More about the camera these days than in years gone by ?

[dinners]

It's 20 odd years ago since I did my HND in photography and despite choosing another line of work, photography has always remained a hobby of mine.

Whilst I've always kept tabs on camera progress, I've never been one of those people that buy the very latest gear. Partly due to the fact that it's just a hobby and I'm happy with my shots but partly because I can't justify the cost.

That said - shooting with a young girl the other day who is just starting out (with far better gear than mine) I felt a bit left behind. It was why her shots were better than mine that got me thinking......

It was superior auto focus tracking and an ISO capability that allowed her to photograph birds in flight at dusk whilst I was resigned to hunting for tortoises.

This isn't about old v new, it's about whether we have a greater difference in camera ability these days than we used to have ?

Putting lenses to one side - and at the risk of sounding like a ludite - whilst some camera's were certainly more 'able' than others in the 'old' days - I feel the differences were 'slight'. It was much more of an even playing field so I'll chuck it out there that our results 'against one another' these days are far more down to the kit than in the past.

 

[mrjames]

it's more a case of expectation.

back in the day photographers would stop shooting at around 6 o'clock due to lack of light, and photographing something like a concert, with no flash just wasn't expected, but now I get sent to a concert, come back with shots like this
http://payload80.cargocollective.com/1/7/248174/3902265/0J9W7799-Edit.jpg

and I get told they're too noisy! Because photographers shooting for other magazines are using 5d2's, and are now using 1dx's- so me with my 1dmk3 is left out in the cold.

So yes, technology has moved on, and so has the standard of what people expect can be photographed
But in terms of what we expect from out cameras, back in the days of my 1d3 and your 1d2 there was a huge difference between the lowest level model and the 'pro' cameras, these days a 600d is a perfectly capable camera

 

[ernesto]

If you go back far enough it was more of a level playing field. If all you had was manual focus and the use of the same film then it that situation you mention if wouldn't matter much (also assuming you had same lens)

You have picked up on the main area that is improving, higher ISO ability. I would imagine that will continue to increase to a mad level within 10 years as it is 'just' down to controlling the electronics and working of the sensor. That is improving a lot each few years so why not have a usable ISO of 10 million in a few years time?

 

[artyman]

There was a massive change between the performance of my 350D and 7D, the 7D is a much more capable camera in difficult conditions, AF for birds in flight and high ISO's that said however the 350D is still providing great shots, but as Clint Eastwood said "You've got to know your limitations"

With 350D and it's el cheapo kit lens

 

[treeman]

whilst some camera's were certainly more 'able' than others in the 'old' days - I feel the differences were 'slight'. It was much more of an even playing field so I'll chuck it out there that our results 'against one another' these days are far more down to the kit than the abilty of the photographer.

Agreed

A phrase that used to be quoted a lot was that "its not the gear, its what you do with it" and that was true 30 years ago, but I couldn't disagree with it more these days.

The only truth is you can still give someone a modern DSLR and they'll come up with some rubbish images, but then they still would regardless of what camera they had

 

[woof woof]

I think it's actually less about the kit these days unless you go to extremes of ISO and print very big or want gazillion shots per second.

I do like gear but I don't for a second think that it'll improve my photography, and I think that for me that becomes more true every day.

 

[Faldrax]

I think the gear vs photographer debate is one that very much depends on what / where / when the shot is being made.

To use an extreme example, if you're after shots of birds in flight against the evening sun, then a mobile phone camera just won't get images comparable to a high end DSLR with long lens, etc!

If you're instead after a 'holiday snap' of your friends with some historical monument as a backdrop in reasonable light, then the resultant images will be much closer.

 

[menthel]

You sometimes hit the limits of your kit. If the limit you hit is something that you foresee doing reguarly then you upgrade, whatever that piece of kit may be. When trying to shoot birds, especially those twitchy or in flight, my 40D wasn't up to the job so I got a 7D. The AF on that helped me get better shots than I had before.

In conclusion, sometimes you just need better kit. A lot of what goes on on TP is gear whoring for no good reason though!

 

[DizMatt]

I think this is very true
before it was all about how you exposed the film and anyone would buy the film (more or less but expert knowledge helped, and processing of course)

now, you buy a camera and you're stuck with the sensor.
going between my 40D and 7D I've noticed huge differences in focusing, metering, ISO capabilities (but it's still noisier than I'd like)

 

[dinners]

Thanks folks

I wasn't going after the kit v photographer thing or what kit is better for certain subjects - it was more a question of whether the 'difference' in capability between mid & high end gear is greater these days than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Do you think technology and regular upgrading (or not upgrading) has resulted in a wider gulf between the capabilities of your DSLR and the next persons ?

Perhaps cameras all used to be much of a muchness and the difference was more down to the ability of the photographer to get better results than the next person ?

 

[HoppyUK]

Thanks folks

I wasn't going after the kit v photographer thing or what kit is better for certain subjects - it was more a question of whether the 'difference' in capability between mid & high end gear is greater these days than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

In other words - do you think technology and regular upgrading (or not upgrading) has resulted in a huge gulf between the capabilities of your DSLR and the next persons ?

Modern DSLRs are just not comparable to the film cameras of 20-odd years ago. Big differences include the fact that the film is now the sensor, ie an integral part of the camera, ISO performance is light years different, AF is now incredibly capable, and we have new features like live view and video.

In practical terms, it means we can now shoot things that were previously impossible, eg focus-track distant and moving subjects, like sport and wildlife, that was simply impossible before. And we can do it in much lower light.

So in those areas, DSLRs are way-way better than film cameras, and the latest high-end DSLRs are also much more capable than older or entry level models.

But, if you mostly shoot normal subjects in regular walkabout situations, using standarish range lenses in decent light - as I guess most of us probably do - then you'll get great results from almost any current camera, including compacts, or even a manual-focus film camera.

 

[Phil V]

....

I wasn't going after the kit v photographer thing or what kit is better for certain subjects - it was more a question of whether the 'difference' in capability between mid & high end gear is greater these days than it was 20 or 30 years ago.....

I'm not so sure - Years ago; High end viewfinders were lots better than mid range viewfinders, and high speed motor drives were made specifically for top of the range cameras - with lesser models being limited to a motor wind at best. So a pro camera would stand a better chance with a bird in flight than a mid range one.

Technology is now allowing more people to get a shot where before it'd be impossible, but technique and ability still makes a massive difference, otherwise those awesome top pro's would be out of business. For instance - your friend from the first post shooting the birds in flight; Are those pictures worthy of being hung in an exhibition? Or are they just OK?

I've been following our round of the WRC since the late 80's and camera use was at a fairly low level (less than 5%), dropping to rare in the mid nineties (less than 1%). Now; almost everyone is either taking pictures or filming the event - but very few people put more thought into their shot than 'can I see the car?'.:shrug:

And the light must have been pretty dire if your 1dMkII was unable to get a shot - it isn't that long since it was the best thing available.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

In the old days no one pixel peeped.
We knew a 14 DIN film gave greater detail than a 21 DIN film
Few of us could make use of lenses better than a Tessar type of May be a Planar type.
800 ASA films were about as grainy and as fast as any one went.However it never stopped any one making Technically and artistically great Photographs.

One area where we have fallen back is in the materials available for making High quality Bromide and Chlorobromide prints. Exhibition Prints from the 30's to 60's reached the high point for variety of surface, colour and depth of blacks and subtlety of highlights. Nothing we have today can yet match them., and may be never will, as printing is a minority requirement now.

A moderately priced camera like a little X10 can outperform Vastly more "at one time Desirable" film cameras. It has a High quality Zoom, wide aperture lens that can out resolve almost any like lens from the Past. It has an astonishingly accurate shutter capable of an extreme speed range. It has forms of exposure estimation and compensation that make many hand held meters seem primitive. It has auto focusing faster than almost any one can achieve manually. It has self contained Iso settings way out ranging any film.

So even a pocket style cameras of today can out do almost any like camera of the past "Plus" It does it instantly with a choice of colour styles and with the advantage of anti shake... camera shake was responsible for more spoilt shots than any other single cause.

All this in a pocket camera...
Now if you want real quality and even wider abilities, there is an almost endless range of more advanced and professional cameras to choose from.

Photography has moved on.....

 

[treeman]

Perhaps cameras all used to be much of a muchness and the difference was more down to the ability of the photographer to get better results than the next person ?

Yes I think they were, it was far more down to the skill of the photographer.

I'll give you a for instance, I shoot a lot of Polo professionally, I shoot a Nikon D3s with a 400mm f2.8, and TBH its pretty hard to screw it up, as long as you point it at something, it'll be tack sharp and the exposure is spot on, I rarely if ever dial in compensation, the meter is that good (with a little customisation).

30 years ago, no AF, no custom meter settings and plain hard work!

 

[dinners]

And the light must have been pretty dire if your 1dMkII was unable to get a shot - it isn't that long since it was the best thing available.

It was my 40D but that said it was just an example. As you rightly say it wasn't that long since a 1D2 was the best thing available however I'll accept compromise above ISO 800 with both the 40D and 1D2 yet a more modern camera (even lower in the range) would easily cope much higher.

Asuming most people use a DSLR released in the last 10 years then, regardless of whether it be an entry level, enthusiast or pro body, things will have moved on considerably resulting in a fairly wide expectation level for such a short period of time.

 

[mrjames]

Thanks folks

I wasn't going after the kit v photographer thing or what kit is better for certain subjects - it was more a question of whether the 'difference' in capability between mid & high end gear is greater these days than it was 20 or 30 years ago.

Do you think technology and regular upgrading (or not upgrading) has resulted in a wider gulf between the capabilities of your DSLR and the next persons ?

Perhaps cameras all used to be much of a muchness and the difference was more down to the ability of the photographer to get better results than the next person ?

Back when camera and film were separated you could have a 5d2 sensor (fuji velvia 50) in a 350d body (zenit E), when the camera and sensor became linked a lot of artificial compromise had to be worked into the system to separate the highend from the low end, but competition between manufactures and customers voting with their wallets has meant that every year with each new camera canon/nikon are trying to out-do each other by offering more for less- in theory someone could come in and make a 1d/d3 style camera for £500, taking a tonne of profit and destoying the industry in a single sweep, but of course that would never happen, and it's arguably a good thing that it doesn't

One area where we have fallen back is in the materials available for making High quality Bromide and Chlorobromide prints. Exhibition Prints from the 30's to 60's reached the high point for variety of surface, colour and depth of blacks and subtlety of highlights. Nothing we have today can yet match them., and may be never will, as printing is a minority requirement now.

but not to mention the ecu-friendly benefits of scrapping chemical printing!

 

[wyx087]

shooting birds in dusk is pretty extreme condition that requires fantastic AF and high dynamic range, asking a lot from both sensor and camera AF system.

as mentioned, people are expecting more and more from the large DSLR you are holding. people see you got a large lens and expect it to zoom to the moon. eg, BBQing with friends, saw a plane high in the sky, got asked to use my camera's zoom to see the plane.

If you're instead after a 'holiday snap' of your friends with some historical monument as a backdrop in reasonable light, then the resultant images will be much closer.

i don't agree here though. a DSLR will still produce much much better images in terms of: clarity, composition, framing, depth of field control, and dynamic range. even with an old DSLR, the clearer OVF vs phone's screen in sun light is the biggest decisive factor.

when i stayed the weekend Paris on my own after a conference, i asked many photographers with good lens (DSLR with kit lens = rich tourists) and general public to take tourist snaps of me. the difference in composition and framing are clear. there won't be poles sticking out of your head, or out of focus shots.



in the end, camera is only a tool. there are certain limitations with old tools, but it's still the photographer that makes the masterpiece. tortoises can be more interesting than birds with the right composition.