Current Misperceptions regarding Camera Info on the Web

WestEndFotoWestEndFoto Posts: 3,105Member
It is nice to see someone calling out some of the misperceptions on the web regarding photography. Read the following:

http://dslrbodies.com/newsviews/nikon-2020-news/january-2019-nikon-canon/odd-things-were-written.html

My favorite, written on Petapixel regarding the Z lenses, is as follows:

"Of those ten [Z mount] lenses, all five of the zoom lenses cover the same focal range as the primes, and none of the primes are what are considered top-end optics except for the nigh unattainable 58mm NOCT." [petapixel] Oh my, three problems in one sentence. And this isn't the only sentence in that article with over-the-top and misguided statements. Let's start with the zoom lenses. Don't all zoom lenses cover the same focal range as primes? Moreover, the statement actually isn't true unless you consider a DX lens as overlapping an FX lens (the current Z FX lens zooms go from 14-70mm, but we have an 85mm prime. Apparently I also missed the class where it said that only f/1.4 or faster primes qualify as "top-end." As I've noted, every prime Nikon has offered so far for the Z mount has been the best performing prime of that focal length Nikon has ever made, so taken further, the writer would have to say "Nikon never made a top-end prime." So once again the Tyranny of Numbers has shown up on the Internet, where f/1.4 is automatically better than f/1.8. Finally, I'd point out that the NOCT is only nigh unattainable to the author, apparently because their credit card limit doesn't go that high or his local store doesn't carry it.

I would love to hear about other misperceptions.

Comments

  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,051Member
    Why does this need a new thread? Doesn’t this belongs in the thread for z-mount cameras?
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,368Member
    edited January 2
    Well it's not exactly a misperception maybe, but I would consider Rockwell constantly proselytizing for the church of JPG to be misguided. I wish I had listed to Fro instead, and shot RAW+JPG at first. That's really the better way to go, IMO. Shoot like that for a year, and by then you should have a decent idea on if/when it makes sense for you to shoot RAW.

    Edit: Just read Thom's article. I'd also cite this one:

    “...generally speaking, most photographers don't want framed prints of their own work to hang on the wall…”

    I must be out of step then because I have lots of my own prints on the wall. That's one of the reasons I got back into ILC - I wanted some nice pics of my kids. Seriously, if you aren't a professional then why bother with high end photography if you aren't going to print?
    Post edited by mhedges on
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,051Member
    To pull from the always annoying car analogy, why do people who never go to a race track have sports cars? Because it’s fun of course! Maybe because small sensor camera don’t make high quality pictures perhaps? Prints are not the bees knees, or the be all and end all of photography. Its not 1950 or 1999 anymore, things change. Have I made prints? Yes, do I have many? No. I have had one print larger than 8x10 made in the last 10 years, because unless it’s something I really like there is no point. 98% of the photos people take a toss away shots, so prints aren’t important to them. Many young people haven’t, and will never get a print made,it’s just not how they share images anymore.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,136Moderator
    Define 'young'? I think when they get older and own their own property, they just may want their own print on the wall.
    Always learning.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,051Member
    edited January 2
    Young, as in people currently 15-30. Their lives revolve around screens, and unless there are some big changes in society, I don’t see that changing any time soon. I’m in my 30s, and I cannot say many of my peers have prints on the wall. Paintings? Yes, but photo prints? Not many. If they have kids, maybe some family shots, but that’s about it.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • mhedgesmhedges Posts: 1,368Member
    Ok I was probably a little too pro-print in my post. But yes anecdotally I do know folks who still get them made.

    Pretty much every family I know of has prints of family photo sessions. Prints of other stuff - not so much, I agree.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,136Moderator
    Apart from prints I make to illustrate results I get using various macro techniques for talks I do at clubs, and prints I have to do for competition entries plus some Landscapes and a few B&W's of NYC that I like, I usually frame competition winners for my study wall (still plenty of space left LOL!).

    I would agree that my opinion/perspective is skewed by my being in photography club circles, but there are plenty of thirty somethings in those circles who print prolifically. It's a shame if people aren't printing so much, because IMHO photographs are nothing until they are printed and framed.
    Always learning.
  • sportsport Posts: 118Member
    The way camera information is being published on photosites (and elsewhere like youtube) reflects the same issues that camera companies are seeing, the traffic for those sites is dropping off. They are using sensational statements to try drawing in visitors. It's not just camera sites that are doing this, you can see it in everything from car sites to politics. Consumers are getting burned out in this kind tactic but everyone seems to just keep doing it. The ones that make me laugh are the "Nikon is going under" ones.
  • MrFotoFoolMrFotoFool Posts: 57Member
    The article author does make some good points (though overall the article was not particularly revealing IMO). He points out some misguided statements made in various spots on the internet, but of course this is a problem not just in photography but for any subject: anyone can post anything on the internet. Even on seemingly reputable sites (which I think most of his quotes are from) stupid things are written without the time and filter of an editor reviewing an article for a print publication.

    As for the debate about making prints, I have several large framed prints of my work (up to 40x60 inches) in my condo. In fact there is only one photo that I did not take (a gift that has sentimental as well as artistic value). Sure most people do not print their photos, but most people are not serious photographers. I worked for two decades at a photo lab (before leaving four years ago for a better paying career) and obviously the number of customers (and employees and store locations) dropped immensely with the change from film to digital. However some serious amateur photographers still print and frame their work and this does include some younger people (20's and 30's). Most of the larger print and frame jobs are from middle aged photographers, but I suspect this is mostly due to owning a home to put it in and having the means to pay for custom framing.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,051Member
    sport said:

    The ones that make me laugh are the "Nikon is going under" ones.

    It’s not so far fetched when you look at the dropping sales numbers, and jacking up the price to make up for it will only last so long as you have loyal users who are willing to pay. Problem is Nikon is losing a lot of those users too. Most of the user base is 50+ as well, that means the clock is ticking for Nikon. It might not die tomorrow, but like many out of touch companies, Nikon’s long term forecast isn’t great.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.