4 ms·

I think all the bickering about “snobs” and whatever the opposite is comes from people doing very different photography and for some reason transferring their c

I think all the bickering about “snobs” and whatever the opposite is comes from people doing very different photography and for some reason transferring their choices onto others and vice versa. E.g. I mostly photograph wildlife, often in dark forests, so this (28-400) lens is too slow for me. There are also prime lens purists, but in wildlife they mostly stick to birds, because good luck photographing e.g. small mammals like squirrels with that (I do follow one photographer who manages to do it, but it’s beyond my abilities). Your choices will be different still if you photograph mostly still scenes, maybe portraits etc, where your shutter speed lives in a dimension I generally don’t venture into. There is also the question of taste about how much depth of field you like, what apertures you like, how tightly you like to crop, whether you skew more towards low-key, high-key or balanced exposure etc. I wish people were more cognisant of the diversity of photography different people do and not make universal judgements about gear or techniques in general.

ethbr1 2y ago
It has to do with post-hoc justification of very expensive purchases. Nobody wants to drop prosumer+ $$$ for body + glass and then realize that theirs isn't "the best" (for whatever definition). And so, when faced with a scenario, they illogically try and construct an argument in which their purchases is indeed the best, in all ways, for all of time. Hence why it happened with consoles too (also there, immaturity). ;)
- SassyBird 2y ago
  It goes both ways. And your explanation explains only one way. Many people will try to explain to you that they can shoot everything on their smartphone. What is left unsaid is that those people never shoot in demanding light conditions, scarcely ever shoot anything faster than a human etc. In mamy of those discussions there is also a token asterisk added “except in sports and wildlife” and continuing with blanket statements, as if those two avenues were some fringe activities that the reader probably doesn’t want to do.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    It's the same argument. Someone invested money in a phone. They didn't invest money in a camera. Ergo, an argument needs to be constructed where their phone needs to be better than a camera. "Yeah, the thing I bought isn't as good as the thing you bought, at the thing we're talking about" shouldn't be verboten.
    - ein0p 2y ago
      Truth be told, for most scenarios a high end phone _does_ produce better pictures than an interchangeable lens camera without specialized lighting setup. Take a pic of a landscape or a person with the latest iPhone and the result is often better than what you see with your own eyes. And I’ve been shooting with various dslrs for the last 20 years plus. Can I get better results with pro gear? Sure. But not with zero effort. Half of my large print outs are from iPhone.
      - jiggawatts 2y ago
        A large part of this is HDR that “just works”, versus the broken mess in every other scenario. A case in point: Lightroom on iOS can process an RAW photo with HDR grading and even export it in any of three HDR formats… none of which can be opened on iOS. My Nikon camera can take HEIF photos like an iPhone (with HDR), and transfer it to my iPhone with an app, but the files are non-standard in a way that the iPhone can’t actually be used to share them with anyone, making this a frustrating non-feature. It’s just incredible how broken HDR still is in 2024. PS: Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve, a professional HDR colorist application added native HDR output just last week! My previous iPhone had this for nearly a decade now.
        ein0p 2y ago
        Yeah I have no idea why camera companies refuse to come Jesus and embrace computational photography. Seems like a vast, unplowed field to me. That’s what I’d do if I was in their shoes - there’s no reason why a full frame dslr has to take worse pictures than a phone in any conceivable case
- bee_rider 2y ago
  “Well, I have a good lens so I guess I’ll go take pictures of squirrels” seems like an odd post-hoc justification to come up with.
canoebuilder 2y ago
>I do follow one photographer who manages to do it Link? Also to your photos, if you post them, and care to share.

ethbr1 2y ago

It has to do with post-hoc justification of very expensive purchases. Nobody wants to drop prosumer+ $$$ for body + glass and then realize that theirs isn't "the best" (for whatever definition). And so, when faced with a scenario, they illogically try and construct an argument in which their purchases is indeed the best, in all ways, for all of time. Hence why it happened with consoles too (also there, immaturity). ;)

SassyBird 2y ago
It goes both ways. And your explanation explains only one way. Many people will try to explain to you that they can shoot everything on their smartphone. What is left unsaid is that those people never shoot in demanding light conditions, scarcely ever shoot anything faster than a human etc. In mamy of those discussions there is also a token asterisk added “except in sports and wildlife” and continuing with blanket statements, as if those two avenues were some fringe activities that the reader probably doesn’t want to do.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  It's the same argument. Someone invested money in a phone. They didn't invest money in a camera. Ergo, an argument needs to be constructed where their phone needs to be better than a camera. "Yeah, the thing I bought isn't as good as the thing you bought, at the thing we're talking about" shouldn't be verboten.
  - ein0p 2y ago
    Truth be told, for most scenarios a high end phone _does_ produce better pictures than an interchangeable lens camera without specialized lighting setup. Take a pic of a landscape or a person with the latest iPhone and the result is often better than what you see with your own eyes. And I’ve been shooting with various dslrs for the last 20 years plus. Can I get better results with pro gear? Sure. But not with zero effort. Half of my large print outs are from iPhone.
    - jiggawatts 2y ago
      A large part of this is HDR that “just works”, versus the broken mess in every other scenario. A case in point: Lightroom on iOS can process an RAW photo with HDR grading and even export it in any of three HDR formats… none of which can be opened on iOS. My Nikon camera can take HEIF photos like an iPhone (with HDR), and transfer it to my iPhone with an app, but the files are non-standard in a way that the iPhone can’t actually be used to share them with anyone, making this a frustrating non-feature. It’s just incredible how broken HDR still is in 2024. PS: Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve, a professional HDR colorist application added native HDR output just last week! My previous iPhone had this for nearly a decade now.
      - ein0p 2y ago
        Yeah I have no idea why camera companies refuse to come Jesus and embrace computational photography. Seems like a vast, unplowed field to me. That’s what I’d do if I was in their shoes - there’s no reason why a full frame dslr has to take worse pictures than a phone in any conceivable case
bee_rider 2y ago
“Well, I have a good lens so I guess I’ll go take pictures of squirrels” seems like an odd post-hoc justification to come up with.

canoebuilder 2y ago

>I do follow one photographer who manages to do it Link? Also to your photos, if you post them, and care to share.