Tech - vs - Technique
Discussion
Rogue86 said:
StevieBee said:
(To argue against my own point...) I've just invested in this very combo. Good, innit? Just snared a second hand 20mm as well.
Yeah it really is very good! Although creating composites with multiple 50+MB RAW frames is really taking its toll on my Mac 
My eldest son and I are modestly-keen amateurs. We both have Nikon D810s and a handful of decent lenses.
In 2017, we went down to Porthcawl in South Wales the day after Storm Brian to get some shots of big waves hitting the pier. At the time, my son's D810 was back at Nikon for checking the autofocus, so he borrowed his partner's ancient D3300 DX. I took my D810 and best lens - 70-200 f2.8
His shots were still better than mine....
That said, he probably had to work a bit harder to get good shots out of an entry-level crop-sensor body, whereas the D810 and sharp lens probably made up for some of my lack of natural talent - had the kit been reversed, I expect my shots with a D3300 would have been awful
In 2017, we went down to Porthcawl in South Wales the day after Storm Brian to get some shots of big waves hitting the pier. At the time, my son's D810 was back at Nikon for checking the autofocus, so he borrowed his partner's ancient D3300 DX. I took my D810 and best lens - 70-200 f2.8
His shots were still better than mine....
That said, he probably had to work a bit harder to get good shots out of an entry-level crop-sensor body, whereas the D810 and sharp lens probably made up for some of my lack of natural talent - had the kit been reversed, I expect my shots with a D3300 would have been awful
Nigel_O said:
His shots were still better than mine....
That said, he probably had to work a bit harder to get good shots out of an entry-level crop-sensor body, whereas the D810 and sharp lens probably made up for some of my lack of natural talent - had the kit been reversed, I expect my shots with a D3300 would have been awful
If you'd swapped cameras halfway through you'd have found out...That said, he probably had to work a bit harder to get good shots out of an entry-level crop-sensor body, whereas the D810 and sharp lens probably made up for some of my lack of natural talent - had the kit been reversed, I expect my shots with a D3300 would have been awful
I'd guess composition and anticipation/timing are the main things in that scenario.
A camera is a tool. If you don’t know how to use it, you’re not going to get a good result; an expert with a cheap tool will still get a better result than a novice with the best tool you can get. A pro landscape photographer will get a better landscape photograph with an iPhone than I will with my Canon R6. That said, I’ll get better wildlife and aviation photos than they will with that iPhone because I’m using the right tool for the job. Having a better/ more expensive camera won’t necessarily make your photographs any better, but it will make it easier getting said photographs.
I think it depends on specifics in many cases. Imagine a beautiful moody scene on the Isle of Skye and take somebody with no photography experience.
Their iPhone 12 with all the machine learning shenanigans will produce a very good approximation of the scene as it looked in real life with no effort whatsoever. Instagram worthy image in 1 second.
Give them a Canon R6 next and I'd say it would be essentially impossible for them to achieve a better result (certainly not in camera). With luck they may have captured the data in the RAW file to turn it into a 'better' image, but that's as far as it is likely to go.
On the other hand...
Give anyone a Sony a9 and 600mm f4 on a monopod, stick them on a corner of a racetrack and challenge them to get some solid, frozen images of race cars and they will more than likely end up with a few solid shots. Give Darren Heath (F1 photographer) an iPhone in the same location with the same brief and he doesn't stand a chance.
Move to the straight, give Darren Heath a battered old Nikon D50 and cheap 70-300mm lens, and the newbie a Sony a9 and 70-200 3.8 and ask them to get some good panning shots. The F1 photographer will absolutely nail it, the newbie is unlikely to get anything worthwhile all day despite having gear worth 40 times as much.
Their iPhone 12 with all the machine learning shenanigans will produce a very good approximation of the scene as it looked in real life with no effort whatsoever. Instagram worthy image in 1 second.
Give them a Canon R6 next and I'd say it would be essentially impossible for them to achieve a better result (certainly not in camera). With luck they may have captured the data in the RAW file to turn it into a 'better' image, but that's as far as it is likely to go.
On the other hand...
Give anyone a Sony a9 and 600mm f4 on a monopod, stick them on a corner of a racetrack and challenge them to get some solid, frozen images of race cars and they will more than likely end up with a few solid shots. Give Darren Heath (F1 photographer) an iPhone in the same location with the same brief and he doesn't stand a chance.
Move to the straight, give Darren Heath a battered old Nikon D50 and cheap 70-300mm lens, and the newbie a Sony a9 and 70-200 3.8 and ask them to get some good panning shots. The F1 photographer will absolutely nail it, the newbie is unlikely to get anything worthwhile all day despite having gear worth 40 times as much.
I think everyone has summed it up pretty well; a good Pro will know and understand whatever kit they have and get the very best out of it, far more so than an amateur who doesn't even if they have great kit.
The truly talented, as opposed to those who are simply 'good' will take it up several notches and produce amazing photographs from anything that can take an image.
I'm in the hobbyist category and even after 16 years of being 'into' photography, I've yet to do any Courses or truly learn what my cameras can do. I largely point and shoot. I use my mobile and GoPro more than my so-called 'main' camera which only comes out occasionally.
But 'better' kit does make a difference to Pro's for workflow and making it easier for them. Same with us hobbyists. My Canon R5 and RF70-200 2.8 combo with suggested settings for different scenarios from a Nina Bailey book is producing the best photographs I've ever taken. In this instance, it's the kit, not me so much.
The truly talented, as opposed to those who are simply 'good' will take it up several notches and produce amazing photographs from anything that can take an image.
I'm in the hobbyist category and even after 16 years of being 'into' photography, I've yet to do any Courses or truly learn what my cameras can do. I largely point and shoot. I use my mobile and GoPro more than my so-called 'main' camera which only comes out occasionally.
But 'better' kit does make a difference to Pro's for workflow and making it easier for them. Same with us hobbyists. My Canon R5 and RF70-200 2.8 combo with suggested settings for different scenarios from a Nina Bailey book is producing the best photographs I've ever taken. In this instance, it's the kit, not me so much.
Coolbananas said:
I'm in the hobbyist category and even after 16 years of being 'into' photography, I've yet to do any Courses or truly learn what my cameras can do....
My Canon R5 and RF70-200 2.8 combo with suggested settings for different scenarios from a Nina Bailey book is producing the best photographs I've ever taken.
The final step is just to understand what the settings do and what difference they make to the image - then you won't need a book My Canon R5 and RF70-200 2.8 combo with suggested settings for different scenarios from a Nina Bailey book is producing the best photographs I've ever taken.
In the same way that when you drive a car, you don't need to get the handbook out every time you want to change gear. Also note that you won't need ALL the settings, just the ones that allow you to do what you want.Decent kit doesn't help with subject & composition & technique. These are the things that separate a decent photographer.
But decent kit does allow higher ISOs, faster shutters, quicker & more intelligent AF, greater dynamic range, better metering... And of course less time mucking around trying to find the right settings for the shot that you want.
A boring image will be a boring image no matter what it's shot on. But a good potentially good shot could be spoiled by the limitations of the camera.
Having upgraded from a Panasonic GH1 to a G9 last year, my technique hasn't improved, but my hit rate has definitely gone up.
But decent kit does allow higher ISOs, faster shutters, quicker & more intelligent AF, greater dynamic range, better metering... And of course less time mucking around trying to find the right settings for the shot that you want.
A boring image will be a boring image no matter what it's shot on. But a good potentially good shot could be spoiled by the limitations of the camera.
Having upgraded from a Panasonic GH1 to a G9 last year, my technique hasn't improved, but my hit rate has definitely gone up.
mikeveal said:
...But a good potentially good shot could be spoiled by the limitations of the camera.
To take that to the extreme, there are some photos that just can't be taken (no matter how good the photographer) without the right sort of kit. Physics is physics. Ever tried to get a macro photo without a macro lens (or improvised equivalent like reverse adaptor or extension tubes)? 
Of course a good photographer will know the limitations of the kit they have, and take a good photo of something else instead.
Simpo Two said:
Also note that you won't need ALL the settings, just the ones that allow you to do what you want.
20 years in, the more I've learned the fewer settings I now change I guess that's kinda similar for any technical thing that you get 'good' at as long as the technology allows...efficiency. We're also at a point with any vaguely recent camera that you can confidently hand over certain things to the technology and allow it to crack on, as long as you've learned what it is doing and why (and how to change it quickly should you need to). I like to shoot really quickly as for me photography is 99% having an eye for things, not the tech, so Auto ISO (for example) was an absolute game-changer in speeding that process up.For the vast majority of my day-to-day photography (including about 90% of a wedding day) all my settings were sorted and stored on the U1 setting on the mode dial within about 2 hours of receiving my latest cameras, never to be touched again. Ditto motorsport but on the U2 dial, on average there are probably 3 settings I change on a regular basis (aperture, shutter speed, metering) if I'm not doing something specialist such as long exposures.
People do get hung up on tech, lighting and learning flash techniques and basic photography (Manual/ISO/apertures) etc etc is far more important especially in a studio situation.
Tech is important aswell though, as when you have a client breathing down your neck while your camera is tethered to you laptop, it needs to work efficiently and effectively and be instant so they can be happy, so tech is important in that aspect.
Happy with my 5dmk4's with prime lenses, they are phenomenal pieces of kit that gets the job done for work, I use my "old tech" 5dmk2 for my personal stuff and holidays (coming up 200k actuations on this awesome piece of canon technology, love it)
Tech is important aswell though, as when you have a client breathing down your neck while your camera is tethered to you laptop, it needs to work efficiently and effectively and be instant so they can be happy, so tech is important in that aspect.
Happy with my 5dmk4's with prime lenses, they are phenomenal pieces of kit that gets the job done for work, I use my "old tech" 5dmk2 for my personal stuff and holidays (coming up 200k actuations on this awesome piece of canon technology, love it)
bramley said:
I begrudgingly upgraded my perfectly functional 5D2s last year and at the same time got a new bag for about £300.
I was way more excited about the bag than I was about the cameras.
When all my kit got written off in January the bag (Billingham 335) caused more faff with the insurance that the contents !I was way more excited about the bag than I was about the cameras.
All the gear, no idea!..........often said and completely true.
If you know your subject, your craft and put in the time, you will get GOOD shots with almost any gear. - However, if you know your subject, your craft and put in the time with the best equipment, you will get a LOT more GREAT shots and 'keepers'
As the saying goes, "the more I practise, the luckier I get".
I only shoot wildlife, but as I have got older (more disposable income), the better gear I have bought, the better my results...........there is a reason why the best gear is expensive!
If you know your subject, your craft and put in the time, you will get GOOD shots with almost any gear. - However, if you know your subject, your craft and put in the time with the best equipment, you will get a LOT more GREAT shots and 'keepers'
As the saying goes, "the more I practise, the luckier I get".
I only shoot wildlife, but as I have got older (more disposable income), the better gear I have bought, the better my results...........there is a reason why the best gear is expensive!
Edited by Vintage Racer on Friday 11th June 14:33
My eldest worked for a London-based newspaper. He carried an old compact camera around with him at all times and all his best shots were taken with it despite having access to some decent quality gear. He got shots of one of the Gallaghers playing football with local kids.
As an aside, ever wondered what gear a professional 'Fleet Street' photographer has in his equipment bag? One left his kit in a black cab and the driver brought it in to my nick when I was working in the office. The driver gets a reward which depends (depended?) on value so I had to go through the content bit by bit.
I emptied the case and detailed each item as it was replaced. There were about 10 x black plastic 35mm film containers. Three felt odd and sounded odder. They were packed with cannabis. The bloke had to come in for his cameras and kit, was arrested and charged. Ended up with a caution.
There's gear and there's gear. Not sure of its quality.
As an aside, ever wondered what gear a professional 'Fleet Street' photographer has in his equipment bag? One left his kit in a black cab and the driver brought it in to my nick when I was working in the office. The driver gets a reward which depends (depended?) on value so I had to go through the content bit by bit.
I emptied the case and detailed each item as it was replaced. There were about 10 x black plastic 35mm film containers. Three felt odd and sounded odder. They were packed with cannabis. The bloke had to come in for his cameras and kit, was arrested and charged. Ended up with a caution.
There's gear and there's gear. Not sure of its quality.
I've just swapped my 5dii for an R6 and I'm blown away by it - mainly by the general usability.
I wanted better low light performance and the R6 is stunning in its ability to focus and deliver really great low light images, partly due I'm sure to the sensor and partly due to the electronics.
I was also struggling with the viewfinder on the 5dii, getting older and squinting was not easy and again the R6 viewfinder is so large, bright and clear it's just a pleasure to use. I've also got the swivel touchscreen to use too !
I'd not had many issues with focusing in good light with the 5dii but again the R6 is just in another league - eye recognition means I can keep 80% not the 40% (at a guess) I used to keep previously. Doesn't mean they're great shots but at least they are in focus where they ought to be. I think some of this is down to the fact I struggled to see the viewfinder on the 5dii as much as the R6 being leagues better.
The silent shutter is a huge improvement over the loud shutter sound the 5dii made, which often used to worry people. I think they think the shutter sound means you're a pro and taking photos for a newspaper - it just seems to disturb some people so the R6 is a massive improvement here, being silent. This is especially useful outside with strangers, like street photography or even just tourism.
So tech won't make me a better photographer, but it will help me get the best out of my ideas and help me keep more shots than I did previously.
I don't feel the R6 is quite as well built as the 5dii, when holding the 5dii it felt like I was holding something exceptionally well designed and built, the R6 has a little more plastic and the dials aren't quite as precise as the older camera despite being just as exceptional for its time. It all works beautifully and it's nit-picking but I guess they tried to keep the weight down so that's one of the side effects.
I follow a few photographers on YouTube and some of them have achieved spectacular results with much more modest equipment, so I have a lot to learn still
I wanted better low light performance and the R6 is stunning in its ability to focus and deliver really great low light images, partly due I'm sure to the sensor and partly due to the electronics.
I was also struggling with the viewfinder on the 5dii, getting older and squinting was not easy and again the R6 viewfinder is so large, bright and clear it's just a pleasure to use. I've also got the swivel touchscreen to use too !
I'd not had many issues with focusing in good light with the 5dii but again the R6 is just in another league - eye recognition means I can keep 80% not the 40% (at a guess) I used to keep previously. Doesn't mean they're great shots but at least they are in focus where they ought to be. I think some of this is down to the fact I struggled to see the viewfinder on the 5dii as much as the R6 being leagues better.
The silent shutter is a huge improvement over the loud shutter sound the 5dii made, which often used to worry people. I think they think the shutter sound means you're a pro and taking photos for a newspaper - it just seems to disturb some people so the R6 is a massive improvement here, being silent. This is especially useful outside with strangers, like street photography or even just tourism.
So tech won't make me a better photographer, but it will help me get the best out of my ideas and help me keep more shots than I did previously.
I don't feel the R6 is quite as well built as the 5dii, when holding the 5dii it felt like I was holding something exceptionally well designed and built, the R6 has a little more plastic and the dials aren't quite as precise as the older camera despite being just as exceptional for its time. It all works beautifully and it's nit-picking but I guess they tried to keep the weight down so that's one of the side effects.
I follow a few photographers on YouTube and some of them have achieved spectacular results with much more modest equipment, so I have a lot to learn still
seveb said:
I've just swapped my 5dii for an R6 and I'm blown away by it - mainly by the general usability.
I wanted better low light performance and the R6 is stunning in its ability to focus and deliver really great low light images, partly due I'm sure to the sensor and partly due to the electronics.
I was also struggling with the viewfinder on the 5dii, getting older and squinting was not easy and again the R6 viewfinder is so large, bright and clear it's just a pleasure to use. I've also got the swivel touchscreen to use too !
I'd not had many issues with focusing in good light with the 5dii but again the R6 is just in another league - eye recognition means I can keep 80% not the 40% (at a guess) I used to keep previously. Doesn't mean they're great shots but at least they are in focus where they ought to be. I think some of this is down to the fact I struggled to see the viewfinder on the 5dii as much as the R6 being leagues better.
The silent shutter is a huge improvement over the loud shutter sound the 5dii made, which often used to worry people. I think they think the shutter sound means you're a pro and taking photos for a newspaper - it just seems to disturb some people so the R6 is a massive improvement here, being silent. This is especially useful outside with strangers, like street photography or even just tourism.
So tech won't make me a better photographer, but it will help me get the best out of my ideas and help me keep more shots than I did previously.
I don't feel the R6 is quite as well built as the 5dii, when holding the 5dii it felt like I was holding something exceptionally well designed and built, the R6 has a little more plastic and the dials aren't quite as precise as the older camera despite being just as exceptional for its time . It all works beautifully and it's nit-picking but I guess they tried to keep the weight down so that's one of the side effects.
I follow a few photographers on YouTube and some of them have achieved spectacular results with much more modest equipment, so I have a lot to learn still
The R5 is every bit as well-built and robust as the 5-series DSLR's, being their Mirrorless successor - the R6 is more like the 6-series DSLR's in that respect. The incoming sports-orientated R3 and the eventual flagship R1 will go further for the Pro's in that they are full-size bodies. I wanted better low light performance and the R6 is stunning in its ability to focus and deliver really great low light images, partly due I'm sure to the sensor and partly due to the electronics.
I was also struggling with the viewfinder on the 5dii, getting older and squinting was not easy and again the R6 viewfinder is so large, bright and clear it's just a pleasure to use. I've also got the swivel touchscreen to use too !
I'd not had many issues with focusing in good light with the 5dii but again the R6 is just in another league - eye recognition means I can keep 80% not the 40% (at a guess) I used to keep previously. Doesn't mean they're great shots but at least they are in focus where they ought to be. I think some of this is down to the fact I struggled to see the viewfinder on the 5dii as much as the R6 being leagues better.
The silent shutter is a huge improvement over the loud shutter sound the 5dii made, which often used to worry people. I think they think the shutter sound means you're a pro and taking photos for a newspaper - it just seems to disturb some people so the R6 is a massive improvement here, being silent. This is especially useful outside with strangers, like street photography or even just tourism.
So tech won't make me a better photographer, but it will help me get the best out of my ideas and help me keep more shots than I did previously.
I don't feel the R6 is quite as well built as the 5dii, when holding the 5dii it felt like I was holding something exceptionally well designed and built, the R6 has a little more plastic and the dials aren't quite as precise as the older camera despite being just as exceptional for its time . It all works beautifully and it's nit-picking but I guess they tried to keep the weight down so that's one of the side effects.
I follow a few photographers on YouTube and some of them have achieved spectacular results with much more modest equipment, so I have a lot to learn still
The tech in the R and now R5 has definitely helped me with more keepers than my 5DIV and 7DII ever did, so whilst a failing in my personal photography ability in terms of camera functionality, I prefer this so that I can concentrate solely upon composition.
Hi All,
I have been following this thread for a little while and have a Pentax DSLR which I am happy with, although I am not much of a photographer. There has been a fair amount of mention of mirrorless cameras and their capabilities, and how they are potentially better than DSLRs.
My question is:- Is the performance difference pretty much down to software only?
I understand that losing the glass pentaprism will help with size and weight but this would have nothing to do with the quality of images being captured - all else being equal.
Am I understanding things correctly or am I missing something obvious to everyone but me?
I have been following this thread for a little while and have a Pentax DSLR which I am happy with, although I am not much of a photographer. There has been a fair amount of mention of mirrorless cameras and their capabilities, and how they are potentially better than DSLRs.
My question is:- Is the performance difference pretty much down to software only?
I understand that losing the glass pentaprism will help with size and weight but this would have nothing to do with the quality of images being captured - all else being equal.
Am I understanding things correctly or am I missing something obvious to everyone but me?
johnymac said:
Hi All,
I have been following this thread for a little while and have a Pentax DSLR which I am happy with, although I am not much of a photographer. There has been a fair amount of mention of mirrorless cameras and their capabilities, and how they are potentially better than DSLRs.
My question is:- Is the performance difference pretty much down to software only?
I understand that losing the glass pentaprism will help with size and weight but this would have nothing to do with the quality of images being captured - all else being equal.
Am I understanding things correctly or am I missing something obvious to everyone but me?
For me the significant difference is the EVF compared with the traditional pentaprism viewfinder. The EVF allows you to see in real time how the image is exposed, depth of field etc. so I've experienced fewer missed shots as a result of having incorrect settings. I have been following this thread for a little while and have a Pentax DSLR which I am happy with, although I am not much of a photographer. There has been a fair amount of mention of mirrorless cameras and their capabilities, and how they are potentially better than DSLRs.
My question is:- Is the performance difference pretty much down to software only?
I understand that losing the glass pentaprism will help with size and weight but this would have nothing to do with the quality of images being captured - all else being equal.
Am I understanding things correctly or am I missing something obvious to everyone but me?
Otherwise sensors are often shared between DSLR's and mirrorless cameras so really depends on which specific camera. I certainly don't think it's possible to say one is better than another right now.
My Olympus (M4/3) was certainly a lot smaller than my Nikon DSLR, although desire for more DoF and MP resulted in me upgrading to a Sony A7iii which is nearly back at the same size as my old Nikon gear. The EVF is a big sell for me though and is the main reason I wouldn't go back to a DSLR. Even newer models now don't even experience black out at the time the image is taken.
Also worth noting that plenty of full frame mirrorless lenses are actually larger than their DSLR counterparts. The camera is of course slightly smaller but this pales into insignificance if you're carrying a bag full of lenses.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff