What is a Stop Worth, and the Meaning of Life

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I use older cameras on a regular basis. D40x, D2H, Fuji S3/S5, to name a few. Then we have the lenses of course, for which the majority must be 20+ years of age.

[BW]

There is no reason not to, since most of the marketing hype whenever new gear arrives, is only a hype after all

[MFloyd]

I've been through all the seven pages. Interesting, although, my primary interest in this site, is the very high level of technical knowledge.  What do I have to say ? Beside all the thinking that I want simply to keep for myself: First, do not judge or impose what people should do, should buy, should think; if everyone thinks and behave alike, the world would be very boring; I am also not a fan of this type of "socialist paradise" where other people, a community, or a government decides how people should be "happy".  Two: equipment; I have always been a tech geek - may be because of my background as an engineer - and "fortunately", I'm often active in a sport / action environment where top of the line equipment is highly desirable, and needed, in case I would have to justify I'm shooting with a D5 and not with a D3200. Three: Aperture: from a light gathering perspective, I need less and less high apertures (the best aperture I have is f/2.5) as high ISO quality has so dramatically improved. The most expensive lens I have is the Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 VR II, which I shoot wide open in most of the cases - why, otherwise invest such an amount of money, to only shoot it at f/8 ? - the real reason is that I have often "polluted" backgrounds which I can easily rub away with high apertures. The latter will also be the reason to have a closer look into some other very high aperture lenses.

[BW]

I often tend to test and sometimes buy the newest gear as well, but I always find that my images never improve for that reason alone. Standing in front of something interesting, framing and quality of light helps. I honestly dont see any radical about this view. But personally I am more interested in image contents than "cropography". I would agree that the technical development has opened up possibilities that expand our way of photographing, but lately the curve has come dangerously close to the asymptote, and no real improvements. Making darkness look like daylight is to me not an improvement, but a scam brought upon the viewer. That is of course a personal view. Ex the D5, a 6500$ camera, has an operating environment of 0-40 degrees celsius, and 85% relative humidity according to the manual. Thats the same as every digital Nikon camera for the last 15 years, and that is what the guarantee is worth if you get a leaky gasket. If you look at the commercials this is hardly what they try to communicate to potensial buyers. I would call it technical improvement if they upgraded this to some "real world" standard and back up their price with some hardcore guarantee.

[Les Olson]

... as Marshall McLuhan said.  The choice to photograph, rather than draw, the choice to use film instead of digital, the choice to use a D5 or a D7000, the choice to use an old manual focus lens, etc, are all aspects of the medium and therefore of the message.  Even if the medium is not a choice - if, like me, you can't afford a D5 - it is still part of the message. 

In a good photograph the medium and the message interact productively.  One of the things an Ansel Adams landscape says is "Look at America's eternal, pristine beauty", so of course he used large format equipment and perfect focus.  The message would not have been the same if he had used a Box Brownie and not removed the dust spots.  One of the things a Cartier-Bresson picture says is "Look at all these moments passing by" - so of course he used a 35mm camera.  The technical aspects can also play against the scene to create an ambiguous message - as in Irving Penn's picture of Lisa de Fonssagrives in a spectacular frock but with a slightly awkward pose and with the edges of the backdrop showing.  The medium can also fake a message - as in anything by Steve McCurry (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/magazine/a-too-perfect-picture.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fon-photography&action=click&contentCollection=magazine&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection is worth reading). 

One message is no better than another so no medium is better than another.  John Dugdale (http://johndugdalestudio.com/intro) is no better - photographically - than Terry Richardson (https://www.instagram.com/terryrichardson/?hl=en).  But you can't be "Terry Richardson" and use 8 x 10 cyanotypes.  Pointing out that another lens or a faster lens or a camera with 12 stops of dynamic range instead of 10 will not enable you to take better photographs in a technical/aesthetic sense is missing the point.  The medium is the message, and for that reason alone a photograph taken with a D5 and a 70-200/2.8 is not remotely similar to a technically and aesthetically comparable photograph taken with an FM3 and a 105/2.5. 

[David H. Hartman]

Why can't a peasant own a sword?

[BW]

In the film days, format certainly was important and every photographer used a medium adapted to their genre. Today every "peasant own a sword" IMHO. I have a hard time distinguishing between gear when I see a picture online. If the caption doesn't state what equipment is used to create a picture, I want be able to tell if it is Phase One, Olympus M4/3 or god forbid, a cellphone. The "leica look" unfortunately died when photography went digital. If you want recognition for using expensive gear one have to make sure everyone know what gear is used. Gear is fun, but it is no fast track to better images, only a slimmer bank account

[Hugh_3170]

Quality has been defined as "fitness for purpose".

The nature of the purpose will therefore have a strong influence on what equipment needs to be deployed.

A VW Beetle might be a perfect solution for a work day commute, whereas only a limousine would be appropriate for say  transporting a head of state to a formal occassion.

I cannot see why the choice of ones photographic equipment should not follow a similar path. 

Horses for courses is perhaps a simpler way to summarise this idea.

[David H. Hartman]

A VW Beetle might be a perfect solution for a work day commute, whereas only a limousine would be appropriate for say  transporting a head of state to a formal occassion.

Some heads of state should transported in a BMW, a classic mid '50s one door coup.

Dave

Please click this link for a graphic illustration...

Beam me up Scottie!

[Hugh_3170]

Hi Dave, I cannot disagree with you at all - especially in respect to some of the turkeys who erroneously claim to be running Australia - maybe a sanitation truck would in fact be better for them than a one door BMW coupe!  (Sorry - I am off topic.) 

Some heads of state should transported in a BMW, a classic mid '50s one door coup.

Dave

[Les Olson]

Why can't a peasant own a sword?

Because a person who owns a sword is not a peasant.  Not owning a sword is just part of the definition of peasant. 

Remember the Kevin Spacey advertisements for Olympus? "I don't want to be the camera guy [...] don't be a tourist."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vuDtcFngZc  A person who owns a Pen is not a camera guy, but is a photographer - why else does he show you that the lens comes off? 

One of the hallmarks of professionalism, in any field, is the ability to work productively with tools or people you don't like, but for even the most professional work is easier and usually better if you do like the team and the tools of trade.  For amateurs the link between liking and using is even stronger.  So, our choices do define us.  You can resist being identified as "the camera guy" because you have a dSLR and three lenses, but it is no good me saying "I own an FM3, but I am not the sort of person who owns an FM3": I do, so I am.   

And newness or innovation or elegance of design can be what a person likes, and there is nothing wrong with choosing because you like those things.  Choosing gear because it is cheap and functional is not a fundamentally better reason: it is still just what you like.

[David H. Hartman]

Because a person who owns a sword is not a peasant.  Not owning a sword is just part of the definition of peasant.

I referring to a time in medieval Japan when a Shogun came up from the peasant class and when he arrived he confiscated family swords and melted them down to make a Steel Buddha. This according to the History Channel years ago. I'm not interested in the politics, history or sociology of the time or today so please don't go off on current or ancient politics. I'm interested the idea that a peasant class (non-professional) photographer should not own a lens like a AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II or AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II.

I don't subscribe to the "Life of Optical Poverty®" [I remember this equipment debate came up frequently when I was at Photo.net]

Dave Hartman

Les, the above is referring back to the original post more than anything else. I agree a lot with what you wrote above.

---

So what is an f/stop worth? In stadium sports it's the difference between a confusing photographs where the action on the field is difficult to differentiate from the spectators in the bleachers because though out of focus they are not sufficiently blurred so as not to compete with the subjects on the playing field. There is a significate difference between many shots taken at 300/2.8 and those taken at 300/4.0 and 5.6.

There is a solid reason why sports and fashion photographers adopted the 300/2.8 lens as soon as it became available. It's the 300/2.8's large entrance pupil.

So why can't a peasant own a 300/2.8?

[David H. Hartman]

Making darkness look like daylight is to me not an improvement, but a scam brought upon the viewer.

It's in your hands to tell the camera what you want with exposure compensation or full manual control. My 1970 Nikkormat FTn with center-weighted metering tried to make night into day.

Dave

[Ron Scubadiver]

After starting this thread I was surprised to find it attract so much discussion and further surprised to se it get pinned.  My personal values tend to keep me from buying very expensive gear.  Part of it is I see what I can do with the mid range stuff and part is about weight and bulk.  In no event would I ever advocate preventing anyone from spending their money on high end photo gear, even if it was an extremely bad financial decision.  That sort of person will wind up in trouble anyway because if he does not buy the lens he will spend the money on something else.

There are multiple things shaping our gear purchases:
1. Availability of funds.
2. Real needs such as a pro sports photographer who must have the fast long lens to survive.
3. Imagined needs.
4. Desires.  These are wants that translate into some objective photographic result, like buying a macro lens to take pictures of bugs.
5. Values.  This could also be called priorities.

However, I think it is useful to give a lot of thought to what we will be doing with new gear and what we will be giving up to have it before pulling the trigger.

[Almass]

Why can't a peasant own a sword?

Did it not say in the book of Five (something) that it is the Sword which owns his man.

As for the thread, it is rather interesting that people like to overthink any issue.

As far as I am concerned, I would say: A stop is worth a sale.