Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III

On 2014-10-11 01:23:45 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 9:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-11 00:13:54 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 12:00 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/10/2014 09:02 AM, Ron C wrote:
Just for the heck of it, here's an article that might make some folks
wonder why bother spending big bucks on a DSLR when a smart
phone will do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all:
~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry about
gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."
~~

The other day I was trying to come up with a term reflecting the quality
of one's photos vs the amount of money they've spent on gear.

I'm sure we all know mediocre photographers with expensive camera and
great photographers who own a $90 point and shoot.

Seems one might draw a similar parallel with photo editing software. ;-)

Yup! Just as an Armani suit isn't going to be any better than a Men's
Warehouse two-4-one sale suit.
Regardless of the tools, one needs to learn how to use them to the best
effect.


Hmm, not sure where you're going with the Armani vs Men's Warehouse.
Seems the point revolves around buy vs earn respect. As for learning
your tools well, I totally agree there.

I seem to be caught in a never ending continuing education cycle.

[ ...and that includes exploring Lab mode processing space. ;-) ]

Explore, agreed. However, I have been there and discovered that I have
no particular need for LAB processes in my workflow. Obviously, given
some of the participants in this room, others have chosen a different
path.

Just because I don't use something, or don't favor its use, doesn't
mean that I don't understand the principles behind its purpose, or that
others might choose to use whatever they use.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/10/2014 11:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-11 01:23:45 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 9:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-11 00:13:54 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 12:00 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/10/2014 09:02 AM, Ron C wrote:
Just for the heck of it, here's an article that might make some folks
wonder why bother spending big bucks on a DSLR when a smart
phone will do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all:
~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry about
gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."
~~

The other day I was trying to come up with a term reflecting the
quality
of one's photos vs the amount of money they've spent on gear.

I'm sure we all know mediocre photographers with expensive camera and
great photographers who own a $90 point and shoot.

Seems one might draw a similar parallel with photo editing
software. ;-)

Yup! Just as an Armani suit isn't going to be any better than a Men's
Warehouse two-4-one sale suit.
Regardless of the tools, one needs to learn how to use them to the best
effect.


Hmm, not sure where you're going with the Armani vs Men's Warehouse.
Seems the point revolves around buy vs earn respect. As for learning
your tools well, I totally agree there.

I seem to be caught in a never ending continuing education cycle.

[ ...and that includes exploring Lab mode processing space. ;-) ]

Explore, agreed. However, I have been there and discovered that I have
no particular need for LAB processes in my workflow. Obviously, given
some of the participants in this room, others have chosen a different path.

Just because I don't use something, or don't favor its use, doesn't mean
that I don't understand the principles behind its purpose, or that
others might choose to use whatever they use.


As one might say "pun intended" I might say "intended
evoked response."

Seems there are buttons that are easily pushed here. ;-)

My mantra tends to knowing ones tools well before one
moves on.

In computer terms, something like: understand
assembly before building a compiler .. to say nothing
of moving to higher level languages, else understanding
will be limited.

Side note: one may jump in in the middle but will need
to fill in on both ends to truly excel.

==
Later...
Ron C
--

In article , Ron C
wrote:

My mantra tends to knowing ones tools well before one
moves on.

good advice. always know the limitations of what you have now to know
what you might need in the future.

In computer terms, something like: understand
assembly before building a compiler .. to say nothing
of moving to higher level languages, else understanding
will be limited.

bad comparison. you might need to understand assembly to *write* a
compiler back end but very few people do that.

otherwise, there's no need to bother with assembly anymore. modern
processors are very complex and compilers can do a much better job of
outputting highly optimized code than humans can in nearly every case.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The other day I was trying to come up with a term reflecting the quality
of one's photos vs the amount of money they've spent on gear.

I'm sure we all know mediocre photographers with expensive camera and
great photographers who own a $90 point and shoot.

Seems one might draw a similar parallel with photo editing software. ;-)

In fact though, I'll bet most of us know very few, if
any, really good photographers who only own a $90 P&S.
I've never met even one!

then you need to get out more.

a good photographer is a good photographer no matter what camera they
use.

And while there may indeed be plenty of mediocre folks
with expensive equipment and software, there is little
question that for most people better tools do help them
1) get better pictures, and/or 2) learn more about
photography on their way to becoming more than just
another mediocre photographer.

nope. for most people, the limitation is their own skills, not their
camera.

buying fancier cameras and lenses doesn't change much, other than maybe
making something a little sharper or less noisy.

Expensive tools (hardware or software) are more of a
direct indication of how dedicated a person is to
photography. In time, with experience, that will
eventually equate also to the quality of their work.

not necessarily.

And to put it mildly, a lifetime spend with poor tools
won't likely ever result in the development of a really
good photographer. Neither does the first afternoon, or
may be the first year or even decade, with good
equipment make a great photographer.

nonsense. having what you call poor tools (which really means not as
expensive as what you bought) gives someone the opportunity to learn
rather than rely on a crutch.

But almost every craftsman develops a taste for fine
tools.

not necessarily.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

When I am questioned by well-meaning people, I explain
that the 2 most important factors in my taking good
pictures are my eyeballs and my shutter- button finger.

Neither of which have any value if you use the wrong
tool.

both have tremendous value regardless of tool.

knowing how to use the tools you have is what matters.

ansel adams would still take masterpieces no matter what camera he
used. it might not be as sharp if he used an instamatic versus a large
format camera but it would still be way better than anything most
people could ever do.

On 2014-10-11 03:55:20 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 11:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-11 01:23:45 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 9:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-11 00:13:54 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 12:00 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/10/2014 09:02 AM, Ron C wrote:
Just for the heck of it, here's an article that might make some folks
wonder why bother spending big bucks on a DSLR when a smart
phone will do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all:
~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry about
gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."
~~

The other day I was trying to come up with a term reflecting the
quality
of one's photos vs the amount of money they've spent on gear.

I'm sure we all know mediocre photographers with expensive camera and
great photographers who own a $90 point and shoot.

Seems one might draw a similar parallel with photo editing
software. ;-)

Yup! Just as an Armani suit isn't going to be any better than a Men's
Warehouse two-4-one sale suit.
Regardless of the tools, one needs to learn how to use them to the best
effect.


Hmm, not sure where you're going with the Armani vs Men's Warehouse.
Seems the point revolves around buy vs earn respect. As for learning
your tools well, I totally agree there.

I seem to be caught in a never ending continuing education cycle.

[ ...and that includes exploring Lab mode processing space. ;-) ]

Explore, agreed. However, I have been there and discovered that I have
no particular need for LAB processes in my workflow. Obviously, given
some of the participants in this room, others have chosen a different path.

Just because I don't use something, or don't favor its use, doesn't mean
that I don't understand the principles behind its purpose, or that
others might choose to use whatever they use.


As one might say "pun intended" I might say "intended
evoked response."

Pun?

Somewhat restrained response I thought.

Seems there are buttons that are easily pushed here. ;-)

As I said in another thread in a different NG:
No matter how obvious the satire is to you, do not be surprised if
people take it seriously.

My mantra tends to knowing ones tools well before one
moves on.

In computer terms, something like: understand
assembly before building a compiler .. to say nothing
of moving to higher level languages, else understanding
will be limited.

Side note: one may jump in in the middle but will need
to fill in on both ends to truly excel.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

When I am questioned by well-meaning people, I explain
that the 2 most important factors in my taking good
pictures are my eyeballs and my shutter- button finger.

Neither of which have any value if you use the wrong
tool.

both have tremendous value regardless of tool.

knowing how to use the tools you have is what matters.

And if your tool is a Leggo camera, your pictures won't
exactly be masterpieces.

ansel adams would still take masterpieces no matter what camera he
used.

Strange though, ain't it... he never used anything less than
the best cameras available.

it might not be as sharp if he used an instamatic versus a large
format camera but it would still be way better than anything most
people could ever do.

Then why did he *always* opt for the expensive camera that
gave him the sharper images?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 23:55:20 -0400, Ron C wrote:

On 10/10/2014 11:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-11 01:23:45 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 9:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-11 00:13:54 +0000, Ron C said:

On 10/10/2014 12:00 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/10/2014 09:02 AM, Ron C wrote:
Just for the heck of it, here's an article that might make some folks
wonder why bother spending big bucks on a DSLR when a smart
phone will do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all:
~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry about
gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."
~~

The other day I was trying to come up with a term reflecting the
quality
of one's photos vs the amount of money they've spent on gear.

I'm sure we all know mediocre photographers with expensive camera and
great photographers who own a $90 point and shoot.

Seems one might draw a similar parallel with photo editing
software. ;-)

Yup! Just as an Armani suit isn't going to be any better than a Men's
Warehouse two-4-one sale suit.
Regardless of the tools, one needs to learn how to use them to the best
effect.


Hmm, not sure where you're going with the Armani vs Men's Warehouse.
Seems the point revolves around buy vs earn respect. As for learning
your tools well, I totally agree there.

I seem to be caught in a never ending continuing education cycle.

[ ...and that includes exploring Lab mode processing space. ;-) ]

Explore, agreed. However, I have been there and discovered that I have
no particular need for LAB processes in my workflow. Obviously, given
some of the participants in this room, others have chosen a different path.

Just because I don't use something, or don't favor its use, doesn't mean
that I don't understand the principles behind its purpose, or that
others might choose to use whatever they use.


As one might say "pun intended" I might say "intended
evoked response."

Seems there are buttons that are easily pushed here. ;-)

My mantra tends to knowing ones tools well before one
moves on.

Not only before moving on, but before sounding off. :-)

In computer terms, something like: understand
assembly before building a compiler .. to say nothing
of moving to higher level languages, else understanding
will be limited.

Side note: one may jump in in the middle but will need
to fill in on both ends to truly excel.

==
Later...
Ron C
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/10/2014 08:18 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Ron C wrote:
On 10/10/2014 12:00 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/10/2014 09:02 AM, Ron C wrote:
Just for the heck of it, here's an article that might make some folks
wonder why bother spending big bucks on a DSLR when a smart
phone will do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all:
~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry about
gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."
~~

==
Later...
Ron C
--



The other day I was trying to come up with a term reflecting the quality
of one's photos vs the amount of money they've spent on gear.

I'm sure we all know mediocre photographers with expensive camera and
great photographers who own a $90 point and shoot.

Seems one might draw a similar parallel with photo editing software. ;-)

In fact though, I'll bet most of us know very few, if
any, really good photographers who only own a $90 P&S.
I've never met even one!



snip


Here is the situation:

One of the people I know has spent a lot of money on camera equipment
and thinks of himself as an amateur photographer. In general his results
have been rather poor...but he is improving.


The other person just has a point-and-shoot camera and does not think of
himself as a photographer...but he is a nationally known folk artist and
has a great eye for aesthetics. His photos are so good I asked him to
let me put a few in the show I've curated.

philo* wrote:
On 10/10/2014 08:18 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Ron C wrote:
On 10/10/2014 12:00 PM, philo wrote:
On 10/10/2014 09:02 AM, Ron C wrote:
Just for the heck of it, here's an article that might make some folks
wonder why bother spending big bucks on a DSLR when a smart
phone will do.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/...amera-vs-dslr/

The end of closing line of the article kind of says it all:
~~
[ ... ] remember this photography aphorism: "Amateurs worry about
gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light."
~~

==
Later...
Ron C
--



The other day I was trying to come up with a term reflecting the quality
of one's photos vs the amount of money they've spent on gear.

I'm sure we all know mediocre photographers with expensive camera and
great photographers who own a $90 point and shoot.

Seems one might draw a similar parallel with photo editing software. ;-)

In fact though, I'll bet most of us know very few, if
any, really good photographers who only own a $90 P&S.
I've never met even one!


snip

Here is the situation:

One of the people I know has spent a lot of money on
camera equipment and thinks of himself as an amateur
photographer. In general his results have been rather
poor...but he is improving.

So his investment is in fact paying off in helping
him learn something that apparently doesn't come easy.

The other person just has a point-and-shoot camera and
does not think of himself as a photographer...but he is
a nationally known folk artist and has a great eye for
aesthetics. His photos are so good I asked him to let me
put a few in the show I've curated.

First, I doubt very much that is the above specified $90
point and shoot camera, hence you are not supporting
what was claimed.

Your example is the exception that proves the rule.
Only very exceptional individuals differ from the norm.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)