Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom

[old-pr-pix]

On the utility of cheap cameras
Three images of the same subject, cropped to the same field of view, and resized to 1000 pixels wide....
One from a 70D and a 55-250 at 250mm
One from a 6D2 and a 150-600 at 600mm
One from a SX50 at 1200mm (equivalent)

Don't try and tell me that there is no place for low end cameras, and in particular, superzooms. The only way I am going to beat that obsolete SX50 in this example is with a 5Ds and a 600F4..... and that's a whole lot more money than most of the world is willing to pay. Oh wait, I could get a 5 year newer superzoom that would beat it for distant objects.......

Thanks, Don - finally some evidence. As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.

 

[Talys]

On the utility of cheap cameras
Three images of the same subject, cropped to the same field of view, and resized to 1000 pixels wide....
One from a 70D and a 55-250 at 250mm
One from a 6D2 and a 150-600 at 600mm
One from a SX50 at 1200mm (equivalent)

Don't try and tell me that there is no place for low end cameras, and in particular, superzooms. The only way I am going to beat that obsolete SX50 in this example is with a 5Ds and a 600F4..... and that's a whole lot more money than most of the world is willing to pay. Oh wait, I could get a 5 year newer superzoom that would beat it for distant objects.......

Thanks, Don - finally some evidence. As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.

Don, I don't have a problem with your premise that superzooms have a place in photography, but I do have a problem with the examples.

1. The 70D with 55-250 is underexposed, and the 6D2 with 150-600 is either OOF, shakey, or both. I mean, I have a 6D2 and 150-600, and I have thousands of tack sharp photos at 600mm.

2. I would mount the 150-600 onto 7D, put it on tripod, acquire perfect focus, and take a remote trigger shot at ISO100, 800, and 2000. Then do the same with 6D2. Then with SX50 (with built in lens). This would give a much more complete picture of the cameras.

3. Each photo over base ISO should then be processed with LR for noise reduction, because at the end of the day nobody cares about the unprocessed raw.

4. You shouldn't compare APSC 250mm with FF 600mm with small sensor 1200mm equiv. - because ILC only has the promise of better results when you use the right optics (or you move closer, etc).

5. None of the photos are great. For a good test, there should be at least 1 baseline image that is great. Otherwise you're offering the least bad choice.

6. This overlooks the main objections with small sensor superzooms in real life use: Inferior performance at fast shutter speeds, and soft corners fully open, and at certain FR's. But this is also a problem with EFS consumer lenses. As you know, both are important in wildlife and sports because you need faster shutter speeds, and many crops will happen with the subject not just in the center.

7. This also overlooks a weakness in many superzooms, no filter threads. Maybe not an issue for many, but no ND and polarizers is a major disadvantage (for some, deal killers) for many types of landscapes. There is just no way to do a long exposure without an ND.

What this really highlights is that if you want to have a camera that you can whip out and photograph any subject at any distance, a superzoom is highly attractive. But if you want to take the best picture that you can (for example, an assignment), you'll produce better photographs using a big, heavy lens and a bigger sensor. And if you need the best photos possible at various types of subjects and distances in the same shoot, the only real choice is to carry multiple bodies.

All that said, I think it is indisputable that small superzooms are amazingly handy, and a vauable tool for a whole range of scenarios. A photo is better than no photo, and a superzoom photo is often better than a photowith the wrong lens on an ILC.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hmmmmph rip plonk.....the sound of goalposts being moved?

 

[Don Haines]

On the utility of cheap cameras
Three images of the same subject, cropped to the same field of view, and resized to 1000 pixels wide....
One from a 70D and a 55-250 at 250mm
One from a 6D2 and a 150-600 at 600mm
One from a SX50 at 1200mm (equivalent)

Don't try and tell me that there is no place for low end cameras, and in particular, superzooms. The only way I am going to beat that obsolete SX50 in this example is with a 5Ds and a 600F4..... and that's a whole lot more money than most of the world is willing to pay. Oh wait, I could get a 5 year newer superzoom that would beat it for distant objects.......

Thanks, Don - finally some evidence. As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.

Don, I don't have a problem with your premise that superzooms have a place in photography, but I do have a problem with the examples.

1. The 70D with 55-250 is underexposed, and the 6D2 with 150-600 is either OOF, shakey, or both. I mean, I have a 6D2 and 150-600, and I have thousands of tack sharp photos at 600mm.

2. I would mount the 150-600 onto 7D, put it on tripod, acquire perfect focus, and take a remote trigger shot at ISO100, 800, and 2000. Then do the same with 6D2. Then with SX50 (with built in lens). This would give a much more complete picture of the cameras.

3. Each photo over base ISO should then be processed with LR for noise reduction, because at the end of the day nobody cares about the unprocessed raw.

4. You shouldn't compare APSC 250mm with FF 600mm with small sensor 1200mm equiv. - because ILC only has the promise of better results when you use the right optics (or you move closer, etc).

5. None of the photos are great. For a good test, there should be at least 1 baseline image that is great. Otherwise you're offering the least bad choice.

6. This overlooks the main objections with small sensor superzooms in real life use: Inferior performance at fast shutter speeds, and soft corners fully open, and at certain FR's. But this is also a problem with EFS consumer lenses. As you know, both are important in wildlife and sports because you need faster shutter speeds, and many crops will happen with the subject not just in the center.

7. This also overlooks a weakness in many superzooms, no filter threads. Maybe not an issue for many, but no ND and polarizers is a major disadvantage (for some, deal killers) for many types of landscapes. There is just no way to do a long exposure without an ND.

What this really highlights is that if you want to have a camera that you can whip out and photograph any subject at any distance, a superzoom is highly attractive. But if you want to take the best picture that you can (for example, an assignment), you'll produce better photographs using a big, heavy lens and a bigger sensor. And if you need the best photos possible at various types of subjects and distances in the same shoot, the only real choice is to carry multiple bodies.

All that said, I think it is indisputable that small superzooms are amazingly handy, and a vauable tool for a whole range of scenarios. A photo is better than no photo, and a superzoom photo is often better than a photowith the wrong lens on an ILC.

Your points are all good. I agree with them.

I had a 5 minute opportunity before a meeting.... this was done by passing a SD card between 3 camera owners to shoot an antenna at the other end of a parking lot, on a very overcast day, just before sundown. We put the cameras into auto to make the comparison somewhat even. There was no opportunity nor time to do it right. I also do not know if the 6D2 owner or the 70D owner AFMAd their lenses.....

The point that I am trying to make is that every camera has a different set of advantages and disadvantages. There is no best camera. Some are better for cost, some are better for size, some for image quality, some for AF system, some for lenses, and some for various lighting conditions.... and then there is the photographer's goal.

If my goal was to make a beautiful image, they all suck. I would grab the 6D2 and the 150-600 lens, or better yet, a 300mm lens, and head back there on a clear night.... take some shots to get the exposure of the tower lights right, then some time exposures to get the stars.... and then off to photoshop!

If my purpose is a tower inspection, then the last picture is great. I put it in my report and say that the backup light bulb and casing is broken/missing and that the cables should be tied up better.

There is a time and a place for fancy cameras and big lenses. There is a time and a place for P/S cameras. There is a time and a place for superzooms and bridge cameras. there is a time and a place for very low cost introductory cameras. We choose what makes sense to us and our situation, but we also need to recognize that others will make different choices and to respect those choices.

 

[old-pr-pix]

... What this really highlights is that if you want to have a camera that you can whip out and photograph any subject at any distance, a superzoom is highly attractive...

All that said, I think it is indisputable that small superzooms are amazingly handy, and a valuable tool for a whole range of scenarios. A photo is better than no photo, and a superzoom photo is often better than a photo with the wrong lens on an ILC.

Well then, can we agree that the mere existence of the 55-250 hasn't obsoleted the value of Superzooms? And that anyone who chooses to buy a Superzoom isn't a de facto idiot? I have friends and neighbors waiting for the verdict!

 

[Richard CR]

Aspirational =/= inspirational.

CR writer straight-up completely misread and misunderstood what was being said.

not really.

to inspired by a camera, or for a camera to be something you aspire to are quite similar.

No, they're not. Categorically. This isn't a point of debate or a matter of opinion: 'inspire' and 'aspire' mean different things.

An inspirational camera would be one that gives you ideas for new, exciting photos.
An aspirational camera would be one that you hope to own.

You have to be inspired by photography to want to buy an ILC and any ILC that is on the market these days will work with that inspiration, even an 4000D has it's uses to fuel that inspiration. To suggest that a 4000D must be technology advanced to fuel aspirations in my mind is a dead issue and not something I really wanted to comment on, so I didn't really Because aspiration depends on economic, and other global factors that are really outside of the bounds of this. Not to mention, that's far more of a personal criteria. ANY camera on the market can be such a camera. The entire premise doesn't even make sense.

If I was going to talk about the 4000D being an aspirational camera or should have been, then I would have literally had a two sentence response and no real engagement in the forums. I decided to read and process it differently as to why the 4000D can still be purchased and used to inspire someone photographically.

Too often we tend to get critical on cameras because they have nothing in which to aspire to, especially as hobbyists. This is especially true about the lower end beginner cameras.

 

[9VIII]

On the utility of cheap cameras

Three images of the same subject, cropped to the same field of view, and resized to 1000 pixels wide....

One from a 70D and a 55-250 at 250mm

One from a 6D2 and a 150-600 at 600mm

One from a SX50 at 1200mm (equivalent)

Don't try and tell me that there is no place for low end cameras, and in particular, superzooms. The only way I am going to beat that obsolete SX50 in this example is with a 5Ds and a 600F4..... and that's a whole lot more money than most of the world is willing to pay. Oh wait, I could get a 5 year newer superzoom that would beat it for distant objects.......

Congratulations you've described and demonstrated exactly what I've been saying all along.

...
It would be a total mistake for almost anyone to buy a P&S Superzoom today. That last tiny group of people who might prefer the P&S would have to be buying the camera for one very specific location where you know that you can’t get away with anything less than a 2,000mm equivalent crop.

Superzooms are only good at maximum zoom. You're going to end up with 5% of your shots looking better, and the other 95% looking worse than if you had been using the SL2+55-250STM.

Look at this: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_sx60hs&attr13_1=nikon_cpp900&attr13_2=canon_eos200d&attr13_3=canon_eos70d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.12290810711880648&y=-0.803637186311947

How much cropping is that sensor noise worth?

And the P900 doesn't even shoot RAW!

One from a 70D and a 55-250 at 250mm

That had better be "The" 55-250 IS STM or else the comparison is almost fraudulent.
The 70D is clearly producing tons of noise, but it's also much worse than the SL2 in that aspect: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=845&Test=0&ISO=6400&CameraComp=1141&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400

...As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.

You've almost completely missed the point of the size comparison
This is basically the only angle that matters: http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.389,385,612,da,b
The fact that the P900 is also so close to the length (back LCD to front lens element) of the SL2+55-250STM makes it absolutely the worst example of a "compact superzoom".

The SX50IS is a bit more compact, but at what cost? It's still less than half as good as the SL2 in 90% of shooting situations and cuts you off from using the camera in any other capacity (Portraits, Macro, almost anything indoors).

 

[old-pr-pix]

...As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.

You've almost completely missed the point of the size comparison
This is basically the only angle that matters: http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.389,385,612,da,b ...

While I totally agree the size of the P900 is almost worst case for a Superzoom, I don't agree that the only important dimension of a camera is its back side. Yet, here is what I use for hiking: http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.389,385,612,594,da,b note how much smaller the Olympus is than the SL-2. Its lenses are smaller as well and it's fully weather sealed! Not everyone is driven to make every photo the absolute technical best - there are a lot of folks who just want an all-around 'good enough' camera. They are the same ones who accepted 4x6 mini-lab prints that were slightly soft and had a greenish tint and thought they were wonderful because 'Aunt Mary' had such a nice smile. Those folks don't want to carry extra lenses (remember all those wide angle shots the 55-250 doesn't cover!), they don't even want to know how to change lenses. I get it, that isn't you! But, what works for you may well not work for others.

 

[9VIII]

...As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.

You've almost completely missed the point of the size comparison
This is basically the only angle that matters: http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.389,385,612,da,b ...

While I totally agree the size of the P900 is almost worst case for a Superzoom, I don't agree that the only important dimension of a camera is its back side. Yet, here is what I use for hiking: http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.389,385,612,594,da,b note how much smaller the Olympus is than the SL-2. Its lenses are smaller as well and it's fully weather sealed! Not everyone is driven to make every photo the absolute technical best - there are a lot of folks who just want an all-around 'good enough' camera. They are the same ones who accepted 4x6 mini-lab prints that were slightly soft and had a greenish tint and thought they were wonderful because 'Aunt Mary' had such a nice smile. Those folks don't want to carry extra lenses (remember all those wide angle shots the 55-250 doesn't cover!), they don't even want to know how to change lenses. I get it, that isn't you! But, what works for you may well not work for others.

Everyone Has A Smartphone!!!
No one ever needs to change lenses! (Most Rebel owners don't!)
The wide angle on your Superzoom is utterly redundant, heck it's probably worse than the average smartphone camera now, and you're massively complicating things by asking someone to use a dedicated camera to take pictures of "aunt Mary" when that introduces about a dozen steps between the taking of the picture and uploading it to facebook.
And if anyone mentions the use of a P&S Superzoom they'll be disappointed because everyone else will just say "my smartphone is just as good as your $500 camera", because most of those people would be right in saying that.

All the "good enough" people have all the camera they want in their phone, and practically every advanced camera on the market today still has the green box mode just in case a non-photographer picks one up.
99% of the people who want more than a smartphone would be wasting their money on a Superzoom. Only the tiny fraction of people who specifically want to shoot at the most extreme lengths actually want what a P&S Superzoom offers.

An entry level APS-C body is an order of magnitude better than the Superzoom Point and Shoot or any Smartphone. If everyone would learn that then the P&S market would effectively die out instantly.
The only "Point and Shoot" models left would be advanced ones with big sensors that are based on ILC systems and only differentiate themselves by integrating the lens to save space.

 

[stevelee]

I was in Hawaii for most of December and went to four islands. I did some day tours with groups. Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture. A phone is the best camera for that: just hit a button, and the face of the phone becomes the viewfinder.

A friend yesterday posted that while I was at the Smithsonian, I should take a picture of myself beside Archie Bunker’s chair. Worst picture I’ve ever taken, except maybe some with my thumb over the lens. I had to find the button to change to the front camera. And then I never could get both myself and a significant portion of the chair in the picture at the same time.

I don’t have any idea of the point of superzooms: certainly bad for selfies, and for my style of photos. I use a G7X II for travel, and rarely feel limited by the reach of the 100mm equivalent long end. There’s enough resolution to crop for most of my purposes. I more often feel constrained on the wide (24) end, and stitch panoramas. With my 6D2 I find the almost exact equivalent range of the STM kit lens covers the vast majority of what I shoot. I will replace the bad 75-300mm I got with my first Rebel some time, but no rush. I might get a 16-35mm first.

 

[LDS]

Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture.

Susan Sontag wrote "Most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter. Unsure of other responses they take a picture. This gives shape to experience: stop, take a photograph, and move on."

Now they feel compelled to put themselves between the camera and whatever is remarkable - it's the self-centered world of social networks, where "social" gets a twisted meaning.

In some ways, cameras like the 2/4000D which are not selfie-friendly, can help to bring back the idea photography is something more, and often is an exercise in "seeing better".

 

[unfocused]

Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture.

Susan Sontag wrote "Most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter. Unsure of other responses they take a picture. This gives shape to experience: stop, take a photograph, and move on."

Now they feel compelled to put themselves between the camera and whatever is remarkable - it's the self-centered world of social networks, where "social" gets a twisted meaning.

In some ways, cameras like the 2/4000D which are not selfie-friendly, can help to bring back the idea photography is something more, and often is an exercise in "seeing better".

I read a statement in a social media marketing text that has stuck with me and speaks volumes: "Instead of preserving images for posterity, photos are now seen as visual representations of fleeting moments, often quite small and trivial, to be captured and put aside."

I am afraid we are too far down that path to ever turn back and I doubt that any camera will change that fact.

 

[NancyP]

Superzooms are popular with traveling birders who want "identification" photos, not necessarily prize-winning photos. Photographing birds is a great way to improve your observational and identification skills as a birder. I suppose that a spotting lens and Any Phone or PS serves the same purpose well.

For most travel not involving wildlife watching, a 24 to 70 (or 100) mm equivalent lens works very well.

 

[scyrene]

Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture.

Susan Sontag wrote "Most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter. Unsure of other responses they take a picture. This gives shape to experience: stop, take a photograph, and move on."

Now they feel compelled to put themselves between the camera and whatever is remarkable - it's the self-centered world of social networks, where "social" gets a twisted meaning.

In some ways, cameras like the 2/4000D which are not selfie-friendly, can help to bring back the idea photography is something more, and often is an exercise in "seeing better".

Meh. My perspective is very different, and I'll make two brief points. First, I've spent my life doing the opposite - taking photogaphs of other things, and almost never myself or people in general. And now I regret that the record of my own life is missing big chunks. I have lots of bland, generic shots of buildings, landscapes, sunsets, market stalls from holidays, which could have been taken by anyone. We ourselves are unique - whereas most of our experiences are not. I value 1000x more a shot of a person who mattered to me, in a time long gone, than all but the very best shots of things or places (except where those places have also irrevocably changed and haven't been photographed by many others).

Second, unless people enjoy photography in and of itself (and it seems most people don't), trying and failing to get the shots is frustrating, disheartening, and perplexing. People wonder, why did my shot look like that glossy photo in the brochure? So nowadays my advice in general (emphatically only to non-enthusiasts when they ask) is, don't bother trying to take good pics on holiday of the places you go, and don't take a dedicated camera. There's already thousands of perfect shots of famous places and things - taken by people with the right gear, the right knowledge, or edited to mass taste (and even if your shots *do* turn out well, they'll just be more of the same). Take a phone, snap a bit if you like, but just enjoy yourself.

This probably makes me sound very jaded, but obviously it doesn't apply if you like photography. Then the process is a goal in itself. Of course even the best and most motivated may not create the images they want, but so long as the process brings pleasure, it ultimately shouldn't matter.

 

[Talys]

Second, unless people enjoy photography in and of itself (and it seems most people don't), trying and failing to get the shots is frustrating, disheartening, and perplexing. People wonder, why did my shot look like that glossy photo in the brochure? So nowadays my advice in general (emphatically only to non-enthusiasts when they ask) is, don't bother trying to take good pics on holiday of the places you go, and don't take a dedicated camera. There's already thousands of perfect shots of famous places and things - taken by people with the right gear, the right knowledge, or edited to mass taste (and even if your shots *do* turn out well, they'll just be more of the same). Take a phone, snap a bit if you like, but just enjoy yourself.

This probably makes me sound very jaded, but obviously it doesn't apply if you like photography. Then the process is a goal in itself. Of course even the best and most motivated may not create the images they want, but so long as the process brings pleasure, it ultimately shouldn't matter.

I think there is great wisdom in this.

Amazing photography is just like any other art, craft, or skill. If you want stuff that's as good as what you see commercially, you'll need to spend a lot of time learning and improving, and the improvements will come very gradually with successes interspersed with failures. If you don't want to do that, save yourself the grief and money, pick up that smartphone and record a happy memory and move on.

On the other hand, there ARE people who get the photography bug!

 

[slclick]

Second, unless people enjoy photography in and of itself (and it seems most people don't), trying and failing to get the shots is frustrating, disheartening, and perplexing. People wonder, why did my shot look like that glossy photo in the brochure? So nowadays my advice in general (emphatically only to non-enthusiasts when they ask) is, don't bother trying to take good pics on holiday of the places you go, and don't take a dedicated camera. There's already thousands of perfect shots of famous places and things - taken by people with the right gear, the right knowledge, or edited to mass taste (and even if your shots *do* turn out well, they'll just be more of the same). Take a phone, snap a bit if you like, but just enjoy yourself.

This probably makes me sound very jaded, but obviously it doesn't apply if you like photography. Then the process is a goal in itself. Of course even the best and most motivated may not create the images they want, but so long as the process brings pleasure, it ultimately shouldn't matter.

I think there is great wisdom in this.

Amazing photography is just like any other art, craft, or skill. If you want stuff that's as good as what you see commercially, you'll need to spend a lot of time learning and improving, and the improvements will come very gradually with successes interspersed with failures. If you don't want to do that, save yourself the grief and money, pick up that smartphone and record a happy memory and move on.

On the other hand, there ARE people who get the photography bug!

Great posts. I have an rare opportunity to return to a destination this next June which I was just at last December. I took the little gear, the M5 kit and while I did take my time and employ the best photographic practices I could with the new body and lenses it was still closer to iphone photography all in all than the experience if I would have packed my FF gear and tripod/filters etc. Family was a key issue, you all know the drill, no one wants to wait and you need to venture off alone before they all wake up and whatnot. But this June I will be without kids, will take the big bag and my time as well. It's taken many years to get to know what to pack, what not to bring and just how to live in the moment without thinking photographically and truly being present.

 

[stevelee]

Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture.

Susan Sontag wrote "Most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter. Unsure of other responses they take a picture. This gives shape to experience: stop, take a photograph, and move on."

Now they feel compelled to put themselves between the camera and whatever is remarkable - it's the self-centered world of social networks, where "social" gets a twisted meaning.

In some ways, cameras like the 2/4000D which are not selfie-friendly, can help to bring back the idea photography is something more, and often is an exercise in "seeing better".

Sontag’s remark reminds me of why I went some years leaving cameras at home when I traveled. Back when I was more serious about photography, I tended to shoot pictures rather than see things and do things. It was only in 2000 that I felt like I could venture taking a camera along. I did fairly well until I got to Prague. I bought more slide film every day by the Charles Bridge. If I ever go back, it will be unashamedly a photo trip. And beer drinking, and I’m not that fond of beer, but Czech beer is that good.

The G7X II is small enough not to get in my way. I took a helicopter ride on Hawaii and shot video during it. I just held the camera pointed in the general direction where I was looking and only occasionally glanced at the screen. The result was pretty decent after I edited it. It and the video I bought from the helicopter company’s video of our trip document my experience. I similarly shot video watching a Blue Angels practice run in Pensacola in sun too bright to see the screen, just pointing the camera in the right general direction without being in my way of watching it live. Most of the video was surprisingly good.

My travel photos reflect me more than if I were in the pictures. They document what I saw and the way I saw them. My RAW/Photoshop edits are largely efforts to make the pictures reflect how things looked to me then.

In August when I shot the total eclipse with my T3i, I promised myself that I would quit shooting during totality and just enjoy the rare experience. But when the time came, there I was unscrewing the filter and fiddling with exposure guesses. I did look at it with my eyes and looked around at the crowd and took a few crowd and ambiance shots with the G7X II. The minute and a half seemed like seconds, and I still mix regret that I did that with the pleasure of having the photos, including a diamond ring shot just as totality ended.

I’m in Washington DC for a basketball tournament and have visited some of the museums on the Mall. I didn’t even take my camera with me today. I used the iPhone to shoot the guy in a giant gecko outfit sitting near me, and that was about it.

 

[Don Haines]

For me, Nirvana is the camera and a solo canoe. With it along, I tend to explore more and notice things more.... without it, paddling can degenerate into getting somewhere or just exercise.

 

[LDS]

Meh. My perspective is very different, and I'll make two brief points. First, I've spent my life doing the opposite - taking photogaphs of other things, and almost never myself or people in general. And now I regret that the record of my own life is missing big chunks. I have lots of bland, generic shots of buildings, landscapes, sunsets, market stalls from holidays, which could have been taken by anyone.

There's a big difference between pictures of our life - even self-portraits - and selfies. Selfies are too identical to each other, it''s their very nature, and rather always excluding the environment but small pieces just to show enough to tell one wasn't at home.

Self-portraits are an ancient form of art - but they were still made to tell something. Selfies, with their identical framing and pose, face expression, in-phone filters, etc. etc. tells nothing, and there's an inherent "fakeness" in them, and a dose of selfishness.

I prefer by far candid shots which tells far more about my life, the people around me, and the environment they were made in - and sure, nowadays you can take good ones with a good smartphone camera too.

One risk is smartphone photography is too "fashion-driven", people are forced into thinking they have to do like "everybody else", or better, a restricted number of "influencers" (often paid) do - and they have to use the same imagery and channels because it's there where big money through ads are made.

I think anything that goes against this huge drive to conformity is welcome.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi Folks.
A far more interesting topic than the original, fascinating how threads evolve much like personal conversations!
When asked why I take photos my response is “I’m behind the camera because I hate being in front of it.”
I hate pictures of me unless they are completely candid, if I see you lining up a shot I wil turn away, that is how strongly I feel about it.
Yes I have little or no proof that I have been anywhere very much, but I have seen and done many things of interest to me and at present I can remember them! Whether being dipped along with the sheep as a child whilst on summer holiday at a farm will change that I don’t know? ;D

Cheers, Graham.

Meh. My perspective is very different, and I'll make two brief points. First, I've spent my life doing the opposite - taking photogaphs of other things, and almost never myself or people in general. And now I regret that the record of my own life is missing big chunks. I have lots of bland, generic shots of buildings, landscapes, sunsets, market stalls from holidays, which could have been taken by anyone.

There's a big difference between pictures of our life - even self-portraits - and selfies. Selfies are too identical to each other, it''s their very nature, and rather always excluding the environment but small pieces just to show enough to tell one wasn't at home.

Self-portraits are an ancient form of art - but they were still made to tell something. Selfies, with their identical framing and pose, face expression, in-phone filters, etc. etc. tells nothing, and there's an inherent "fakeness" in them, and a dose of selfishness.

I prefer by far candid shots which tells far more about my life, the people around me, and the environment they were made in - and sure, nowadays you can take good ones with a good smartphone camera too.

One risk is smartphone photography is too "fashion-driven", people are forced into thinking they have to do like "everybody else", or better, a restricted number of "influencers" (often paid) do - and they have to use the same imagery and channels because it's there where big money through ads are made.

I think anything that goes against this huge drive to conformity is welcome.