Photographers are tired of out of touch influencers

[LongLensPhotography]

.... Ones like this, the ones that try to speak trash for everyone

Photographers Are Tired of Big Cameras

Big specs and tons of megapixels used to sell cameras. Now, data shows that photographers care more about compact size than anything else.

petapixel.com

 

[benc98]

also tired of influencers who dish out advice when really they've not accomplished anything or taken their own advice

 

[dibbly dobbler]

I trust we're not classifying Chris Niccolls as an influencer? He's a very experienced photographer and long time photography reviewer and comes across as a good guy...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

The great thing about postings on the internet, is that there's often an "ignore" button.

I find that judicious use of such makes for a more tranquil experience...

 

[alfbranch]

I am not a fan of big cameras

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I trust we're not classifying Chris Niccolls as an influencer? He's a very experienced photographer and long time photography reviewer and comes across as a good guy...

Influencer: a person active on social media who is able to influence people's opinions or to persuade them to follow a particular lifestyle or buy a particular product

Fits the description perfectly

 

[Ed Sutton]

Fits the description perfectly

And an article that is very much in tune with a lot of current thinking. There's more to photography than 'ultimate image quality'.

 

[GreenNinja67]

Fits the description perfectly

You can add all reviewers to that category then, even the old magazine reviewers.

Influencer is just a 21st century term.

 

[sk66]

I trust we're not classifying Chris Niccolls as an influencer? He's a very experienced photographer and long time photography reviewer and comes across as a good guy...

And he's not the one who wrote the article; Jaron Schneider did... he's also better qualified than most.

 

[sk66]

And an article that is very much in tune with a lot of current thinking. There's more to photography than 'ultimate image quality'.

I think there is more at play here... Canon and Nikon have gone all-in on full size mirrorless cameras with a new lens mount. That makes purchasing a new full frame body VERY expensive if you want to get the most out of it. And there are not many significant improvements in technology/capability being made otherwise.

 

[woof woof]

I agree with the point and I do prefer smaller kit but I think it's still possible to get a reasonably small body and lens without going APS-C. The Sony A7 range mentioned in the vid isn't exactly massive, I have an Sony A7III and added a RF style Sony A7cII and when fitted with a small lens like the 35mm f2.8 or the mini G lenses it isn't big next to an APS-C camera and lens combination. The Sony is a bit thicker but not exactly a massive difference to an EX2, more expensive though but worth it for me.

And an article that is very much in tune with a lot of current thinking. There's more to photography than 'ultimate image quality'.

Yes there is and although I may be wrong part of the Fuji appeal seems to be nothing to do with IQ and more to do with the controls and the filters. I can see the appeal in the controls and I have had a a couple of X100x's but I'm not interested in in camera filters.

PS.
I do like smaller kit and I have an RF style MFT camera (GX80) and used to have the X100s/f and now the Sony A7CII and to be honest although the GX80 and X100's were a bit smaller (maybe not so much the Fuji) and maybe lighter than the A7cII none of these camera are IMO small enough to be truly pocketable and once they're in a bag the small size and weight differences between these cameras when fitted with smaller lenses begins to matter less so if funds allow why not get the FF option? Unless those Fuji controls or filters tip the scales. This is why I hardly use MFT now.

 

[Eucris]

Anyone who express an opinion about something will influence the people that read it.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Anyone who express an opinion about something will influence the people that read it.

...or not, as the case may be.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I think a lot of these types of articles are deliberately inflammatory to get people to click on them and share the articles which works well, I've muted sites like this and others because of it.

I also find many professional reviewers and writers don't seem to be able to understand different devices suit different people and instead only review a device from their own perspective which is why I find user and community information tends to be far more useful. I particularly remember when the Samsung Galaxy Note came out it didn't get great reviews but then was a good seller leading to one very irate reviewer who had slated the phone writing an article about how all the people buying this phone were basically wrong...of course that started the push towards larger displays.

 

[myotis]

And an article that is very much in tune with a lot of current thinking. There's more to photography than 'ultimate image quality'.

And as it so happens, Chris Nicholls has long used Olympus M43 cameras for his professional work, so a Fuji XE5 might be an upgrade in image quality

 

[dibbly dobbler]

Fits the description perfectly

Have to disagree with that - primarily he's a photographer with a long history of reviewing photographic equipment for various organisations... Would you call Brian Cox an influencer rather than a physicist because he has an Instagram account?

 

[dibbly dobbler]

And he's not the one who wrote the article; Jaron Schneider did... he's also better qualified than most.

Yes - I did read it... just wasn't sure who was being disrespected!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Would you call Brian Cox an influencer rather than a physicist because he has an Instagram account?

Technically he is both depending on if he actually still works as physicist. He falls entirely out of my interest sphere at the moment so i wont go further into it

 

[Crotal Bell]

That particular channel is posting a LOT of content so they're always looking for a new angle to keep things fresh. Some of their vlogs I prefer to others but I like the production and people. Let's face it, the stats about what most people want may not be a reflection on the feelings of a minority who enjoy signing up to forums such as this and actively debating and chatting all aspects of photography, or indeed what we want to spend our money on.

 

[Dryce]

Let's face it, the stats about what most people want may not be a reflection on the feelings of a minority who enjoy signing up to forums such as this and actively debating and chatting all aspects of photography, or indeed what we want to spend our money on.

Very few active photographers I actually know in person are active on forums or frequently reference online gear stuff. They do look at techniques and tutorials. On the few occasions they are looking at updating kit then they might search out some reviews - but it's as likely to be a default decision based on buying a branded OEM lens with a given focal range within their budget possibly backed by a recommendation from somebody they know face to face.

Kit - as in specifics - just isn't that important for many photographers.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I suppose that the real problem with the internet has always been that it has no built in editorial system so it's left to each of us to believe or disbelieve as we see fit.

Some will see that as an advantage, others will see it as a disadvantage and a lot of people won't know what to believe or disbelieve.

 

[jamesev]

Anyone who express an opinion about something will influence the people that read it.

part of the problem is accountability with social media and the internet. Anyone can start a blog or vlog and post a lot of misinformation. As long as its not defamatory (and sometimes when it is) they claim its free speech even if its not accurate. Denzel said it best - its about being first to get the idea out. First not even to be true. Its the effect of too much information and how easy it is to publish. This plays on people desire to be informed. If you don't get the information youre uninformed, if you do, most of the time youre misinformed.

 

[Stephen L]

I hate generalisation. Generally.

 

[MarkCé]

What influencers do online... I couldn't care less. Yes, I watch some youtubers and follow some instagrammers, but I am quite selective.

They disturb me much more when they are just walking in your frame without asking, or see the need to 'reserve' too much public space during a longer time for their shots or movies.
If it takes too long, then I will gladly walk in and take my shot if they ignore me.

Fact is, they become much more easy to recognize as they are dressing up and then visiting public busy spaces like Mont Saint Michel, a famous park or like the Brussels Market place.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

They disturb me much more when they are just walking in your frame without asking, or see the need to 'reserve' too much public space during a longer time for their shots or movies.

Mind you, it's sometimes the case that you look at where they're taking the shot from, walk some distance away and then get a much more interesting image from there...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I suppose that the real problem with the internet has always been that it has no built in editorial system so it's left to each of us to believe or disbelieve as we see fit.

Some will see that as an advantage, others will see it as a disadvantage and a lot of people won't know what to believe or disbelieve.

The same is true of Ai, the results depend on searchability of available data. It has very little ability to differentiate between true and false data.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

The same is true of Ai, the results depend on searchability of available data. It has very little ability to differentiate between true and false data.

If something is repeated many times and cited by so called reputable sources it has a higher probability to be accurate. We all know that it is not 100% rate. In many cases median is highly mediocre

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If something is repeated many times and cited by so called reputable sources it has a higher probability to be accurate. We all know that it is not 100% rate. In many cases median is highly mediocre

I was taught that science deals in theories, because the more we learn the more wrong we find we were. A longish life has convinced me of the truth of that principle.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I was taught that science deals in theories, because the more we learn the more wrong we find we were. A longish life has convinced me of the truth of that principle.

Absolutely, most of the stuff I was taught in school has been discredited or updated. However those are stages we have to go through, to get where we are today.
It seems that we spend most of our life misled or ignorant. It is called progress.

 

[rd6743]

It's the gear reviews where they've only just opened the box that annoys me.

 

[Faldrax]

It's the gear reviews where they've only just opened the box that annoys me.

Much like the email from a well know online store requesting a review the day after you receive something.

 

[Raincloud]

Mega mega pixels and lots of expensive kit.....nope, not for me. You don't need all of that.....not in my humble book anyway.

 

[MarkCé]

Mega mega pixels and lots of expensive kit.....nope, not for me. You don't need all of that.....not in my humble book anyway.

It depends a bit on what kind of photography you want to do.
For landscapes a high resolution is appreciated, for birding, you need long lenses, and high megapixel camera will allow cropping.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some of my most memorable photographs were taken on a humble folding agfa Solinette ll with Apotar lens.
It was a pocket seized cameras, that could fit in a battle dress pocket, and go anywhere without permission.
Not that anyone cared.
The Apotar though only a three element lens was extremely well coated for the time and gave sharp and bright images little different to the Solinar at F5.6
I have a number of versions of the Solinette and super Solinette with Apotar and Solinar but none with the cheaper agnar lens.

 

[LCPete]

It depends a bit on what kind of photography you want to do.
For landscapes a high resolution is appreciated, for birding, you need long lenses, and high megapixel camera will allow cropping.

This exactly everyone has different requirements, for wildlife the ability to crop if needed is very handy
As for size of cameras my R5 is smaller and lighter than my previous DSLR

 

[MarkCé]

Some of my most memorable photographs were taken on a humble folding agfa Solinette ll with Apotar lens.
It was a pocket seized cameras, that could fit in a battle dress pocket, and go anywhere without permission.
Not that anyone cared.
The Apotar though only a three element lens was extremely well coated for the time and gave sharp and bright images little different to the Solinar at F5.6
I have a number of versions of the Solinette and super Solinette with Apotar and Solinar but none with the cheaper agnar lens.

Sure, gear does not matter all of the time, but sometimes it does for sure.

Before any camera had pre-capture and non were exceeding like 3-5 FPS, many people have tried to shoot a Kingfischer diving in the water, or coming out of it.
A few succeeded, but had to take so many pictures and spend many sessions filling up numerous memory cards, because it was a lucky shot. You needed a gazillion pictures to get to that.

Now with pre capture and >30 FPS, many more succeed in doing that. It still requires a good spot, a lot of patience, but much less then before.

Try that with film....

But for a moody portrait where you have time and can set the light as you want it, a film cam can do about the same as an FPS monster and you do not need 60 Mega pixel to do that...

And lastely, when I see a good picture, I want to understand how it was created, where and when. I will not easily ask what gear was used.

 

[Raincloud]

Makes one wonder how photographers managed before high mega pixel cameras were invented!!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Sure, gear does not matter all of the time, but sometimes it does for sure.

Before any camera had pre-capture and non were exceeding like 3-5 FPS, many people have tried to shoot a Kingfischer diving in the water, or coming out of it.
A few succeeded, but had to take so many pictures and spend many sessions filling up numerous memory cards, because it was a lucky shot. You needed a gazillion pictures to get to that.

Now with pre capture and >30 FPS, many more succeed in doing that. It still requires a good spot, a lot of patience, but much less then before.

Try that with film....

But for a moody portrait where you have time and can set the light as you want it, a film cam can do about the same as an FPS monster and you do not need 60 Mega pixel to do that...

And lastely, when I see a good picture, I want to understand how it was created, where and when. I will not easily ask what gear was used.

Many excellent action shots were taken of diving kingfishers with film , some with high speed cameras and some with camera traps and quite a few by skilled nature photographers using standard equipment.
Digital uses all those techniques, but has made things simpler for everyone to try with inbuilt feature

 

[MarkCé]

Makes one wonder how photographers managed before high mega pixel cameras were invented!!

Many excellent action shots were taken of diving kingfishers with film , some with high speed cameras and some with camera traps and quite a few by skilled nature photographers using standard equipment.
Digital uses all those techniques, but has made things simpler for everyone to try with inbuilt features.

Sure, but you saw much less of it because it was harder.

Take sports fotography. How many pics do you think a photographer has of a football game now versus when it was film?
If there is a goal, then they for sure have like 100 takes with the ball in every position..

 

[ancient_mariner]

I was taught that science deals in theories, because the more we learn the more wrong we find we were. A longish life has convinced me of the truth of that principle.

That's only true in abstract. Those actually doing science treat 'known facts' as if they are exactly that while exploring the unknowns. If fresh data turns up to challenge those facts then one adjusts accordingly, but otherwise you trust them. If nothing were known to be true then no work could ever be done.