DSLR prices are going down down down

[Parchiao]

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
I beg to differ. Such is the ease of use of a digital camera that if it were to just be used as a point and shoot camera, satisfactory results can be achieved by virtually anyone.
But if u give a SLR camera to anyone, not everyone will be able to achieve satisfactory results.

I'm just saying that digital photography fast forwards the process of learning photography itself. Comparing it to learning how to drive automatic these days and learning to drive manual in the past.

Your reasoning is so flawed that it makes Comical Ali blush.

I don't see any reason why someone can become a better photographer just because he/she uses a digital camera. By applying your logic, does it mean that people can be better or faster learners if they use the computer over someone else who only reads books?????

Using a digital camera does not mean that you can take better pictures than someone using a film point and shoot or SLR. There is an added advatage of digital camera over film, and that is only in the ability to view your raw image immediately, NOTHING else that makes a material difference! This is only but one aspect of photography. Almost every other aspect of digital potography and film photography is the same, and if you are dumb to the many many many theoretical aspects of photography, it makes no difference what medium you use. BTW, have you ever used a film SLR before? I am kinda suspicious that you are ignorant of something about a film SLR. Do you know what P mode is ??????

Also, your analogy of learning to drive an automatic car against a manual car is dead wrong. Learning driving is not about simply being able to control your car. Driving is more than that. You need to know the limits of the car's abilities, you need to know how to judge road conditions, you need to be able to anticipate, you need to know how to get from point A to point B without getting lost, you need to know the rules associate with the place that you drive, you need to know how the locals think in the place that you drive, you need to know how gears work, you need to know simple laws of physics like centripedal and centrifugal forces, you need to know about road safety, but most of all, you need to have patience. How does this make controlling an automatic car against a manual car easier to learn to drive, when you consider that controlling the car is only one aspect of driving?????????

If you had just stopped at the point when you said 'digital photography will speed up the learning process for certain types of people', I would think that there is some truth to it, although it would be hard to quantify it in figures. BUT, when I read your analogy that seems to suggest that users of digital cameras will be better photographers than those who use film based ones, then, I can't help but think of you as the other joker in the pack of cards.

 

[FLiNcHY]

Yes i understand what you are trying to say, larry.

But isin't there a connectivity between digital technology and ultimately becoming a better photographer?

Would a person learn faster and more efficiently if what he used was a digital camera? Yes. Because

1) He would be able to review his shots instantly,see whats wrong with it, try again, and keep moving. With a film camera, the process is a slow and painstaking one. Film has to be bought, shots must be taken without being able to see how they turned out. Money must be spent developing the entire roll of film. Time must be spent making trips to the photo shop and waiting for the roll of film to be developed. Bad results? Money goes down the drain.

2.) The view here is that, with a film camera, taking bad photos will ":cry:" you into focussing on doing things correctly and steadily instead of just clicking away happily with a digital cam because the mindset that you can always delete the bad picture will make you skip over the finer details of photo taking. This is however, not true. Practise makes perfect. I can still click away with my digital cam, but still pay attention to the details. I can still face heartbreak when my photos come out bad. I can still learn to improve by focusing on my technique and details. BUT, all this is once again done at an accelerated pace. Thus making digital photography a better form of learning for beginners.


As for "a crappy shot will still be a crappy shot regardless of equipment used",i agree that it is the photographer behind the camera that matters and not his equipment. Then why do people in this forum keep asking ," What camera you use ah?" whenever an excellent photograph is posted?

Also, would my father's collegue have taken a much better photo if he had been using a nikon 2500 instead of his bulky slr? Most definately yes. With technical skill being a constant, equipment is now a variable.

 

[Parchiao]

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
Also, would my father's collegue have taken a much better photo if he had been using a nikon 2500 instead of his bulky slr? Most definately yes. With technical skill being a constant, equipment is now a variable.

:ipuke:

Can we have one that coughs blood?

 

[bearycute]

Just out of curiosity- between a well composed, exposed shot but not very sharp and one that is tact sharp (showing all the nostrils hairs ) but is poorly composed. Which would u go for?

With the current technology, I must say that their AF is very reliable and thus most shot will turn out fine in terms of sharpness, whether u r using p&s, digital or films alike. The advantage of an slr gives one more options and creativity in composing a shot. A p&s cam might have some limitation and it depends on the one behind the camera to work round these limitations.

With digital, the convenience comes w being able to preview the shots and retake if the composition is not good. However, that is only possible if the subject is stationary else the moment is lost be it film or digital. Digital does (in my opinion) help to put u in another learning curve which might be great for some. But if u do not have 'the eye' to 'view' and the 'right mind' to 'decipher', u will just be taking loads of pics that r sharp and nothing else.

So the final note is- be it digital or film, take pics, loads of them. But dun take for the sake of taking (a danger when using digital). Think of wad u wan to tell other ppl with that pic. Go thru them and think wad could u have done to make that pic better. Learn from ur mistakes.

Pls dun flame me hor... me very new to photography. still trying to learn...

 

[bearycute]

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
With technical skill being a constant, equipment is now a variable.

Er... I dun quite agree leh. Unless u r not learning, how can technical skill be a constant?:dunno:

 

[FLiNcHY]

Maybe it's just that i don't know how to put it in a form of writing that you guys will understand.

Whatever it is, i for one am a digital photography starter (one that started photography through digital cameras) and i am happy with the level of progress i have made over the past few months. With just a canon g3 and a 128mb card in my arm, i have taken hundreds of photos and have learnt immensely from each of those photos. A progress that would not have been possible if i were to have started with film. Why? Because i wouldnt have the time nor money to keep buying rolls of film and waiting for the developing of photos just to know what i did wrong. With my pc, i can learn straight away, where i went wrong and what i should have done to achieve a better result.

All this is possible through technology. It definately is a factor in which photography skills can be improved.

 

[FLiNcHY]

Originally posted by Parchiao
Does it mean that people can be better or faster learners if they use the computer over someone else who only reads books?????

Computers are indeed a better form of learning.

Do you define literacy as merely the form of learning to read and write?

There are many more factors than you can imagine that make computers a better tool for teaching and instilling literacy.

I would recommend the book "Literacies and Technologies" by Robert P.Yagelski
Take a look at how technology has greatly improved the process of learning, then come here and offer your counter argument.

 

[Azure]

Originally posted by Snowcrash
Hey Azure, don't misquote me, The sentence before that:

"Just don't go too extreme on both ends:-"

Just to clarify.

Apologies, Snowcrash. No misquote intended. I was taking the the extremes and pointing out that those extremes are silly folks. No offence meant, and hope none taken.

 

[maddog]

More NYT bashing.
New York Times got the E-1 price wrong

 

[Knighthunter]

All people can take pictures easily now, since all new cameras come with PhD mode.



Note:
PhD=Press Here Dummy

 

[Azure]

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
I would recommend the book "Literacies and Technologies" by Robert P.Yagelski
Take a look at how technology has greatly improved the process of learning, then come here and offer your counter argument.

Yes, technology HAS improved the process, but not necessarily the learner.
Learning is still very much a matter of each individual's discipline and interest. Technology can only do so much. Bear in mind that for every piece of literature on the market "proving" an argument, there will always be a corresponding piece "disproving".

What Larry mentioned about pple more willing to experiment with digicams reflects the trends in society. Digicams are something for even the older folks to associate with modernity. Try sitting in a photolab for several days and listen to their customers. You'll realise how amusing yet true this is. ... at least I found it amusing.

At the end of the day, a crappy shot is still a crappy shot. Whether or not the shooter sees the need to learn from it, or he/she chooses to blame something/someone else, that is entirely his choice. No amount of technology is going to change that. Flinchy, you have not met my run-in with an old PSS chap. The latest, bestest 1Ds or D1X or S2Pro is NOT going to improve his photography, not with the bestest lens nor tripod or whatever. That's the extreme opposite for you.

 

[Azure]

Originally posted by Knighthunter
All people can take pictures easily now, since all new cameras come with PhD mode.



Note:
PhD=Press Here Dummy

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[togu]

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
Maybe it's just that i don't know how to put it in a form of writing that you guys will understand.

Whatever it is, i for one am a digital photography starter (one that started photography through digital cameras) and i am happy with the level of progress i have made over the past few months. With just a canon g3 and a 128mb card in my arm, i have taken hundreds of photos and have learnt immensely from each of those photos. A progress that would not have been possible if i were to have started with film. Why? Because i wouldnt have the time nor money to keep buying rolls of film and waiting for the developing of photos just to know what i did wrong. With my pc, i can learn straight away, where i went wrong and what i should have done to achieve a better result.

All this is possible through technology. It definately is a factor in which photography skills can be improved.

Just out of curiosity, what have you learn so far? :dunno:

 

[FLiNcHY]

Originally posted by togu
Just out of curiosity, what have you learn so far? :dunno:

I've learnt that money does not buy skill

*hint hint*

 

[sadness]

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
I've learnt that money does not buy skill

*hint hint*

wow...

 

[denizenx]

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
I've learnt that money does not buy skill

*hint hint*

we~ell... would u have learnt anything if u bought a 299sgd compact and no extra flash?
(you wd, but other things like the need to buy better equipment ;p)

 

[sulhan]

Hi FLinchy....


Why not drop the subject

It seem that as the thread goes on....you seem to bring up more points which has two side of opinion...not one but many opinions...and start flooding the internet with the thread size......

I think...i would suggest....go take a break.


BTW: ....Wah a G3 and 128MB.........."I've learnt that money does not buy skill"

*hint hint*


regards,
me

 

[offspring]

True, money don't buy skill, but it does buy (painful) lessons. Many lessons will develop skill.

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
I've learnt that money does not buy skill

*hint hint*

 

[FLiNcHY]

Originally posted by sulhan


BTW: ....Wah a G3 and 128MB.........."I've learnt that money does not buy skill"

*hint hint*


regards,
me

Good cam that has manual controls. Good for learning the finer aspects of photography while costing considerably less than a dslr.

Anyway, the main topic was about DSLRs becomming increasingly cheaper.Maybe in the future, message boards will be filled with people having DSLRs but asking questions more commonly associated with newbies.

 

[togu]

Originally posted by FLiNcHY
I've learnt that money does not buy skill

*hint hint*

Now that's contradicting.... :devil: