So what's wrong with these statements:
"I bought a car that will go 140. So I'm darn well going to drive 140—I certainly didn't pay for car with a top speed of 140 to drive it at 80!"
"My winter coat is rated to –30°F. So I don't see the point of wearing it unless it's at least –25° outside. Why would I pay for a winter coat that keeps you warm at –30° and then wear it when it's only +10°?
It seems to me I hear comments about photo equipment that are similar to these with increasing frequency these days.
Of course it's up to each individual how they feel, and I don't mean to criticize.
One comment I've encountered is that Micro 4/3 cameras are supposed to be small, so they can't see the point of, say, the Panasonic GH4, because it's large. I get criticized sometimes because the NEX-6
Seems pretty handy to me though. I once owned a Nikon F4!
Why would you buy a Fuji 50–140mm ƒ/2.8 zoom, when it's large? Isn't mirrorless supposed to be small?
Another common one is when people think they have to shoot an ƒ/1.4 lens at ƒ/1.4...otherwise, why did they pay extra for the big maximum aperture? So they shoot at ƒ/1.4 every time—even when it's obviously not enough depth of field.
I just seem to encounter this attitude a lot, is all. "I paid for feature X, and I'm damn well going to use feature X—every single chance I get."
I don't think the basic attitude there is a very sensible one. You pay for features so they're there when you might need them, is all. And sometimes, you sacrifice certain features to get other features you need more.
That one about having to shoot a fast lens wide open every time is the one that best highlights the discrepancy for me. I spent the first half of my life avoiding large apertures, because most lenses perform at their worst wide open. And nowadays, I see lots and lots (and lots) of pictures that are taken with what I think are inappropriately wide apertures—pictures in which the photographer has reflexively tried to maximize the amount of blur, but just doesn't have everything in focus that (in my judgment) ought to be.
A large Micro 4/3 camera isn't a non sequitur...just because it's got "micro" in the name doesn't mean everything associated with it must be tiny. Maybe another camera that uses all your Micro 4/3 lenses can be tiny. You can have a large lens for a mirrorless camera—don't worry, some of your other lenses can take advantage of the compactness of the mirrorless concept. You can own an ƒ/1.2 lens even if you don't use it at ƒ/1.2 very often. Hey, the big stop is there if and when you need it. And maybe you really will need it now and then. Just having it there for peace of mind might be enough to justify the extra cost for some owners.
Two photographers are walking in Central Park. A flying saucer lands and Elvis comes down the ramp riding a unicorn. The first photographer says, "And I don't have a camera with me! Where's that pocketable digicam you bought?" Second photographer says, "I paid for a pocketable camera, and damn it, it's staying in my pocket!"
Don't take this personally. You're entitled to use your own equipment however you like.
As I sometimes say, though, I'm just sayin'.
Mike
Original contents copyright 2014 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Shore these possessions against thy ruin
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
No featured comments yet—please check back soon!
