Dead Camera Thread

stillshunter

Super Moderator Emeritus
Nov 5, 2010
Down Under
Mark

Tilman Paulin

All-Pro
Nov 15, 2011
Vancouver B.C.
Tilman
What an superb idea for a thread!
I went through the whole 6 pages and how come away utterly inspired. Tech is tech, but an eye is an eye!
Great shots, Mark!

There's two things about this thread that I find interesting:
- Looking through our older shots and realizing that there's wonderful shots that we got even with these "terribly outdated" cameras. And that there's some aspects where the older cameras might even be "better" than todays. (That is of course a subjective statement :) )

- Using some of these older cameras today and realizing that some of the "problems" that we remember these cameras to have may also have been due to our own inexperience.
Using the E1 for example, I know that 10 years ago I wouldn't have gotten most of the shots that I get today with it... So part of why we're getting "better" results with todays cameras is also due to having more experience ourselves... :)

Not sure if that makes sense... it does in my head at least :confused:
 

stillshunter

Super Moderator Emeritus
Nov 5, 2010
Down Under
Mark
Great shots, Mark! There's two things about this thread that I find interesting: - Looking through our older shots and realizing that there's wonderful shots that we got even with these "terribly outdated" cameras. And that there's some aspects where the older cameras might even be "better" than todays. (That is of course a subjective statement :) ) - Using some of these older cameras today and realizing that some of the "problems" that we remember these cameras to have may also have been due to our own inexperience. Using the E1 for example, I know that 10 years ago I wouldn't have gotten most of the shots that I get today with it... So part of why we're getting "better" results with todays cameras is also due to having more experience ourselves... :) Not sure if that makes sense... it does in my head at least :confused:
Mate I understand what you are saying 100% and agree with your sentiments a little more than that again. I'm finding tech mattering less. At the time of shooting - which let's admit is the best time of photographic process (unless it's just me who finds post processing a little on the tedious side) - controls and feel are what matters most. And when reviewing a bunch of images in your library it's the overall image that matters more than what's going on at the pixel level. So here it was the eye that mattered more.

Funny I have just returned from my first outing with the new X-T2 and I absolutely loved the process of shooting. Only took 10 minutes or so to get into that zone. Back at the computer I started proceeding through the photos at 200% zoom, as I'd been fussing over sharpness of some preceding images, so kept the magnification set as I continued through the roll. Ridiculous! Then I started testing new shots on the camera with filter on and off, then different ISOs, then different apertures, then. ....
... then I returned to the screen and looked at images at full size, returning to the roll and started to smile at a few moments captured. Yeah the tech really is beginning to matter less.
 
Last edited:

Tilman Paulin

All-Pro
Nov 15, 2011
Vancouver B.C.
Tilman
"Baring Head Walk" has me transfixed. The OOF areas have loads of character and are simultaneously not distracting.....a very strange dichotomy. I'd print that one out, for sure.
Cheers Luke! The quality of the OOF areas might be a combination of the soft light on that cloudy day and the character of the PanaLeica 14-150mm lens. For a superzoom with f3.5-5.6 it renders really very nicely...

(or maybe it's just all the dust in that lens adding a nice level of diffusion. :) I got it used and it was extremely dusty... I'm glad I didn't return it...)
 

Casey

Veteran
Mar 31, 2013
Atlanta, GA
Casey
Would the Nikon d40x (meets the age, but clocks in at 10.2mp), or the Lumix LX3 (on the brink of 10 years old, and 10.1mp) count?
 

Latest threads

Top Bottom