PDA

View Full Version : Existential musings, SLM's neurotic fun ride, also should I bother with a full frame DSLR?



Sad, little man
February 26th, 2016, 02:33 PM
I'd like to take more photos. I have a somewhat flexible policy of never deleting any photos I take, even the bad ones. It's born out of a recognition that every time the shutter cycles it's capturing a time and a place that isn't ever going to be replicated again. Isn't holding onto that worth a few small megabytes of disk space? All of my photos get redundantly copied onto a pair of 1TB hard drives. They have over 10000 photos on them just from my current camera. Surely there are a lot of photos on there that I don't really want and I'll never look at them. What will happen to them? Will a time come when my children and grandchildren go through my things, find these drives, but decide that the effort to find an old computer capable of still reading them is too great, and then toss the drives in the trash or sell them at a yard sale? An entire era of memories captured, put up for sale for $50? (This will probably be more like $5 in today's money.) What happens when those drives go in a landfill? Slowly fall apart no doubt. If a future civilization unearthed the hard drive platters, even if they could detect the magnetic aberrations in them, surely they wouldn't be able to decode and understand the .jpg photo format, could they? Then what? A collection of moments in time captured but locked away in a format completely undecipherable by anyone.

It seems like I make the mistake of assuming that eras of the past all looked in person like their photos did. But people of the early 20th century didn't live in sepia tone, did they? I wish I could better grasp that the people of that time weren't as foreign as they look, aliens existing in a world of off-whites and tans. It makes me wonder if we've achieved a sort of photographic holy grail. Do our photos represent our view of the world yet? Will future generations look at what we've captured and understand what our lives looked like, understand how rich they are? Will they understand us? Or will we be another era of captured moments that look somehow foreign to our descendants?

I guess it's naive to assume the former. I imagine at best people will someday look at our photos and be shocked at how flat and two dimensional they are. When people are looking at their holographic displays, current photos will be shown on a lifeless, two dimensional plane, while all current content will take advantage of all three dimensions. We'll look back at the viewer of the photos and seem just as aloof as people from 100 years ago look to us now. Our gasoline fueled vehicles will look just as unreal when represented in a flat photo as Model Ts look to us when shown in the drab color scheme of a moment in time captured by monotone technology. Or worse, will the proliferation of inferior cell phone cameras give future citizens the impression that our world was full of noise? Will they think our lives were blurry and poorly lit?

I'm continually tortured by the cruelly imperfect nature of the way that our brains neurologically store memories. The things I want to hang onto the most in my mind are the first things to go, like a VHS movie you've watched too many times. There are some scientific truths about the brain I wish I didn't know. I'd link you to them, but I would have to give the disclaimer that your life is better off without these facts in it, which ultimately would only entice you to learn these forbidden things even more.

This is why I need photos, at the very least. But the question becomes, how big of an image sensor do you need to have to capture an experience and do it justice? Will more megapixels let you time travel any closer back to that perfect point in time? How many thousands of dollars need to be spent in order to perfectly replicate the function of the eye, something that was effortlessly created by accident and natural selection.





Anyway, I'm not sure if I want to stick with APS-C and start investing in lenses optimized for that sensor, or just jump ship while I haven't invested much and go full frame. I think I'd like to stick with Canon though. I just like them. The new 5DS is a 50 megapixel beast, but I can get a 5D Mark III for $1000 less, and I don't think I want to have my photos be that damn big. About 20MP seems like it should be adequate. the old 5D also has higher ISOs.

Yw-slayer
February 26th, 2016, 04:44 PM
Way TLDR. I'd wait for the 5D Mark IV either way. You can get that or save extra money in a close out Mark III.

Freude am Fahren
February 26th, 2016, 08:18 PM
I've added a D750 to my cart on Amazon or BHPhoto then closed the window before buying maybe a dozen times :lol:

overpowered
February 26th, 2016, 09:59 PM
Sony A7 series is worth looking at too. Can use Canon lenses with an adapter.

Kchrpm
February 27th, 2016, 09:43 AM
Photos suck at capturing memories compared to videos. Get yourself something that is full frame and also shoots at least 4K video, preferably with surround sound recording capabilities.

So, as op said, an A7 (like this one (http://www.sony.com/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7rm2)) or, if you are satisfied with capturing things at about your own focal length in exchange for portability, an RX1 (http://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1rm2).

Then get something like this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/audio/tips-and-solution/surrounded-recording-51-surround-sound-your-camcorder-holophone) to go with it, a Dolby ProLogic-compatible surround sound mic.

Then you're not just capturing a single instant of visual input, you're capturing the atmosphere and motion of a moment.

Sad, little man
March 4th, 2016, 04:19 PM
Considering buying this thing and using it on my APS-C until I get up the nerve to drop down cash on a 5D. I want the 2.8 aperture for low light shooting. Canon's equivalent lens is more expensive without image stabilization... Lame. :(

http://amzn.com/B007SNP02K

Only problem is that a 24mm focal length is not very wide on an APS-C camera.

Yet at the same time, years later, will I look back on a wealth of photos taken at dimly lit punk shows in downtown Detroit with a strange fondness, or will they just be an ominous reflection of a dark time that has been left behind?

Yw-slayer
March 4th, 2016, 06:54 PM
Yeah, I know, my 24-70 mark 2 is DEFINITELY lame.

Sad, little man
March 6th, 2016, 12:06 PM
Well, I bought the Tamron lens used from Amazon. By this time next week, I expect to be swimming in some beautiful bokeh.

And I was sure to buy one that looks like it's actually a used lens and not just a grey market lens someone is selling new for cheap.

Now I'm prepared to be disappointed by the less than ideal focal range on my camera, and prompted to upgrade to a 5D. I love how I subconsciously work against myself to get what I really want like this.

Jason
March 6th, 2016, 06:49 PM
I consider myself to be a pretty big enthusiast when it comes to photography, and I've been more than fine with a crop sensor 16mp sensor, attached to good glass and a light body. The megapixel race is largely stupid, imo.

Freude am Fahren
March 11th, 2016, 03:23 PM
I agree, my D300 has plenty of pixels for me 99% of the time. If you're not shooting for large print ads, or trying to make up for a lack of lens reach with cropping, you don't need much. The key is going to be low light/low noise sensors IMO. The full 35mm size with equal resolution (=larger pixels) will yield better results in that regard.

Yw-slayer
March 11th, 2016, 05:33 PM
I was being sarcastic btw.

Sad, little man
March 22nd, 2016, 09:25 AM
Good. I was worried you were being serious that the 24mm was too restrictive on a crop sensor camera. Anyway, I love the lens. The image stabilization is so good it can make you nauseous when you move the camera around but what you see in the viewfinder stays steady.

Anyway, I'm seriously considering changing over to shooting raw. First, because all the cool kids do it. Second, because I hear it helps with brightening up dim photos. However, at the same time I'm also in despair over all those moments I've captured in a lossy format up until now. How many of my memories have been distorted by jpeg compression? How much have I lost in the name of more manageable file sizes?

Jason
March 22nd, 2016, 01:37 PM
All of them. You have no choice but to invent a time machine, go back in time, kill yourself, and take over your former self's identity, but shoot in RAW.

Sad, little man
March 24th, 2016, 10:50 AM
Took photos of an event in low light last night in raw... So much better ability to brighten photos than jpg. Good stuff.

Anyway, are the quickly dropping resale values of old camera bodies an admission that only a few years ago our ability to capture photos was that significantly lacking? Why am I so repulsed by the idea of a super-cheap, second generation 8MP Canon 1D?

Jason
March 25th, 2016, 10:04 AM
It all depends on your expectations. Digital cameras in many ways surpassed most 35mm film years ago. But if you're wanting a noiseless image in pitch black conditions, then digital cameras still 'suck'.

Sad, little man
March 29th, 2016, 09:04 AM
Doesn't high ISO film tend to also be grainy due to the larger light sensitive crystals it's made with? Or is that still negligible compared to the high ISO noise from DSLRs?

Anyway, found a good deal, $900 for a used 6D... Will soon be shooting in full frame bliss while stoically contemplating whether this camera is an adequate piece of technology to capture any situation and do it justice, regardless of what comes out later.

Rikadyn
April 1st, 2016, 04:59 PM
any camera can do that as long as the person behind it is talented enough.

Jason
April 1st, 2016, 05:24 PM
I instantly throw away every photo I take because its not full frame. :(

Sad, little man
April 2nd, 2016, 04:25 PM
Hmm, is there a setting for that? Like, immediately after the photo review flashes up on the screen, the camera deletes the photo off of the card?

Anyway, Rik, I would argue that not any camera can do that because some situations are not well lit enough for many cameras to get a good exposure of them. Yes, there's a flash, but just as a matter of principle, I really dislike using flashes for many reasons.

Jason, I just wanted full frame for the better low-light performance. Truthfully I think APSC is completely adequate for almost all situations, especially in a studio where you don't have to deal with that. Also, the full frame lenses end up having too narrow of a field of view on a crop sensor camera for my taste, especially a Canon, which has an even smaller crop size. Again, not a problem when you're in a studio and you can just move closer or further away from what you're taking photos of.

Jason
April 2nd, 2016, 04:40 PM
Well yeah, that's why there's lenses built for crop formats :lol:

Sad, little man
April 2nd, 2016, 08:17 PM
No, no there aren't. I don't know about Nikon, but Canon doesn't seem to give much love to its crop sensor line of lenses. I mean, they make a 50mm 1.4, but nothing that fast in a shorter focal length that would be good on crop sensors. It seems like all of the lenses designed for unique purposes are in focal lengths more geared towards full frame. But, ultimately this is probably because a lot of the designs date back to the film days when there was no such thing as a crop sensor.

Sad, little man
April 4th, 2016, 09:01 AM
Also, man do I really love buying used gear. Firstly, I now have a $2700 camera and lens combo that I only paid $1600 for, and second, there's none of that apprehension that comes along with trying to keep a new piece of equipment in perfect shape. Normally I would be freaking out about keeping something I spent this much cash on in perfect shape. But as it stands, who cares? The camera is already just a little beaten up. Why bother trying to protect the rear screen when it already has a scratch in it? I love this!

M4FFU
April 8th, 2016, 05:21 AM
No, no there aren't. I don't know about Nikon, but Canon doesn't seem to give much love to its crop sensor line of lenses. I mean, they make a 50mm 1.4, but nothing that fast in a shorter focal length that would be good on crop sensors. It seems like all of the lenses designed for unique purposes are in focal lengths more geared towards full frame. But, ultimately this is probably because a lot of the designs date back to the film days when there was no such thing as a crop sensor.

I used a 28mm 1.8 as my "normal" lense on a 7D before changing to a full frame camera. Did me just fine.

Sad, little man
April 8th, 2016, 06:38 PM
Yeah, ok, there is the 28 1.8. But it's not a 1.4. :D

Rikadyn
April 9th, 2016, 01:12 PM
Also, man do I really love buying used gear. Firstly, I now have a $2700 camera and lens combo that I only paid $1600 for, and second, there's none of that apprehension that comes along with trying to keep a new piece of equipment in perfect shape. Normally I would be freaking out about keeping something I spent this much cash on in perfect shape. But as it stands, who cares? The camera is already just a little beaten up. Why bother trying to protect the rear screen when it already has a scratch in it? I love this!

Yea, some people are over protective of their gear and are afraid of even lightly scratching it. I caused my friend to be super nervous in japan because he thought I was insane for never having a strap on my camera. Honestly, cameras can survive some shit, I mean they're not as delicate as people make them out to be.