Once again...

Chriscrawfordphoto said:
That's because most people who buy cameras are not photographers, they're gear fondlers. One thing I love about RFF is that there is a lot of talk here about photographs. Yes, the site is somewhat gear-centric since it was originally founded for people who shoot with rangefinder cameras; but RFF has some incredibly talented photographers, many of them professional artists, commercial photographers, and photojournalists.

Other photo forums are obsessed with gear or process to the exclusion of any concern for the actual images produced. We manage to have a good balance of talk about images, process,and gear here that is nice.
Click to expand...
Thank goodness for the “gear fondlers”, especially those with adequate disposable income to buy and sell, buy and sell.
Without them there would be little to no used market. Great for all us frugal types.
 
zuiko85 said:
Thank goodness for the “gear fondlers”, especially those with adequate disposable income to buy and sell, buy and sell.
Without them there would be little to no used market. Great for all us frugal types.
Click to expand...

No, the gear fondlers and their willingness to pay outrageous prices for the poorly built crap being produced today is what allows camera manufacturers to get away with charging such prices for such low quality.

Right now, there is ZERO quality control on camera gear. I won't buy a modern lens used, ever. And I won't buy a new one unless I go to a store and test the lens before buying. Why? Because 75-80% of the new lenses I see are severely decentered. Every lens I have bought for my Olympus m4/3 system required me trying between 7 and 9 lenses before finding one that was not decentered. Most of them were not slightly decentered, most were severely, unusably bad. Yet these were lenses costing over $1000 each. I never saw that kind of garbage quality when I was young, and lenses in the 80s and 90s were 1/3 what they cost now. I have both Olympus and Panasonic lenses for my m4/3 kit and the sad thing is that when you find one that was built correctly, they're some of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. They're good designs, built in China and Vietnam with absolutely no quality control at all.
 
I must admit I too am guilty of coveting gear and bragging about it. But from my experience new photographers always ask about gear never skill sets. Even seasoned photographers often talk more about gear than skill. For the sake of disclosure, I can't say I know many great photographers or even true professionals, even though I have worked in the business on and off for over a decade. You could also make the argument most people think opening a file in photoshop and throwing off levels and erasing shadows is a skill... but that is a whole different can of worms. I think a lot of it comes from the consumer society we all live in, coupled with the fact that modern digital cameras do so much of the work for you there is arguably not much need for skill. Before anyone gets mad and smashes their keyboard to tell me what a fool I am, consider this... most photography jobs in the modern world want things done fast and cheap, not many demand high quality or even prints just meet the deadline. There is not much advantage to being a master photographer today sad as it may sound. And things like Instagram further muddy the water of quality with weird short-term trends and armys of bot accounts that turn hacks into micro celebrities. To tie all this rambling together; the world is changing. Like it or not there generally are not many masters or experts left in most fields but there are more salesmen and grifters than ever.
 
ranger9 said:
But here's a thought: When people say, "Why is nobody talking about what I think is really important?" what they often actually mean is, "How can I clarify my own thoughts about what I think is important?" Well, writing IS a great way to clarify and organize thoughts -- so write! Not necessarily for anybody else to read, not to post in a public forum, but just for your own purposes. Journaling is what the cool kids call it now, I think. Look at photographs -- your own, and other people's... look at the kinds of things you're interested in photographing... think about all of that... and then write about your thoughts. Don't try to write something that will impress other people, just do it for you. You may find that the act of writing helps you put your thoughts in order, and you also may find that reading what you wrote several months later may give you some useful perspective (or it may embarrass the hell out of you, but sometimes that's the same thing.)
Click to expand...

I think this is really the crux for the problem. And you put if more eloquently thank I could.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
No, the gear fondlers and their willingness to pay outrageous prices for the poorly built crap being produced today is what allows camera manufacturers to get away with charging such prices for such low quality.

Right now, there is ZERO quality control on camera gear. I won't buy a modern lens used, ever. And I won't buy a new one unless I go to a store and test the lens before buying. Why? Because 75-80% of the new lenses I see are severely decentered. Every lens I have bought for my Olympus m4/3 system required me trying between 7 and 9 lenses before finding one that was not decentered. Most of them were not slightly decentered, most were severely, unusably bad. Yet these were lenses costing over $1000 each. I never saw that kind of garbage quality when I was young, and lenses in the 80s and 90s were 1/3 what they cost now. I have both Olympus and Panasonic lenses for my m4/3 kit and the sad thing is that when you find one that was built correctly, they're some of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. They're good designs, built in China and Vietnam with absolutely no quality control at all.
Click to expand...

My experiences have been different with Pentax (both used and new) and with several Sigma and other lenses for Pentax K mount. Of the 15 or so lenses that I own for my Pentax DSLRs only 2 have needed repairs and none of them arrived as optical "turkeys." If I had had your experiences with Pentax that you"ve had with Olympus I would have baled long ago.
 
Cascadilla said:
My experiences have been different with Pentax (both used and new) and with several Sigma and other lenses for Pentax K mount. Of the 15 or so lenses that I own for my Pentax DSLRs only 2 have needed repairs and none of them arrived as optical "turkeys." If I had had your experiences with Pentax that you"ve had with Olympus I would have baled long ago.
Click to expand...

My experience with the Nikon Z system has been the best I have had with any brand of digital since I started using the stuff 26 years ago. Flawless and utterly spectacular.

I have been an NPS member 30 years this year. Reason being is that the stuff just works and if it breaks it gets fixed really fast.
 
My standards must not be nearly as high Chris. My digital body (I have only the one.) is a now 7-8 year old EM10, $210 used 3 years ago.
My lens collection….well lets just say there are several Chinese made lens adapters involved. Primarily for a modest range of Zuiko half frame Pen F lenses. I spent a long afternoon shimming the adapters out to infinity.
Not a single modern autofocus among them, thank goodness for 5X magnified view. Slow going for sure, but I’m just too old to be in a hurry anymore.
The only native 4:3 mount lens I have labeled Olympus (but not Zuiko) is that carefree plastic body cap with a 15mm f8 triplet. Would not have bought that if it had not been LN in box for $40, some of the asking prices for that lens are just plain silly.

Overall the most I’ve spent for a lens for the EM10 was a TTArtisan 50mm f1.2. Never owned a f1.2 lens and figured for a C-note….well…. why not.

This comment does not fault your caution in lens buying. If I was paying $1000+ for a lens I’d be very picky too.
 
jsrockit said:
It is called opinion. In art, you are allowed to have one.
Click to expand...

I agree. You are allowed to have opinions on art, and everything else in life as well. I will note, however, that some opinions are unfounded, some opinions are ill-founded, and some opinions are well-founded, and asking the basis on which someone's opinion is founded is also allowed, to facilitate an assessment of the value of such opinion.
 
ptpdprinter said:
Agreed. You are allowed to have opinions on art, as well as everything else, though I will note that some opinions are unfounded, some opinions are ill-founded, and some opinions are well-founded, so asking the basis on which someone's opinion is founded is also allowed.
Click to expand...

True, but is it worth it? Does he have to show you his credentials? It seems pretty simple. He likes a more traditional approach to photography.
 
jsrockit said:
True, but is it worth it?
Click to expand...
Frequently it is. I am regularly surprised by the expertise of some of our members. It is one of the reasons I frequent this site.

jsrockit said:
Does he have to show you his credentials?
Click to expand...
No. Usually a brief explanation will suffice. If he doesn't want to provide an explanation, that is okay too. In this case, he did provide an explanation.
.
jsrockit said:
It seems pretty simple. He likes a more traditional approach to photography.
Click to expand...
I like some traditional photography. I don't understand some contemporary photography. It doesn't follow that photography I don't like or don't understand is made by pretenders, so there must be something else on which he is basing his opinion. He says there is: "It's not hard for someone who knows their craft/art."

I thought all this was resolved three posts into page 2.
 
I would just add that the internet has become just another commercialized media sector, so there is little surprise that the top 15 or more hits from any search will be sites principally devoted to direct and immediate financial gain. Those sites are loaded with advertising, which follows and records your behavior, learning the most efficient path from your mind to your wallet. Apparently, for males and photography, it's mostly fondling the equipment followed by what you can do with it. Sounds about right.
 
As the "He" being discussed above, I'm a little amused. I have no real credentials. Never went to photo or art school. But I kinda like photos and art and I spend a lot of time looking at photography and art sites online as well as spending a good percentage of my disposable income buying books by and about photographers as well as a few about painters and various artists. My wife would prefer our home not be cluttered with books in every room but...well, she knew what she was getting into before we got married. But since I am my own favorite subject, I'll elaborate on "Me".

I'm a fan of Walker Evans and Mark Rothko, William Eggleston and Georgia O'Keeffe, John Gossage and... I'm a member of many fanclubs. I'm a traditionalist in many ways but only insofar as presentation is concerned. I love the B&W photography associated with the Life and Look magazines of the past. But in my own photography, I shoot 100% digital and I haven't loaded a roll of film since 2008. I'm not fond of video or artistic constructions. I prefer paint on canvas or a B&W print--silver gelatin or inkjet. My earliest interest in photography was based on it possibly being the most democratic of the arts--art for everyman. Still feel that way about it and it grieves me that some artists are using photography in their work but making it impenetrable to The Average Guy/Gal. But that's just me and there's no accounting for taste--I still get a kick out of the concept of Marcel Duchamp playing chess with a naked Eve Babitz while I also feel a tug at my heart when I see Gene Smith's photo of his two kids walking in the garden.

That's it. All about me. No credentials to speak of but a long passion for pictures.
 
Saganich said:
I would just add that the internet has become just another commercialized media sector, so there is little surprise that the top 15 or more hits from any search will be sites principally devoted to direct and immediate financial gain. Those sites are loaded with advertising, which follows and records your behavior, learning the most efficient path from your mind to your wallet. Apparently, for males and photography, it's mostly fondling the equipment followed by what you can do with it. Sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Agreed, It is the nature of the beast on the internet and in society broadly. Where ever their eyes ads will soon follow.
 
Saganich said:
I would just add that the internet has become just another commercialized media sector, so there is little surprise that the top 15 or more hits from any search will be sites principally devoted to direct and immediate financial gain. Those sites are loaded with advertising, which follows and records your behavior, learning the most efficient path from your mind to your wallet. Apparently, for males and photography, it's mostly fondling the equipment followed by what you can do with it. Sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Choice of browser can reduce tracking. I find Brave pretty good for reducing tracking as it is reputed to do. That and Duck Duck Go for a search engine. YMMV
 
Dear Bill,

One thing about living in the Maghreb and the Levant is the access to ridiculous art. It must be like this when I was last in NYC - you could spend years in each museum, gallery… Hundreds, even thousands of year of visual expression. That is where I go. I buy art books and I looking at painting. Always. Some smarty-pants girl (I love her work! So good!) say something like “…a camera is a really expensive pencil..” like in sketching. I think HCB said kind of same. There is “language of photography” yes, but it is dialect of all visual language…

Sometimes I feel that to study other photographers only is to put my signature at the bottom of many lot of other signatures. But to go farther back, to the beginnings. Titian, Caravaggio (my master), Gentileschi, farther back to Lascaux and Chavet cave painting, is to go to the well, no? It is like listening to Louis Armstrong and then Bird before you pick up your horn. But I tell you this. When this little old Italian broad, looks at photographs - In B&W I look at Moriyama (I know, I know, after all I just say above here!!) When I first see Pete Turner? I am like losing my mind. And Webb. My goodness! Such good work. Such clear voices. Wonderful.

A series you see on YouTube “Ways of Seeing” By John Berger and “Shock of the New” by Robert Hughes. Brilliant! It will help organize the space between my eyes and my heart (and maybe my old brain, as well!).

Ciao,

Mme. O.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top