Well said Dirk.
There is another dimension to the equation that has to be factored in.
Redefined needs concerning post processing skill.
Like in the analog darkroom where skilled photographers got to know the limits of their films and knew how to expose for various lighting situations, then alter their processing techniques to get the maximum from the neg ... so does the digital photographer have to become familiar with the characteristics of their digital camera.
Many digital photographers using higher ISO settings don't expose correctly, fail to balance the light properly, and also fail to process the RAW file correctly. There are so many unskilled people shooting and processing these days that it can undermine what the camera maker has provided them, and the camera gets a bad rap.
Same with scanning neg film. Some horrible results from perfectly good films, and a scanner gets a bad rap.
Not that all these pieces of equipment are equal. It's just that few of them are really all that bad. Most will provide respectable results in skilled hands. So Dirk's statement that the best spoils you for the good, is quite true.
For ex&le, I am not a big fan of the Canon 5D (mostly for handling reasons) ... especially compared to my 1DsMKII. I also despise wide to short tele Canon zoom lenses, especially at the wider end where distortion is so bad it is amazing anyone buys them at all.
Yet in practical application I use a 5D and 24-105/4L for some wedding work where I need a smaller camera and the diversity of a long throw zoom. Because I know the faults of the camera and that specific lens I know how to get the most from it when shooting weddings and what to expect when post processing.
While I may hate the camera, the clients seem to love the photos I take with it and that zoom ... like this:
There is another dimension to the equation that has to be factored in.
Redefined needs concerning post processing skill.
Like in the analog darkroom where skilled photographers got to know the limits of their films and knew how to expose for various lighting situations, then alter their processing techniques to get the maximum from the neg ... so does the digital photographer have to become familiar with the characteristics of their digital camera.
Many digital photographers using higher ISO settings don't expose correctly, fail to balance the light properly, and also fail to process the RAW file correctly. There are so many unskilled people shooting and processing these days that it can undermine what the camera maker has provided them, and the camera gets a bad rap.
Same with scanning neg film. Some horrible results from perfectly good films, and a scanner gets a bad rap.
Not that all these pieces of equipment are equal. It's just that few of them are really all that bad. Most will provide respectable results in skilled hands. So Dirk's statement that the best spoils you for the good, is quite true.
For ex&le, I am not a big fan of the Canon 5D (mostly for handling reasons) ... especially compared to my 1DsMKII. I also despise wide to short tele Canon zoom lenses, especially at the wider end where distortion is so bad it is amazing anyone buys them at all.
Yet in practical application I use a 5D and 24-105/4L for some wedding work where I need a smaller camera and the diversity of a long throw zoom. Because I know the faults of the camera and that specific lens I know how to get the most from it when shooting weddings and what to expect when post processing.
While I may hate the camera, the clients seem to love the photos I take with it and that zoom ... like this:
