Interesting thoughts, Steve. I have been, in the context of Photography, at various times: - a researcher using cameras in a forensic manner ... for data gathering and documentation - a hobbyist enjoying photography and cameras for the satisfaction of having fun with the technology and the art, and to capture memories of family and friends - an exhibiting artist using the medium of photography - a professional photographer taking and delivering assignment work - a photographic professional consulting with photographers of all kinds on their use of cameras, computers, software, ideas and policies, and - an educator teaching workshops on the use of image processing tools.
In other words, my interests and opinions in the realm of Photography and camera equipment are diverse and colored by 45+ years of being involved with it as my primary life activity both as and outside of my career(s) to make a living. When I offer opinion, it is always my opinion from first hand experience with the subject in question ... Or I say quite specifically that I'm am speculating. When I offer facts, they are either referenced by documentation I can point to explicitly or are the results of testing that I can articulate precisely. On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > The shitty camera that is with you takes infinitely better pictures than the > good camera that is at home. This is why I try to only have good cameras. When the only good camera was something as large as a DSLR, I carried a DSLR all the time. When I had film cameras, I had three types of good film cameras: a high quality SLR (Nikon FM, FE, Fx) for when I needed maximum lens versatility, a high quality RF system camera (Leica II, III, M) for when something a little smaller, a little quieter but still quite versatile was required, and a pocketable compact (Rollei 35, Ricoh GR1, Minox 35GT-E) with a great lens for when I really couldn't or didn't want to carry anything more. I could always have a camera with me that produced super high quality results. Come the era of digital cameras (for me, about 2002-2006) and this nice trio of equipment fell apart. Small cameras either produced poor results or good results only in a relatively narrow domain of capabilities, cameras that produced quality results across the board were all large, bulky and noisy, and the "middle" option of an RF camera disappeared. Never mind the cost ... But now, five to six years on, the costs have become more approachable on the bulky DSLRs, there are (is) at least one RF camera available, and high-quality compacts have emerged. Even the sub-compact class I used to use for fun and learning (Minox) has emerged in the guise of high-quality cell phone cameras. So my trio of cameras that suit all my purposes and can be carried at all times has finally returned. -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
