I agree with much of what you say. Also, size and weight are increasingly
relevant for me. I am not prepared to walk around for 8 hours with a bag that
makes my shoulder hurt. So for example, I have two Fuji X 23mm lenses, the 1.4
and 2.0 versions. The 1.4 only comes along to parties and such where I know I
might find myself shooting in very marginal light.
In the end, much of the time I take whatever strikes my fancy that day. I
really only think a bit more when packing for a trip—the selection of lenses to
take varies depending on how much walking around I will do and in what kind of
environment I will be taking pictures.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu <http://www.frozenlight.eu/>
http:// <http://www.greatpix.eu/>www.greatpix.eu
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
<http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws>Blog: http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/
<http://nathansmusings.wordpress.com/>
Cycling: http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator
<http://www.crazyguyonabike.com/belgiangator>
YNWA
"I’m not arguing, I’m just explaining why I’m right"
> On 4 Aug 2020, at 20:27, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm convinced that the "influencers" (smart people with a youtube
> channel or blog) on the Interwebs are really just bunch of ignorant
> baboons going "oooo, ahhh, ooooo, ahhhh" over every bobble that is new
> and shiny, but really are clueless in regard to what "art" is all
> about. They equate technical specifications with quality, and features
> with usability.
>
> We see it in nearly every area. Cars, bicycles, cameras, watches,
> cellphones, espresso makers, computers, etc. Oh, and never forget home
> stereo systems! The fact is that in all of these listed topics, the
> "90% Rule" is achieved pretty easily and without too much investment.
> It's a logarithmic thing. It takes a huge amount of money to see very
> little improvement beyond a reasonably attainable point. The problem
> is that the fun and/or usability factor is the inverse. As the
> investment in that car gets higher, the amount of fun driving that car
> goes down. While some items truly have a shelf life, as a general
> rule, the ones that are designed for the 90% point seem to have the
> longest legs and the greatest usability over time. Typically, they
> also have the best price/performance through to the point of disposal.
> It's possible to buy/sell/flip items through the cycle and improve
> ROI, just as it is possible to buy/sell/flip items and lose your
> shirt.
>
> In regards to cameras, this has been well represented by the halo
> products, the professional grade products, and the consumer or low-end
> products. These days, the halo products are full-frame mirrorless
> cameras with 50+ MP sensors. The lenses are massive, highly corrected
> monstrosities that cost as much as a brand new Toyota Corolla. The
> problem I see with these top-grade items is the overall "usability"
> has topped out and actually goes the opposite direction. The more
> expensive, bigger, and heavier the item, the less likely I am to carry
> it with me.
>
> This is personal to me with my various camera systems. The recent
> acquisition of the Sony A7 Mk2 is a near-perfect example reaching the
> 90% point with relatively little cost. For $1000, I was able to get a
> brand-new full-frame 24MP camera WITH a kit lens. For just a few
> dollars more, and I have an adapter to use an entire fleet of
> high-quality lenses. For the cost of a trade-in of an EXTREMELY
> well-used (totally worn out) Canon 6D, I got a Panasonic GX85 with two
> lens kit. For a minimal spend, I got three Kodak-CCD Olympus cameras
> AND a lens. For another minimal spend, I'm looking to expand that kit
> further. Most are comfortably high up on the curve, nesting in
> someplace near the 90% point. My investment is low, but the return is
> high. Would I like one of those brand-new Sony A7R Mk 23 cameras?
> Sure! Would I get value out of it? Probably not.
>
> There are days when I grab a specific camera and set of lenses based
> on the specifics of what I'm doing or where I'm going. There are days
> when I'll pick something completely different. Sometimes, I'll grab
> three systems at once! The point is that no one system is "best" 100%
> of the time. They are all compromises. The better systems do more or
> even all, but at a cost--both monetary and physical.
>
> The "influencers" are almost always wrong in regards to this. They
> equate cost/features/newness with ultimate value, but they miss out on
> the intangibles. Just because something is "best" may completely be in
> opposition to what is usable. However, it is too easy to go the other
> way and place unrealistic benefit to something that is actually too
> small and limited. Cell-phone cameras certainly fit into this
> category. The problem I have with cell-phone cameras is that they
> aren't NOT anywhere near the 90% point as a photography tool. What
> they do well, they do VERY well, but what they can do well is a
> limited subset of my photography needs.
>
> The influencers, however, typically determine what photography needs
> are based on their own definitions and desires. If Bokeh is your god,
> then deep DoF is a tool of the devil.
>
> I would like to delve into why I grab a specific camera for a specific
> type of picture, but that goes deep into my own definitions and
> desires as a photographer.
>
> AG Schnozz
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|