1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is it time to accept the unthinkable

Discussion in 'General Equipment Chat & Advice' started by pixelpuffin, Dec 25, 2019.

  1. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    The Nikon Z is a touch lighter than a FF DSLR, the Panasonic S6 is a heavy piece of kit indeed. I can certainly see no advantage in changing my D610 for a Z6.
     
  2. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Depends.
    I find the D3/D4 about the right physical size, the D600/610 is too small without a grip. The Z6 is much smaller and 1/3 the weight of a D4 for a look at the size difference see here https://camerasize.com/compare/#243,795

    The D610 against the Z6 is much closer, the Z6 is around 2/3 the weight of the D610, here https://camerasize.com/compare/#486,795

    For my money the Z series is far too small, add a grip to make it larger and it weighs 1045g and the need to add an adaptor to use my F mount lenses adds another 135g meaning a total, ready to use of 1180g or a mere 160g lighter than a D4. OK I can agree that 160g is worth losing but swapping my D4 for a Z6 doesn't make financial sense at the moment and the MD-N10 isn't what I would want from a grip anyway.

    My best bet would be to get a 1V2 or 1V3 with finder for a fraction of the cost of a Z6 or Z7 and keep my SLRs.
     
  3. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    Whenever somebody writes about pictures taken with a smartphone, I always ask: what do you do with the pictures?
    If they are only viewed on the phone's screen, or a PC monitor, then I can't see many reasons for owning a real camera.
    But if you want to get large prints done for your wall...

    I don't own a smartphone, but my ancient pay-as-you-go 'dumb' phone has a 480x640 pixel (0.3 megapixel) 'camera' that is just about capable of recording an images of a car crash for an insurance claim if required. It is rarely turned on, and I estimate that a year's calls might cost as much as £3 or £4. My marginally less ancient 16 megapixel half-frame (APS-C) DSLR is more than adequate for 50 x 75 cm prints if I use a decent lens, but I have run out of wall space.

    For me, the cost of owning a modern smartphone (and most users grossly underestimate this because they are on a monthly contract) is better spent on funding travel to places where I can enjoy using my camera. Or, to misquote Emperor Hirohito in 1945, for me having a smartphone and no camera would be a case of 'accepting the unacceptable'.
     
  4. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    The many who use monthly contract phones accept the costs rather than underestimate them I believe, the same with PCPs on cars, it is a case of convenience and lower upfront cost primarily. I buy my own phones, so I do not have an expensive device that is a potential target for theft and use a SIM only monthly contract, my use is below many people's though, but well beyond minimal
     
  5. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    In reality, how many people do this? If that’s what your job is, fair enough.

    I dare say most us take 1000’s of photos. Do you print all of them large sized for your wall or keep them on a HD or maybe print some out standard sort of size?

    Modern phones, mine is an iPhone XR, are actually very capable cameras, not as good as a DSLR, admittedly, but I have photos in A4 size printed and am very happy with them.
     
    EightBitTony and Zou like this.
  6. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    I’m starting to suspect many here are behind the times
    Modern phones are simply incredible
    Last night I was viewing YouTube comparison between a $7500 DSLR set up (1DXii + 16-35) against a iPhone 11

    it blew my mind. This is just the beginning. It reminds me of when digital first came out and many mocked it when compared to traditional film. This is going the same way. It’s no longer about sensor size or even optics- today’s phones rely heavily on software which is unbelievable. I hate to say this, but clearly the writing is on the wall.

    And, I completely agree with dream police - how many prints do you honestly print off and more importantly where do all these “perfect” pictures go?
    The thought of using my family home as some kind of gallery to showcase how good a photographer I am is nothing more than a ego trip for oneself in my view. Each to their own of course. But I’d rather have pics of family than some scene that has probably been done to death countless times and is nothing more than ones own attempt to emulate others.
    Like is often said one can create amazing photos with a simple box brownie - we don’t need the latest greatest.
    There’s probably no bigger victim of this than me, but I’m happy to admit it.
    I agree that using a proper camera makes the whole experience far more rewarding - but we shouldn’t sneer at those who simply want to take a snap too.
    Just sayin
     
    NickM likes this.
  7. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Only by people who've never used "a simple box brownie". Bert Hardy's "Blackpool girls" was an extreme exception relying on his skills as a press photographer (which were not entirely photographic). Normally he used a Leica, a Contax or a Rolleiflex (each of which cost an average man's annual pay).
     
  8. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    Of course it all depends on what you like to photograph. If it is sitting in a hide photographing birds, then there would be no substitute for a DSLR with a decent lens, NH stuff that some do on here, then again I dare say a phone is not much use, but for a lot of us, street, landscape views, holiday photos, etc and most importantly memories, then a phone is no problem.

    If you search on Flickr for instance there are examples of some very decent shots taken on mobiles. Just looked at one of a dragonfly. It certainly looks to be of high quality.

    Just to add. I think if you have the eye, and are able to appreciate the limitations of your phone then I think it is a good thing to have and shouldn’t be derided.
     
  9. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    FTFY.
     
  10. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Agreed. Then again: a modern smart phone is as far from a Box Brownie as a modern family saloon car is from a Ford Model T.
     
    dream_police likes this.
  11. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    I have a friend who has sold prints taken on an iPhone5 for substantial 3 figure sums of money. He does have a very good eye for a shot though.
     
  12. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    I’m off on one now. Going back to analogue when we used to get our photos printed 5x8 or whatever, sometimes hundreds of prints after a holiday. Where are they now? Stuck in a box in a loft, in albums also in a loft? How often do they get viewed, every once in a while maybe? Maybe you’ve had them digitised, how often are they viewed on the whole? Is it really any different? I actually think it is quite insulting to dismiss people who only view on a monitor as potentially not real photographers.
     
    Geren, EightBitTony and Zou like this.
  13. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    The Blackpool girls Re: Bert Hardy
    Was completely set up.
    And yes the famous Gorbals was a fluke as Hardy admitted later.
    I don’t doubt for a second if Hardy and Bresson were in their prime today - a modern smartphone would probably be their choice.
    BIF is a clear example where traditional cameras still excel.....but technology will catch up.

    I was just pondering and wondering why Sony haven’t combined the camera and phone - camera body that attaches to phone to form rear screen?
    That would be something. Imagine that combining two separate powerful processors into a unison that could capture and process like a standalone PC
    WOW
     
  14. pixelpuffin

    pixelpuffin Well-Known Member

    This is exactly why I need to get into photo books
    I’ve never done it , but know as soon as I’m confident I’ll be off creating volumes for the bookcase
     
  15. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    I think phone cameras are amazing but they rely on software to a huge extent which begs the question, who took the photograph? If I take a picture with an SLR I get to decide what I want in sharp focus and what can be less sharp, I get to decide on whether to freeze motion, or not, and to what extent. A phone doesn't allow me those choices but uses software to manipulate the image to achieve an approximation of the effects. It is no longer physics that dictates the results. Both SLR and phone have their uses but if you want to be in control the SLR will provide it.

    I can undo various types of screw with my Leatherman but if I have to keep undoing screws all day long a decent screwdriver is going to be more comfortable, I may even resort to a rechargeable drill. The multi-tool has its limitations, notably that it is a single item, a box of tools can do much more and more quickly, in the hands of a skilled person. The same applies to cameras, the skilled photographer can deliver a quality image with any camera, phone, compact, SLR or a simple box but the flexibility of an interchangeable lens camera simplifies the job and allows much more flexibility. In the end though a camera, of any type, is a tool and the skilled operator chooses the tool best suited to the job in hand.

    The dedicated camera market has been shrinking for many years because the vast majority of people aren't interested in the craft of photography they just want a result. Those who are interested will continue to buy dedicated cameras and produce results they are happy with or that teaches them something along the way.

    As someone trained to use hand tools I would never dream of using an adjustable spanner, the only one I posses is one inch long on a keyring, but I know that many people swear by them. We tend to swear at the damage they do. In our world, convenience tends to trump quality every time.
     
  16. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    I’ve had photo books done of photos of my girls containing scans of analogue prints, DSLR photos, phone photos, grabs from my daughters friends Instagram pages etc. These were done for their respective 21st birthdays.

    I have been meaning to do one of our last holiday to Peru again from a mixture of devices.
     
  17. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Didn't Samsung do something which combined the two? iirc it was not successful.
     
  18. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Spot on.
     
  19. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    I don't think anyone can really argue that a DSLR is far more likely to get a better quality image in the right hands and has better capabilities of certain things as you said. Regarding your comment re focus points, whilst no doubt in a phone it is software that alters the aperture but none the less you are able to choose your focus point on a phone as you do on a camera to the same effect. So yes, it helps if one has an understanding of photography and hopefully have the eye for it, but it is an excellent too to have in your box and shouldn't be dismissed as just a phone camera. It is still a camera at the end of the day.

    I was having a coffee whilst reading the forum, so a quick example (and not an example of my photography skills) of DOF. In the first image selected the mask as my focus point on the phones touch screen, then on the second, on the cup. As easy to do as on a camera. No PS manipulation involved.

    [​IMG]mask focus by Nigel G, on Flickr

    [​IMG]cup focus by Nigel G, on Flickr
     
  20. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I think phonebooks are a great idea. I've used them for family occasions where everyone who wants one can have a nice printed record of the event. I don't do projects as such, which if I did, would be another reason to make books. They are an improvement on the photo-album, I suppose I could do year books - there are 12 years now of images on my computer.

    I think it is a great convenience to have digital images that can be viewed on a monitor but I don't like being tied to a computer - seems all I did all my life was sit at a computer screen, programming, writing reports, doing emails - even the last few years of remote working it has replaced meetings. So I do print and enjoy it (not the buying of ink) even though I don't much take pictures that deserve it. And the prints do mostly go into boxes for safe-keeping but it is fun to get the box out and see what I chose to print at some rainy day passed.

    I saw a documentary on a Martin Parr project once. He had a team of helpers with a large format printer banging out the day's shots to at least A3 "enprints" for inspection. I'd quite like the ability to stream off A2 prints!
     

Share This Page