And now for something completely different....

danj

modern primitive
$15,000 worth of cameras and she uses what?
DSC03463a.jpg
 
portable v. component?

digital v. analog?

I'm seeing some parallels here.

Or, she's using a light meter app.
 
think she is reading texts or playing a game maybe ...

I doubt it. That's an EOS-1 and the other one looks like an older model of the EOS-1 (possibly a 5Dmk2 or 3). Most people don't look at their phone leisurely straight up like that (usually at an angle down and lower). It looks like she's composing a shot.

Why? Well, maybe she's showing why a phone's camera might still be a decent shot, but not 15K worth in real camera gear. Or if she's like me, taking a shot of something interesting doesn't always require my best gear (like a strange book cover or funny road sign).

Sometimes pulling out a cheap 4" saucepan to cook two eggs is easier than using a 10" copper bottom, ceramic saucepan :)
 
And I agree. Have a look here or on other forums that have dedicated iPhone/smart phone threads... In ample light, some of the phones these days are capable of incredible images.
 
Maybe she quickly needed something wider than 70mm? :dunno:

That's a high probability since one lens is a 300mm 4L IS (I think) and the other is the 70-200mm 2.8L IS. I'm not entirely sure why you would use a dedicated 300mm lens when you have a 200mm (there's no 1.4x teleconverter on either one). Most people who carry around lenses have a wide angle and zoom lens. 70mm get's a lot closer than a 300mm, but not anywhere near as close as a 24mm phone camera.
 
Yeah, I think those are the lenses she has. I agree that it's odd that those would be the two lenses to have at the ready but I don't know what event she is covering. Even if both lenses were longish and had some overlap, that seems like an odd choice. At 24-70 and a 70-200 makes the most sense for many outdoor but non-sport events. Or if you don't have a 24-70, maybe a 24-105 and a 70-200 but a 70-200 and a 300 seems unlikely.

Just seems to me if you have that kind of $$$ tied up in two cameras, you would have at the very minimum, a G1X or an S110 or something.
 
As an aside, I'd never handled a 300 f4 before but a couple months ago, I sold a 17-40 to a guy that was shooting a sports event (Final 4) and had a 24-70 and a 300 f4. After doing our transaction, I handled his camera with the 300 f4. I was pretty surprised at how light it felt. I think it's probably lighter than the 70-200 2.8. I have an old school 70-200 f4 non-IS and granted, his 300 was on something bigger than my 5D, a 1D, I think so maybe that made the 300 feel relatively small since the camera was so big, but the 300 was impressive manageable.
 
I'm all for the old, but let's see what kind of results you get from the baseline or in the end zone with that rig.

:D
 
of course, you're correct... this was taken with a Rolleiflex, and Ektachrome. Fifty years ago this month...

colorspace.jpg
 
If I wanted someone to take a picture of me w/ my phone, she would be the one to ask. She would take a better picture then a stupid selfie.
 
I agree some of the older gear helped capture great shots.

So much is made of vignetting and cameras that can automatically correct for it, but something is to be said of vignetting in some shots. Would this have pulled you in quite as effectively if it was perfectly sharp from the center to all corners and if there was no vignetting?

IoossFootball_147.jpg
 
She's just shooting a pic to text or post to social media. Much harder to do with the other two cameras. ;)

Specifically maybe those two. I won't doubt it if another 6 years or so that they make a Canon/Nikon pro camera that lets you upload directly to a photo sharing account.

My Sony NEX has software that lets you do it. It's horribly slow at transferring the shots to my tablet (acting as a wifi hotspot) so I couldn't even imagine trying to upload it to Flickr or Facebook. Now that they have the Sony A7R (Whichever one is the 36MP one), I would hate to think of uploading such a huge photo. Pro Canons and Nikons have accessories (or built in) to transmit the photos to a cloud or your laptop networked. It wouldn't be too hard to offer a social media if either company really felt people would use it.

Yeah, you might think it would be useless, but how long did it take for Canon (don't know about Nikon) to finally get rid of that secondary "print" button? Who would hook up their Canon 5D to a Canon printer and print it SoTC?
 
There are various reasons she could be using a smartphone, some of which may be...

1. Taking a quick snap for social media or to share with friends.

2. A request from someone else to take a picture of them.

3. Doing a quick framing test.

4. Possible that she may be into iPhoneography.

Anyways, I don't see anything wrong with taking photos with today's breed of smartphones. They're capable of far more than just adequate imagery for web use. I use my iPhone 6 Plus all the time with results that are completely satisfying for their intended use. Photography, like anything else is about choosing the right tools for the right situation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Yeah, you might think it would be useless, but how long did it take for Canon (don't know about Nikon) to finally get rid of that secondary "print" button? Who would hook up their Canon 5D to a Canon printer and print it SoTC?

Some professional photographers do offer prints at events. Back in the day, not all printers had card readers. I've made a couple thousand dollars from those print buttons.

Edit: I would agree that manufacturers seemed several years behind in removing the print button from the upper end cameras.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom