4 ms·

As a sports photographer, I disagree. There's no stacking multiple frames in my world. Also, as a portrait photographer, I disagree too. Until we can use flash

by aspyct 5y ago

As a sports photographer, I disagree. There's no stacking multiple frames in my world. Also, as a portrait photographer, I disagree too. Until we can use flashes properly, I'm not getting rid of my camera. Plus, dynamic range isn't everything.

Someone1234 5y ago
> As a sports photographer, I disagree. You don't disagree with the post you replied to. Niches will always require specialized equipment as it said. It was a comment about general purpose photography (and its ever shrinking market share).
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Moving objects aren't a niche, they are the real life outside of of selfies and posing.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    Surely the background is somewhat stationary during, so there is ample space to refine that with less fast-moving data. Sure, you have to get better hardware to properly capture the fast moving target of the photo, but it is not an either or question.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      I think a lot depends on whether you stand to loose and the other bloke stands to gain from those lies - if these are old war stories that bear no relationship to my current life, well, that's just entertainment, whatever. But if the other person is telling me "deposit money in this ATM, it's totally secure' then I'd be a bit assertive with holding him to account.
- aspyct 5y ago
  It's not about the niche, it's about doing a job with the right tools. Did you ever build a desktop gui app with php? You actually can, it's just not the most productive tool. Conversely, you can take good pictures with a smartphone (for some specific cases), it's just not a great tool for the job.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
saiya-jin 5y ago
I have to side with OP here. Yours pluses are really worth it only if you need quality 98% of the people here won't ever need (OK, 1-3 pictures printed as bigger canvas in next 10 years, but still). Most people today see pics on phones only. Even those done by pros in studios. The rest is mostly tablet/notebook screen. 1% (like me) something bigger. On that level, I can do almost/completely same pics as you with my Samsung S22 Ultra for those portraits (not sports part, but if its for family, videos usually trump photos for target audience). Minuses are staggering - the amount of money, time invested, annoyance to shooter and subjects, the speed with which you can capture most moments in life. If I understood you correctly, you're pro/semi-pro. That's not the topic here, its everybody else snapping pics. As long term full frame shooter, for last 2 weeks, its almost dead platform for me. I'll consider to take it for longer vacations, but I expect it to come out of bag very rarely.
- aspyct 5y ago
  We're just not photographing the same subjects in the same way. 90% of the pictures I take, be it professionally or personally, I couldn't take with a smartphone.
HALtheWise 5y ago
For sports photography, why wouldn't you want stacked exposures for the non-moving background parts of the frame? If it allows getting a comparable noise floor with faster shutter speeds, that seems like a strictly good trade.
- aspyct 5y ago
  I see where this is coming from, but I don't care about the background being noisy and blurry. If anything, that's a plus in my book. However I want the subject to be tack-sharp, and he's moving and changing shape all the time.

by aspyct 5y ago

Someone1234 5y ago

> As a sports photographer, I disagree. You don't disagree with the post you replied to. Niches will always require specialized equipment as it said. It was a comment about general purpose photography (and its ever shrinking market share).

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Moving objects aren't a niche, they are the real life outside of of selfies and posing.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Surely the background is somewhat stationary during, so there is ample space to refine that with less fast-moving data. Sure, you have to get better hardware to properly capture the fast moving target of the photo, but it is not an either or question.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    I think a lot depends on whether you stand to loose and the other bloke stands to gain from those lies - if these are old war stories that bear no relationship to my current life, well, that's just entertainment, whatever. But if the other person is telling me "deposit money in this ATM, it's totally secure' then I'd be a bit assertive with holding him to account.
aspyct 5y ago
It's not about the niche, it's about doing a job with the right tools. Did you ever build a desktop gui app with php? You actually can, it's just not the most productive tool. Conversely, you can take good pictures with a smartphone (for some specific cases), it's just not a great tool for the job.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

saiya-jin 5y ago

I have to side with OP here. Yours pluses are really worth it only if you need quality 98% of the people here won't ever need (OK, 1-3 pictures printed as bigger canvas in next 10 years, but still). Most people today see pics on phones only. Even those done by pros in studios. The rest is mostly tablet/notebook screen. 1% (like me) something bigger. On that level, I can do almost/completely same pics as you with my Samsung S22 Ultra for those portraits (not sports part, but if its for family, videos usually trump photos for target audience). Minuses are staggering - the amount of money, time invested, annoyance to shooter and subjects, the speed with which you can capture most moments in life. If I understood you correctly, you're pro/semi-pro. That's not the topic here, its everybody else snapping pics. As long term full frame shooter, for last 2 weeks, its almost dead platform for me. I'll consider to take it for longer vacations, but I expect it to come out of bag very rarely.

aspyct 5y ago
We're just not photographing the same subjects in the same way. 90% of the pictures I take, be it professionally or personally, I couldn't take with a smartphone.

HALtheWise 5y ago

For sports photography, why wouldn't you want stacked exposures for the non-moving background parts of the frame? If it allows getting a comparable noise floor with faster shutter speeds, that seems like a strictly good trade.

aspyct 5y ago
I see where this is coming from, but I don't care about the background being noisy and blurry. If anything, that's a plus in my book. However I want the subject to be tack-sharp, and he's moving and changing shape all the time.