Hear Hear Hear! I;m simply done with things involving "influencers" ( a term
for a person that is unable to find a real job) or followers (Those who have
never had an original thought or decided on anything on their own). There are
several online camera people that I find to be a sign of the impending decline
of our society.
And I'm very much over a couple of the camera web groups. I get the Peta Pixel
daily compilation of web stuff, and a a few days ago the posted one that
started out, "If sharpness were everything, Cartier-Bresson would be laughed
out of photography already." It also included a piece of the Lange photo
Migrant Mother showing how it lacks sharpness.
I think the endless search for ultimate sharpness is a crutch for those who
lack creativity. But today being election day, I may just be grumpy.
From: olympus <olympus-bounces+pearce=kmuw.org@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Jim Nichols <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 1:35:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Cameras for all moods
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Wichita State University. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
HEAR! HEAR! On a smaller scale, that's my philosophy as well.
On 8/4/20 1:27 PM, Ken Norton 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
> 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
Tullahoma, TN USA
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/