rubbish.. I'm perfectly happy to be proved wrong! :)
 
My GAS usually revolves around lenses.
I don't shoot wildlife, but if I did I'm sure I would want the £10K lenses lusted after by so many.
But only if it gave me a "pictorial" advantage.
I shoot portraits, so I'm happy with my 85mm 1.4, and my 135 f2 DC, I have others but those are my go-to lenses.
Apart from a 200 f2, my lens lust is complete. (And no, I don't need one, but want is a different matter)

As far as bodies go, I use a D700.
I've tried a D800, a D750, and recently a D810, but TBH, I'm quite happy with my D700.
I don't need the low light/high ISO capability of the D750, I don't need the resolution of the D8**, as I don't crop much, and I know I can print as large as I will ever need off the 12MP sensor I have.
So, although many would say I "need" to upgrade my D700, for me, good is good enough.
My only caveat to that is that if I were shooting for a living, I would require double card slots. But I don't, so 1 is enough.

Now, if I was going to get into landscapes, or wildlife, then I might not be as satisfied !!
 
htid said:
As a wildlife (mainly bird) photographer, I'm never fully happy with my gear. For one I can't afford the top lenses that cost over 8 grand and also they weigh a tonne and are really difficult to carry around! If there was some new technology that revolutionised lenses and allowed the reach without the cost and bulk, that would be fantastic.

So as it stands no I'm not, I want more!
Click to expand...

Ime the same way but with me its a need to chase higher ISOs,with my gear being heavy for me higher shutter speed availability is a help.
 
My old 20d is good enough for 90% of what I shoot. The caveat being decent lenses too, I mostly shoot between f1.4 and f4 and kit lenses are just not suitable for that.

IMHO there should be enough technical understanding on a photography forum to know that 'mobile phones are capable of great images' is completely irrelevant. I can drill perfect holes with my old £12 battery drill, but it's not the only tool I'd need to build a house. It's just adequate for what it can do, great if that's all I need, completely useless if I want to put a drainpipe through a wall.

In the same way, I can't use my iPhone to fire my flash, to focus on moving subjects, to create background seperation, to give an attractive long lens perspective, or a wide angle view. Or indeed if we're being honest, even with the shots it can do, it's compromised technically if I want a large print, it's only good enough to impress people viewing on screens at what is a small size in reality.
 
I agree that the 20D is a good camera and indeed may be all that a lot of people need when coupled with nice lenses and I was happy enough for years but the older cameras are not really the point of the LL piece. Their point of discussion is that the newer cameras are probably good enough and they mention sensor sizes of 1 inch and larger.

I do largely agree with them as I find my A7 and MFT cameras to be good but watching the LL video I did wonder if the view that modern cameras are good enough could fade away quite quickly if some new development comes along. I don't know what it could be but I do think that a lot of us have been at this point in the past, thinking our kit was indeed good enough, only for something new like AF or digital and the advantages of changing ISO from shot to shot snd taking hundreds of pictures without changing the film to come along and raise our bar to a new and unexpected high.
 
I can't watch the video at work:(

I'm pretty content with my gear. I'm more interested in photography than cameras, but I do have quite a lot of gear as I view them as different tools in my toolbox for different tasks. I've been after something for ages that is lighter and smaller than my DSLR but is still capable, and after 2 or 3 years of chopping and changing I've settled on the Fuji XT-10 and am very happy with it. And my DSLR, a D700 I bought in January 2009 is more than enough for what I do these days. I occasionally hanker for a few more pixels so I can crop more and print bigger, but A) I can't print bigger than A3+ on my printer and b) my exhibition frames will only take mounted A3 prints and I don't want to buy another set for up to A2 size.

So yes, for me, I'm at the point where I can say that good enough is definitely good enough.
 
Had something "better" than I have now (D800, now D750) but barely used it in the year I had it so traded it in against a Fuji X-Pro1 system. Kept all my other Nikon gear though and eventually decided to go 3/4 of the way and got a D750. Much as I like new kit, I'm under no illusion that it makes my photography any better - at best it just makes certain situations easier to capture. Even my first DSLR can give me "good enough" A3 prints and the D700 allows a little cropping if needed. The D750 allows even more cropping while not delivering the massive files (total overkill for my wants, let alone my needs) that the D800 delivers.
 
The same goes for lots of things, mobile phones, TV's, watches, cars ect. They do the job but we all end up getting/wanting/needing different things and so they keep changing the tech to meet demand and sell more products. Obviously things break or wear out so are replaced for that reason.

If you miss a few jumps in the tech you really do notice the changes, Saying that I am more than happy with my 2010 Camera as it does what I require and to be honest no other Camera will yet match it for everything (yet) it does. As for lens there is a lust for big whites but still the value for money and being tight hold me back. The lens side of things is also a lot slower to move but when it does say like the 150-600mm everyone jumps on the wagon for a slice of pie.
 
I'm certainly not a gear head when it comes to having the latest gear the day it's released. I don't follow the 'rumour' forums etc No interest.

Compared to some I've got an 'old' bunch of gear but as has been said, it serves me well so I don't see the need to change - Obviously that good old word BUDGET comes into play also so monies need to be prioritised like most of us I'd imagine.

I'd happily get by on just my A7 & CV40. I have a Leica Tele-Elmarit 90mm for a bit of reach. I have a FE35/2.8 for the kids to use [only AF lens] & a few old Yashica/Helios lenses. I have a 5D2 & 135L - neither been out of the house since March!!

We all have different priorities in what we shoot too. Big MP doesn't interest me & neither does super fast AF or long reach lenses. I wouldn't mind some sort of camera stabilisation for the old manual lenses & sometimes cleaner high ISO than the A7 but the cost is greater than the desire :)
 
I think a lot of this depends on what you what to do. People (non photographers) who only want snap shots then cameras on phones are perfectly adequate. A hobbyist may want a dslr that can do advanced techniques that camera phones can't, but isnt so worried about build as it's not going see as much use as a pro. A pro would need great build as it's going to get a lot of use and they need to rely on it working for a living.

The same can be said about anything else. I work in electrical maintenance, a DIY drill wouldn't last me very long but is good enough for someone who drills the odd hole at home to put a picture. If I was diamond drilling 6 inch holes all day I would need something a lot better than my trade battery drill. It all depends on what you want to do which goes back to the OPs question is good good enough? the question really is it depends on what you want it to do.

Photography for hobbyists is more like classic car owners, it's nice to have but does it really do anything different to a fiesta if you are only worried about getting from A to B.

Pros on the other hand just get the equipment that does the job as after all it's just tools.
 
Last edited:
Good is good enough providing that the individual is satisfied with their own result. So many people, myself included, have strived to get the 'best' lens, 'best camera or best gadget but having the best doesn't guarantee the best end result. In fact that was brought home to me only recently as I was looking over some old files that I took with my original Birding set up - 7D / 400 f5.6L, and was surprised to see what to my eyes were really good photographs. I've owned the 'Big Whites' and yes, they're great pieces of engineering but they don't guarantee the best shot, a lot of that is down to technique which money can't buy. Due to back & neck problems I've have had to come down to earth again recently and carry equipment that isn't necessarily the best, but under the circumstances is what has to be. It may not be the best available, but having looked back, as I said, it's still possible to get great images and therefore for me, that's when good is good enough.
 
My story is/was:

1. I started with a DSLR-like camera then moved to a true DSLR in the same year so fast.
2. Was looking at photos from all over the world, and was impressed about why i can't get the same with my normal cameras.
3. Point 2 above led me to read more about gear and never stopped looking at photos, so i decided to.....
4. Buy more gear, and this really helped me a lot, because when i bought new gear and i saw amazing photos from those gear i bought it made me coming with one conclusion, i am not good enough as a photographer to justify my gear, so...
5. I decided to learn about my gear more so to know how i can use it at best, and at the same time i improved my skills as i improved my gear, thus....
6. Within 2-3 years i started to see a really significant improvement in my photos, actually i saw that even from the second year, and i won in the third year for my first time in photography.

So from above point, gear pushed/forced me to improve, if i didn't upgrade my gear and still using film or say normal entry level DSLR or even DSLR-like then i may be good after 10 years of photography not after 2-3, because i will think that the gear i have is not that much great and i will not squeeze or kill myself to make it producing the best, i know many don't think this way, but with me it worked, but this came with a side effects or collateral damage as well........ :-(
 
most cameras probably have reached good enough status, i think manufacturers are holding back on features now, and have been for awhile
 
Im a hobbiest and Im happy with what i use at the moment, this hobby is similar to my other fishing and the costs are never ending :-)
 
Most cameras are better than most people require. The equipment is not the limiting factor. People have been making great photographs for 100+ years.


Steve.
 
For me, photography is my main hobby, I enjoy it and what I produce makes people around me happy. So as long I can afford it and of course enjoying it I will by the latest if I want to.
 
Steve Smith said:
And there is no reason why you shouldn't. Being happy is probably the most important thing in life.

However, it's important to recognise the difference between want and need.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Most humanity is going for "want" more than "need", it is a nature in us, but when we can't get what we want and only get what we need we pretend that we are happy with what we have as need, but heart and/or mind will always disobey/disagree, don't tell me something, talking is easy and hide thinking or feeling is even easier, but sooner or later when someone get the budget he will definitely go and buy what the person wants if it didn't affect the other financial situations, i have much much more than what i need right now and happy, but my list of want is maybe as double as what i already have.
 
Number of cameras/guitars/golf clubs/surf boards/motorcycles* required = n + 1 (where n = the number you currently own).

* delete as applicable.


Steve.
 
"No photographer is as good as the simplest camera" Edward Steichen.

I use a camera as a means to an end, the end being the print. All I ask is that the camera doesn't place obstacles in my path (some force me to work in ways I'm not comfortable with) and produces a print that can't be bettered technically. I'm happy that what I'm using meets my requirements. If I were to photograph different subjects, different equipment would be more suitable, because the camera is simply a tool.
 
htid said:
As a wildlife (mainly bird) photographer, I'm never fully happy with my gear. For one I can't afford the top lenses that cost over 8 grand and also they weigh a tonne and are really difficult to carry around! If there was some new technology that revolutionised lenses and allowed the reach without the cost and bulk, that would be fantastic.

So as it stands no I'm not, I want more!
Click to expand...

How about something like the Olympis E-M1 when the 300mm f4 arrives? The lens is more likely to be nearer £1k than 6, and will give you the effective reach of a 600mm lens, the shutter speeds of an f4 lens and a much lighter backpack.

There are some truly stunning wildlife images out there with the Olympus 40-150 2.8, and I can't imagine the 300 will be any lesser in terms of IQ.
 
ukaskew said:
How about something like the Olympis E-M1 when the 300mm f4 arrives? The lens is more likely to be nearer £1k than 6, and will give you the effective reach of a 600mm lens, the shutter speeds of an f4 lens and a much lighter backpack.

There are some truly stunning wildlife images out there with the Olympus 40-150 2.8, and I can't imagine the 300 will be any lesser in terms of IQ.
Click to expand...

Actually I already have the 300f4 and am about to get the new 200-500 and have just bought a d7200 so I'm not going to be changing any time soon! I'm sure the Olympus will be good but it surely won't match a Nikon pro lens and unfortunately I want the best (not that i'll be getting it!)
 
the oly would be limited by the smaller sensor too, the lens will likely be very good though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top