3 ms·

I still have that older equipment. (In fact, I even bought the updated model, and gave the original to a friend. She knows full well the kinds of pictures that

by tomc1985 5y ago

I still have that older equipment. (In fact, I even bought the updated model, and gave the original to a friend. She knows full well the kinds of pictures that setup has taken and it motivates her to improve) It's lighter, it's what I built my reputation on, and frankly the (later) investment in lenses and such for that platform wasn't cheap. In fact I'm very proud of how much attention I've gotten (which isn't that much, by influencer standards) with just a Costco kit lens and body. > But it doesn't get you a higher rate of good photos. Beg to differ here, if one knows what they're doing. I do a lot of low-light, event photography, among other stuff, and the fancy expensive kit is just flat-out way better. I've shot thousands of these photos with both by now, and the extra technical flexibility is totally worth it. Hell, the extra sensor size and autofocus alone took me to a whole new level. Do you know how much it sucks trying to do low-light with manual focus at a DJ performance because your autofocus can't keep up? How much time do you want to spend twiddling noise reduction controls because the entry-level kit's ISO 1600 looks like crap? How much shadow detail are you willing to sacrifice? It's such a pain in the ass. And through all that I like to take a few shots with my phone for the instant social media gratification... and those shots are never anywhere near as good. The color is flatter, depth of field is blah, everything is just...meh. They look good on instagram, but that's about it. > I can think of precisely one photographic limitation I'd run into regularly even now: its high ISO performance was not that good. Otherwise I'd have that camera back to shoot with, even now, especially in the studio. Though I might rage at the maximum card capacity. Growing up I messed around with 35mm and even had a SLR camera for a short while. But I got serious with my first DSLR (a Nikon D3100). Maybe I was wrong in expecting something comparable to my old 35mm stuff but the dynamic range sucked, high ISO sucked (1600 is grainy AF), autofocus with like 12 points with only one cross-type sensor sucked, and no matter how good I focused the image (even on a nice 35mm prime) I couldn't get the razor sharpness I was after. There was something about how that sensor processed certain light transitions that had a really nice quality, and the camera took a lot of hits, but ultimately I felt like I was hitting a plateau. One example: I like to do long-exposure shots of firedancers doing their thing. Depending on the fuel type the dancer uses there could be a lot of dynamic range to deal with, and most of the other photographers in this space seem to struggle in coping with it: either the dancer is exposed nicely but the flame is blown out, or the flame is exposed nicely but the dancer is super dark (losing a lot of color detail if you try and fix it in post). Or they just try to squash both together and the picture looks like a bad HDR merge. Here is another place where the sensor and lens matters a ton and both my phone and my DX kit struggle. Can I do and have I done these shots on that kit? Sure. But the nice camera, with its amazing sensor, and the amazing lenses I have for it, are able to capture way more detail, and as a result I get way better results straight-away and spend way less time in post trying to fix things.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago
> I do a lot of low-light, event photography, among other stuff, and the fancy expensive kit is just flat-out way better. I've shot thousands of these photos with both by now, and the extra technical flexibility is totally worth it. Mm, yep. I do gig photography in small, dark venues -- I've shot probably 125 thousand photos at high ISOs, with six different cameras (Nikon DSLRs for the bulk of it, and Sony mirrorless experiments alongside in a parallel track). > Hell, the extra sensor size and autofocus alone took me to a whole new level. The difference in light gathering between an APS-C and full-frame camera of the same technological era is usually about one stop. If you make a several-year jump at the same time, that can be noticeable, I suppose. > Do you know how much it sucks trying to do low-light with manual focus at a DJ performance because your autofocus can't keep up? At gigs, I do quite a lot of manual focus (and single-point, back-button focus with manual adjustment). I have no particular issue with it and it helps solve problems autofocus simply cannot solve. Especially with a Nikon, because you get focus point confirmation even manually. You do a lot more thinking and observation about equivalent distance. For example if you cannot focus on someone's face because they are behind a brightly lit microphone that autofocus will always prefer: How far are they behind it? If you focus further down the microphone stand or on a belt buckle, lock and recompose on their face, without changing your position, how much does that correct it? Or can you judge how far in inches and then literally move yourself or your camera forward? One good cross-type sensor is all you absolutely need (stay away from old-style Phase One autofocus kit if this bothers you!) Admittedly back button focus makes that more useful. And focus peaking on a mirrorless camera is the bee's knees. > How much time do you want to spend twiddling noise reduction controls because the entry-level kit's ISO 1600 looks like crap? How much shadow detail are you willing to sacrifice? It's such a pain in the ass. I said above that the only thing that really forced me to upgrade from my S2 Pro was low light performance. But again, I think if I was to go back to using that camera, I would be getting results I wanted a whole stop, maybe a stop and a half faster than I did at the time, through better subject selection, better understanding of its limitations and fifteen years more understanding of exposure. If you're talking about the D3100, I'd shoot that up to ISO 3200, I reckon. Its low light ISO performance is a little better than the D300 which I used for years at gigs with enormous success. And its dynamic range is not all that noticeably worse. As long as you are careful with your exposure, that's a useful little camera. DxO Optics Pro/PhotoLab helps of course. Newer kit does a lot of stuff better, certainly, and it can save you time. And yeah, low light photography is about the only place people run up against the limitations of older kit. But IMO nothing since 2008 has any kind of problem with low light, and in many cases the newer kit is tripped up by the exact same difficult situations.

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

> I do a lot of low-light, event photography, among other stuff, and the fancy expensive kit is just flat-out way better. I've shot thousands of these photos with both by now, and the extra technical flexibility is totally worth it. Mm, yep. I do gig photography in small, dark venues -- I've shot probably 125 thousand photos at high ISOs, with six different cameras (Nikon DSLRs for the bulk of it, and Sony mirrorless experiments alongside in a parallel track). > Hell, the extra sensor size and autofocus alone took me to a whole new level. The difference in light gathering between an APS-C and full-frame camera of the same technological era is usually about one stop. If you make a several-year jump at the same time, that can be noticeable, I suppose. > Do you know how much it sucks trying to do low-light with manual focus at a DJ performance because your autofocus can't keep up? At gigs, I do quite a lot of manual focus (and single-point, back-button focus with manual adjustment). I have no particular issue with it and it helps solve problems autofocus simply cannot solve. Especially with a Nikon, because you get focus point confirmation even manually. You do a lot more thinking and observation about equivalent distance. For example if you cannot focus on someone's face because they are behind a brightly lit microphone that autofocus will always prefer: How far are they behind it? If you focus further down the microphone stand or on a belt buckle, lock and recompose on their face, without changing your position, how much does that correct it? Or can you judge how far in inches and then literally move yourself or your camera forward? One good cross-type sensor is all you absolutely need (stay away from old-style Phase One autofocus kit if this bothers you!) Admittedly back button focus makes that more useful. And focus peaking on a mirrorless camera is the bee's knees. > How much time do you want to spend twiddling noise reduction controls because the entry-level kit's ISO 1600 looks like crap? How much shadow detail are you willing to sacrifice? It's such a pain in the ass. I said above that the only thing that really forced me to upgrade from my S2 Pro was low light performance. But again, I think if I was to go back to using that camera, I would be getting results I wanted a whole stop, maybe a stop and a half faster than I did at the time, through better subject selection, better understanding of its limitations and fifteen years more understanding of exposure. If you're talking about the D3100, I'd shoot that up to ISO 3200, I reckon. Its low light ISO performance is a little better than the D300 which I used for years at gigs with enormous success. And its dynamic range is not all that noticeably worse. As long as you are careful with your exposure, that's a useful little camera. DxO Optics Pro/PhotoLab helps of course. Newer kit does a lot of stuff better, certainly, and it can save you time. And yeah, low light photography is about the only place people run up against the limitations of older kit. But IMO nothing since 2008 has any kind of problem with low light, and in many cases the newer kit is tripped up by the exact same difficult situations.