If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Canon S-120 versus Canon G7X
On 23/05/2016 12:42, Me wrote:
On 23/05/2016 09:06, newshound wrote: But of course it is really the photographer who takes the picture, not the camera. It's easy to get too obsessed with the "tech". While I generally agree with that, and it's often quoted as if it was a law or absolute, it also irks me somewhat with regard to what I actually see: What I see now is photos in magazines (not photographic magazines - I don't read them much), some of which are marvelous not just in context of composition etc, but they would not have been technically possible to achieve until recently, low/natural light, high-speed etc. Hit the send button too early by accident there. I blame damned "tech". I'd also comment that among the cat photos, posed selfies, and portrait format video posts I get to cringe at on facebook, the typical quality of other photos posted by people using cellphones, taken probably having no understanding of the "tech" beyond setting a scene mode or some automatic post-processing, the average photo quality seems vastly better than many old photo albums I've see. An exception being the very old albums taken when people got dressed up to go to town for a formal session with the local photographer. However many of the posted photos on FB etc are not "formal", but candid records of the times. They're very dependent on use of "tech" and the photos have got better as that tech has improved. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Canon S-120 versus Canon G7X
On 5/23/2016 1:56 AM, Me wrote:
On 23/05/2016 12:42, Me wrote: On 23/05/2016 09:06, newshound wrote: But of course it is really the photographer who takes the picture, not the camera. It's easy to get too obsessed with the "tech". While I generally agree with that, and it's often quoted as if it was a law or absolute, it also irks me somewhat with regard to what I actually see: What I see now is photos in magazines (not photographic magazines - I don't read them much), some of which are marvelous not just in context of composition etc, but they would not have been technically possible to achieve until recently, low/natural light, high-speed etc. Hit the send button too early by accident there. I blame damned "tech". I'd also comment that among the cat photos, posed selfies, and portrait format video posts I get to cringe at on facebook, the typical quality of other photos posted by people using cellphones, taken probably having no understanding of the "tech" beyond setting a scene mode or some automatic post-processing, the average photo quality seems vastly better than many old photo albums I've see. An exception being the very old albums taken when people got dressed up to go to town for a formal session with the local photographer. However many of the posted photos on FB etc are not "formal", but candid records of the times. They're very dependent on use of "tech" and the photos have got better as that tech has improved. Oh yes, I'm not against tech! I'm still amazed how well the processor algorithms work, giving you cloud detail in the sky together with shadow detail in the main subject. They let people with a good eye but no interest or knowledge of the tech take *great* photos. And of course with still and video available just about everywhere so many rare events get captured now, where once you could only see the aftermath. I did a little bit of filming in Super 8. These days my entry level smartphone out-performs 16 mm, or studio TV cameras from 40 years ago. But I think we are getting into "diminishing returns" territory for most purposes. Phones are catching up with compacts. Most journalists settled on 35 mm rather than medium format. Larger formats have their place (advertising, modelling, weddings) but even APS-C is getting close to that. But as you say, the tech lets you capture stunning images that we could only have dreamed of at one time (Star shots, time lapse or video of aurora, etc). I say that having played with long exposure of star trails on transparency film many years ago, without access to dark skies. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Canon S-120 versus Canon G7X
In article ,
newshound wrote: I did a little bit of filming in Super 8. These days my entry level smartphone out-performs 16 mm, or studio TV cameras from 40 years ago. exactly why kodak releasing a super-8 movie camera in 2016 is one of the most stupidest things *ever*. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Canon S-120 versus Canon G7X
newshound wrote:
But of course it is really the photographer who takes the picture, not the camera. It's easy to get too obsessed with the "tech". Assuming you are the guy with the Flickr page, you don't need to apologise for your hardware! Hi Steve, Thanks for your reply. I am not a Flicker guy. I usually exchange images as e-mail attachments where possible. Mort Linder |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Canon S-120 versus Canon G7X
RichA wrote:
On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:55:48 UTC-4, Mort wrote: Hi, I would appreciate any comments about this. I have been using a pair of Canon S-120 pocket cameras for casual and semi-serious picture taking, especially on the road. I am a long-term amateur , who remembers working with Kodachrome at ASA 10 and then 25. I was recently gifted a Canon G7X, which although small is certainly larger than the S-120. Don't be hidebound by Canon. There are better compacts out there. Hi Rich, Thanks for the advice. As I mentioned, I got the Canon G7X free, as a gift. At my stage in life, free is very nice indeed. Mort Linder |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Canon S-120 versus Canon G7X
On 5/24/2016 11:06 AM, Mort wrote:
RichA wrote: On Saturday, 21 May 2016 15:55:48 UTC-4, Mort wrote: Hi, I would appreciate any comments about this. I have been using a pair of Canon S-120 pocket cameras for casual and semi-serious picture taking, especially on the road. I am a long-term amateur , who remembers working with Kodachrome at ASA 10 and then 25. I was recently gifted a Canon G7X, which although small is certainly larger than the S-120. Don't be hidebound by Canon. There are better compacts out there. Hi Rich, Thanks for the advice. As I mentioned, I got the Canon G7X free, as a gift. At my stage in life, free is very nice indeed. Mort Linder Free is very nice indeed, at any age. -- PeterN |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canon S2 IS versus Panasonic DMC FZ7 | Karen Selwyn | Digital Photography | 26 | March 12th 06 12:44 AM |
Canon A620 versus Canon S80 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | February 8th 06 04:02 AM |
Ping MarkČ. Canon 24-70 f2.8 'Versus' Canon 24-105 f4 IS | Paul | Digital Photography | 1 | December 16th 05 06:33 AM |
Canon 300d versus Canon Powershot S1 (or fuji s7000) | Peter Russell | Digital Photography | 6 | December 9th 04 09:39 AM |
Canon S500 versus S60 | Squirrel | Digital Photography | 2 | November 17th 04 02:22 AM |