Well, that's debatable. While I'm sure he's very talented, I rather doubt that your grandson is able to create better sculpture than Polykleitos, regardless of the tools he may have. Just sayin'
Last edited:
Cameras: How much Technology needed for Amazing Photographs
- Thread starter MLB01
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
LOL well they still built better roads than they do today! lol
The opening question/statement really is kind of a loaded question. I don't think there really is a right or wrong answer.
As for technology, some of the most historically significant images that changed world perspective were shot with cameras that today would be considered quite crude. The photographs of the horrors of the battles during the American Civil War were shot with a camera that was little more than a wood box, a lens and some film. The shutter was removing the lens cap and then putting it back on. Matthew Brady's civil war photos and a few others like Alexander Gardner and Timothy O'Sullivan forever changed the world's perspective on what war was really like. Photos from people like Eddie Adams changed American perspective about the war in Vietnam and other photos from that war were shot with little more than rangefinder cameras that we would consider crude today. Not just war but famine and things of great beauty (Ansel Adams' landscapes), portraits of influential people, all have been shot over the years with what we could say are primitive camera technology. But still, these photos changed the world's opinion on so many topics and still serve the same purpose today all these years later.
So, no, it is not a requirement to have latest tech or even high tech to take an important and impactful photo. As others have said, the tech today helps improve the "keeper rate" but that "One" special photo that will change world perspective can still be shot with a primitive camera.
Just my take on the topic.
As for technology, some of the most historically significant images that changed world perspective were shot with cameras that today would be considered quite crude. The photographs of the horrors of the battles during the American Civil War were shot with a camera that was little more than a wood box, a lens and some film. The shutter was removing the lens cap and then putting it back on. Matthew Brady's civil war photos and a few others like Alexander Gardner and Timothy O'Sullivan forever changed the world's perspective on what war was really like. Photos from people like Eddie Adams changed American perspective about the war in Vietnam and other photos from that war were shot with little more than rangefinder cameras that we would consider crude today. Not just war but famine and things of great beauty (Ansel Adams' landscapes), portraits of influential people, all have been shot over the years with what we could say are primitive camera technology. But still, these photos changed the world's opinion on so many topics and still serve the same purpose today all these years later.
So, no, it is not a requirement to have latest tech or even high tech to take an important and impactful photo. As others have said, the tech today helps improve the "keeper rate" but that "One" special photo that will change world perspective can still be shot with a primitive camera.
Just my take on the topic.
dwillar
Active member
This is a disgusting thread. 
Doug Herr
Well-known member
Imagine trying to tracking a flying bird w/o AF
The keeper rate for this bird was 100%. I only got one photo, and I kept it. It can be done but productivity was very very low.
Leicaflex SL, Leitz 400mm f/6.8, Kodachrome 64
about 1979 or 1980
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
RikWriter
Well-known member
congrats on a great image. On slides non the less.
My view on the question is simple. The more capable the gear becomes and the easier it makes it to capture perfect images every time, the more it frees up the photographer to concentrate on designing a more creative photo. Hard to spend a lot of time figuring out composition, framing, lighting, etc. if you have to keep worrying about capturing the actual image correctly. Leave the mechanical work to the camera while I use my creative brain to its best potential. If all cameras become equal in mechanical capabilities, human creativity is what will separate good photographers from the mediocre.
Well articulated.
I think a question being begged here is: What can I shoot that's new, that I fundamentally couldn't capture before, now that I have these amazing capabilities in an easy-to-use package?"
We can now shoot up to 120 frames per second with preshot; 1/30,000th second shutter; amazing light sensitivity and dynamic range; user customization and rapid response.
These are new capabilities, yet the main answer on this thread is "I can take the same images I always did, only more and faster."!
And yes. Guilty as charged (but I'm working on it.
).Calson
Well-known member
I was told about a National Geographic photographer sent out to Monterey CA to do a story about famed underwater photographers Jim and Cathy Church. On a stretch of beach he used a motor drive to fire off a roll of time in seconds. As underwater photographers where one has 35-36 frames and then must surface and reload the camera this seemed very extravagant. The photographer told them that film was cheap and he needed to be sure he got the shots for the article. Or take wildlife photographer Franz Lanting who would spend weeks in an area getting habituated and with his elephant subjects have them get used to his being around them. He got some amazing shots with wide angle lens from very short distances and image that were not possible with a super telephoto.
If one is patient and uses a blind a much less expensive lens can be used but not everyone has the time to stalk a subject for days or weeks when it is a hobby and they are not being paid to capture images of their subjects. The pros shooting with film were happy to get one solid image per roll of film and it was a shock to many when the first digital camera users were reporting taking 4000 images during a week long trip. That would take 115 rools of film and good luck getting that amount of film in your carry-on bags and no having it x-rayed multiple times. I shot chrome because it could be developed before my return trip home.
After the 9/11 hysteria it became impossible to fly with film and not have it x-rayed and so I felt forced to go to digital cameras despite their cost and limitations. My first 1GB micro drive for the D1x cost me $700. The D1x pretty much required an external Quantum battery pack to power the camera for more than an hour or two. That 5.4MP APS-C D1x camera cost me $6,000 or about $9,700 in 2021 dollars with the 38% drop in the value of the dollar over the past 20 years.
At this point in time a used D850 with a used 200-500mm telephoto is a relative bargain at a combined cost of around $3,000. For me I have more money than time left on this earth and that definitely affects my decision making.
If one is patient and uses a blind a much less expensive lens can be used but not everyone has the time to stalk a subject for days or weeks when it is a hobby and they are not being paid to capture images of their subjects. The pros shooting with film were happy to get one solid image per roll of film and it was a shock to many when the first digital camera users were reporting taking 4000 images during a week long trip. That would take 115 rools of film and good luck getting that amount of film in your carry-on bags and no having it x-rayed multiple times. I shot chrome because it could be developed before my return trip home.
After the 9/11 hysteria it became impossible to fly with film and not have it x-rayed and so I felt forced to go to digital cameras despite their cost and limitations. My first 1GB micro drive for the D1x cost me $700. The D1x pretty much required an external Quantum battery pack to power the camera for more than an hour or two. That 5.4MP APS-C D1x camera cost me $6,000 or about $9,700 in 2021 dollars with the 38% drop in the value of the dollar over the past 20 years.
At this point in time a used D850 with a used 200-500mm telephoto is a relative bargain at a combined cost of around $3,000. For me I have more money than time left on this earth and that definitely affects my decision making.
Last edited:
dwillar
Active member
1) All the latest and greatest hardware only enables us to do the same old things we do faster.
2) All the latest software only enables us to do "Hollywood" photos that often create entirely new species of what we shoot.
3) Yesterday is gone.
4) What makes a stellar photo and tells a great story lies about three inches behind the camera.
5) A stellar photo is one frame. Post processing often limited to cropping the image for a reasonably pleasing presentation. 5000 frames a second is not a fix for not knowing your hardware and being technically adept at using it.
6) Stellar photos are very hard work in and of itself. Changing cameras every six months will NOT get you where you want to be!
Understand now?
fcotterill
Well-known member
For the OP and anyone else interested, if you haven't done similar already I often revisit the work and writings of some of the great film photographers including well known names who are still active, or recently passed: Peter Johnson (SAPPI Collection, The Bushmen etc), Hugo Van Lawick (Among Predators and Prey), Tom Mangelson, Frans Lanting, Galen Rowell... there are many others, including ex commercial street photographer, Jay Maisel.
Galen Rowell was primarily an explorer, and climber and founder of what has come to be called Conservation Photography. He wrote several books (notably Mountain Light and there is the commemorative Galen Rowell: A Retrospective) as well as an anthology of essays - Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography
Last but not least track down a set of insightful NatGeo essays by Jim Brandenburg [Chased by the Light: A 90-day Journey], which have accompanying books. To recover from burnout shooting for NatGeo he set himself a therapeutic project to take only 1 frame a day around his cabin for 90 days in the Great Lakes region to document the Autumn of 1994...and he's followed this project up over the years since with Summer, Winter, Spring. All these are well worth tracking down. It's interesting how his projects spanned the heyday of the film era with modern SLRs (AF etc), repeated in the digital era. Until March 2018, in each of the 4 episodes he upheld the theme of a single daily shot of wildlife and landscapes of Minnesota.
Galen Rowell was primarily an explorer, and climber and founder of what has come to be called Conservation Photography. He wrote several books (notably Mountain Light and there is the commemorative Galen Rowell: A Retrospective) as well as an anthology of essays - Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography
Last but not least track down a set of insightful NatGeo essays by Jim Brandenburg [Chased by the Light: A 90-day Journey], which have accompanying books. To recover from burnout shooting for NatGeo he set himself a therapeutic project to take only 1 frame a day around his cabin for 90 days in the Great Lakes region to document the Autumn of 1994...and he's followed this project up over the years since with Summer, Winter, Spring. All these are well worth tracking down. It's interesting how his projects spanned the heyday of the film era with modern SLRs (AF etc), repeated in the digital era. Until March 2018, in each of the 4 episodes he upheld the theme of a single daily shot of wildlife and landscapes of Minnesota.
Last edited:
It was Jim Brandenburg.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Thanks for knocking this one out!It was Jim Brandenburg.
Technology is an enabler. It allows evolution of photography and changes the standard by which images are evaluated.
A photo of a man leaping over a puddle used innovative technology for the time - faster film. Faster film (not really film but recording media of early cameras) was originally used to capture landscapes without blurred clouds caused by long exposure times. Color film give us a way to use color rather than just luminance. Velvia brought us highly saturated color images.
In the 1990's there was a major shift in photography as AF became common. Today AF performance is a critical factor in new cameras. Canon AF lenses and cameras drove brand changes.
In the early 2000 period, we have image stabilization and VR. Stabilization allows captures at low shutter speeds without a tripod.
Around 2010 we had the ISO wars where low light performance based on noise was a key factor in camera innovation. The Nikon full frame cameras took back share with the D3 and D700.
Today we have digital cameras where AF is making another jump using faster processors and AI subject recognition. Sony was the early leader and picked up share. Now all major brands embrace subject recognition and automated AF.
New technologies by themselves are not innovative. It's what you can do with those technologies. With higher acceptable ISO levels, fast shutter speeds, and accurate AF, wildlife and sports photography often requires great captures of action. This is much more the case than 15 years ago. Probably 70% of recognized contest images of wildlife are action photos rather than portraits or environmental images. But with new cameras the bar is set higher - more precision is expected because everyone can capture action. We still see lots of images with problems that have nothing to do with AF or camera speed. A sharp image of a subject in the wrong position is still a weak image.
Focus is just a small part of making a good image. There is a lot more to photography than pointing a camera at a subject and rattling off 30 fps. If the light, wind, composition, or posture of the subject is wrong, it's a discard even in sharp focus. I have a lot more in focus subjects - and a lot more discards.
A photo of a man leaping over a puddle used innovative technology for the time - faster film. Faster film (not really film but recording media of early cameras) was originally used to capture landscapes without blurred clouds caused by long exposure times. Color film give us a way to use color rather than just luminance. Velvia brought us highly saturated color images.
In the 1990's there was a major shift in photography as AF became common. Today AF performance is a critical factor in new cameras. Canon AF lenses and cameras drove brand changes.
In the early 2000 period, we have image stabilization and VR. Stabilization allows captures at low shutter speeds without a tripod.
Around 2010 we had the ISO wars where low light performance based on noise was a key factor in camera innovation. The Nikon full frame cameras took back share with the D3 and D700.
Today we have digital cameras where AF is making another jump using faster processors and AI subject recognition. Sony was the early leader and picked up share. Now all major brands embrace subject recognition and automated AF.
New technologies by themselves are not innovative. It's what you can do with those technologies. With higher acceptable ISO levels, fast shutter speeds, and accurate AF, wildlife and sports photography often requires great captures of action. This is much more the case than 15 years ago. Probably 70% of recognized contest images of wildlife are action photos rather than portraits or environmental images. But with new cameras the bar is set higher - more precision is expected because everyone can capture action. We still see lots of images with problems that have nothing to do with AF or camera speed. A sharp image of a subject in the wrong position is still a weak image.
Focus is just a small part of making a good image. There is a lot more to photography than pointing a camera at a subject and rattling off 30 fps. If the light, wind, composition, or posture of the subject is wrong, it's a discard even in sharp focus. I have a lot more in focus subjects - and a lot more discards.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
There is no spoil here. You can still use film and nearly every camera (film or digital) can be used manually. Many of us still do those things.
You can still do wood-working the hard way too, if you want. They made both great and crappy furniture back then as well.
Chris
You can still do wood-working the hard way too, if you want. They made both great and crappy furniture back then as well.
Chris
Very little actually. The passion and creativity of the photographer is by far, IMHO, the biggest factor.
kennethtucker
New member
Meanwhile I just picked up a mint D3 with 2500 shutter actuations for a song, LOL!
RikWriter
Well-known member
1) All the latest and greatest hardware only enables us to do the same old things we do faster.
2) All the latest software only enables us to do "Hollywood" photos that often create entirely new species of what we shoot.
3) Yesterday is gone.
4) What makes a stellar photo and tells a great story lies about three inches behind the camera.
5) A stellar photo is one frame. Post processing often limited to cropping the image for a reasonably pleasing presentation. 5000 frames a second is not a fix for not knowing your hardware and being technically adept at using it.
6) Stellar photos are very hard work in and of itself. Changing cameras every six months will NOT get you where you want to be!
Understand now?
I understand your thoughts on the matter. I still don't understand why you find the thread disgusting.
dwillar
Active member
Question #1: How much technology do we really need to take amazing photos???? As much as we can afford and understand how to use.
Question #2: Will technology replace skill and technique required for great photos??? Never!
My answers to the original questions asked by the OP.
This kind of conversation happens with every art form. Nothing new here. Every art form has new tools come along from time to time, some revolutionary and others simply gradual change. There are always people that buy in right way and those that stick forever with the existing way and those that gradually adopt the new way as it becomes the new established.way. It's all good if the artist intended something and worked to achieve it. Maybe they have the tools already at hand to make what they intended, or maybe they give up or go for a different result, or maybe they look around to see if other tools would work better for this job.
Maybe the new tools wake up new ideas about what is possible.
Maybe the new tools wake up new ideas about what is possible.
RikWriter
Well-known member
Question #1: How much technology do we really need to take amazing photos???? As much as we can afford and understand how to use.
Question #2: Will technology replace skill and technique required for great photos??? Never!
My answers to the original questions asked by the OP.
I agree with both of those.
Roy
Well-known member
Agreed - back then even a moderate long lens was rare.
I never liked using rangefinder cameras. And things like autoexposure and autofocus were yet to come...
O
Well-known member
A camera is a tool nothing more or less, what is sold to use is change, something on point, latest greatest, its becomming like smartphones every 3 to 6 12 months there is newer better do all model but with new software menus you cant live without.........essentially they are still a phone, or are they now.
The market and internet and manufacturing companies are making the phone into a wallet and security ID card or as my young grandson says its all digital Cocaine and the world is dependent on it, live with it.
New Technology is amazing, the phone call component is actually becoming progressively more obsolete, Siri now takes your verbal instruction and sends a text word for word.
Your walking along the beach, you say Siri order a pizza for 6 pm this evening delivered to home, its done.
Ok you know the drill already........so whats left in the camera for you to do other than play with the software........or in taking a photo...........other than point in the general area, i think they call that composition,........the camera dose pretty much everything for you, tracking exposure identifying the subject.........etc etc.........yes its great technology, companies are to be commended, but really whats your actual involvement or need for lots or lost skill sets....... shutter speed is covered with VR, focusing is covered with tracking, exposure is covered with floating ISO to balance each scene exposure, Oh you can play with the Lens that's it, you can zoom in or out, job well done for doing that at $23,000 AUD lens with built in convertor LOL.
New technology is fantastic, the camera manufacturers market the benefits as, it will allow you to concentrate more on composition instead of concentrating on the camera.......YEEE.........but not for very long, as Video will be freezing that critical moment perfectly, you will be able to process you video clips on the new super fast Mac computers.......LOL
For those that are super savvy with techi stuff this new camera technology is a welcome innovation, dose it make you a better photographer or a better recorder scanning a scene or subject, or will you be or become a Videographer.
Several wild life photographers are using the Z9 in video mode and pulling perfectly usable stills from video.
Look at the D4 D4s then the Z9 forget about the speed Video has been the most significant difference.
Video killed the radio star, will it be Video will kill the photography star, you only have to look at the investment and direction in new technology and where its been placed both in cameras and lenses, Is it true we will be able to get stunning perfect moments pulling stills from video clips ! or is it a myth.............
- Status