unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I have to admit, I'm a little perplexed by this thread. I honestly am not really sure what the subject is: "How important are the caveats relative to new camera specs?"
I take from that, that the question is: "When comparing new camera specifications, what are the hidden or unknown limitations and how important are those limitations?"
For example, a camera can record 4K video, but the quality of that video may be so compromised that is isn't usable for those who truly need 4K. Therefore, the specification sounds good and makes for good forum arguments, but in real world use it may not really make the camera better than one that does not record in 4K.
I believe that the key is knowing both, what your needs/wants are, and what the camera's capabilities are.
Both come from experience. I know, for example, that I need a high frame rate. I shoot a lot of sports and in sports photography, if the ball isn't in the picture, you've got nothing. There may be some photographers who are capable of anticipating the action and consistently catch shots at the critical moment when both the player and the ball are in the frame. I'm not that good and I prefer to have 12-14 frames per second to increase my odds.
But, I also know from experience (at least my experience) that Canon autofocus systems promise more than they deliver. (I don't know about other brands). That doesn't mean I don't like and rely on autofocus, it's just that I still feel it leaves a lot to be desired and that in many cases, I have much better luck with single point autofocus than I do with tracking. Possibly, I'm not using it correctly and I continue to learn, but I find that a multi-point system that picks the subject closest to the camera is seldom going to work for me. The odds of it focusing on the wrong team or on the net in a sport like volleyball, makes it less useful than the specifications promise.
I've also found that the top of the line camera can have problems -- Art Morris talks about oil spots. I don't know if it is oil or dust, but I can certainly confirm that the 1DX II has some serious dust magnet issues that I've never experienced with any other body. However, for me, I learn to live with that because there are compensating factors.
So, knowing your own needs and not getting caught up in specifications is one key. The other one that is seldom talked about is knowing the cameras. I've owned six Canon DSLRs (now have two-- 1DX II and 7DII.) With each model I've learned a little more and seen incremental improvements. I'm confident that when a new model comes out (such as the 7DIII), I will be able to compare what my 7DII is capable of and what the next model promises and determine if the improvements will be sufficient to justify buying the next model.
Too many people on these forums are looking for the perfect camera that will deliver everything and they are disappointed when the model that is actually released has some improvements but doesn't fix every weakness. I think it is much healthier and more realistic to look at the what the current model offers (and it's best if you own it and are familiar with it) and then take the improvements being touted and subtract about 50% of your hopes. If it's still worthwhile to you if the promised improvements only deliver about half of what you would like, then you'll be a lot happier with your purchase.
Specifications are nice and they are fun to talk about on Canon Rumors, but if you think the next model of anything will significantly improve your results, that's almost never the case. I look at each new feature and think not only about how that might benefit my photography but about how I will feel if it doesn't deliver as much as it promises. Autofocus is probably the prime example for me. Each new generation helps a little, but no improvement in autofocus is going to help as much as just practicing, practicing and more practicing.
I take from that, that the question is: "When comparing new camera specifications, what are the hidden or unknown limitations and how important are those limitations?"
For example, a camera can record 4K video, but the quality of that video may be so compromised that is isn't usable for those who truly need 4K. Therefore, the specification sounds good and makes for good forum arguments, but in real world use it may not really make the camera better than one that does not record in 4K.
I believe that the key is knowing both, what your needs/wants are, and what the camera's capabilities are.
Both come from experience. I know, for example, that I need a high frame rate. I shoot a lot of sports and in sports photography, if the ball isn't in the picture, you've got nothing. There may be some photographers who are capable of anticipating the action and consistently catch shots at the critical moment when both the player and the ball are in the frame. I'm not that good and I prefer to have 12-14 frames per second to increase my odds.
But, I also know from experience (at least my experience) that Canon autofocus systems promise more than they deliver. (I don't know about other brands). That doesn't mean I don't like and rely on autofocus, it's just that I still feel it leaves a lot to be desired and that in many cases, I have much better luck with single point autofocus than I do with tracking. Possibly, I'm not using it correctly and I continue to learn, but I find that a multi-point system that picks the subject closest to the camera is seldom going to work for me. The odds of it focusing on the wrong team or on the net in a sport like volleyball, makes it less useful than the specifications promise.
I've also found that the top of the line camera can have problems -- Art Morris talks about oil spots. I don't know if it is oil or dust, but I can certainly confirm that the 1DX II has some serious dust magnet issues that I've never experienced with any other body. However, for me, I learn to live with that because there are compensating factors.
So, knowing your own needs and not getting caught up in specifications is one key. The other one that is seldom talked about is knowing the cameras. I've owned six Canon DSLRs (now have two-- 1DX II and 7DII.) With each model I've learned a little more and seen incremental improvements. I'm confident that when a new model comes out (such as the 7DIII), I will be able to compare what my 7DII is capable of and what the next model promises and determine if the improvements will be sufficient to justify buying the next model.
Too many people on these forums are looking for the perfect camera that will deliver everything and they are disappointed when the model that is actually released has some improvements but doesn't fix every weakness. I think it is much healthier and more realistic to look at the what the current model offers (and it's best if you own it and are familiar with it) and then take the improvements being touted and subtract about 50% of your hopes. If it's still worthwhile to you if the promised improvements only deliver about half of what you would like, then you'll be a lot happier with your purchase.
Specifications are nice and they are fun to talk about on Canon Rumors, but if you think the next model of anything will significantly improve your results, that's almost never the case. I look at each new feature and think not only about how that might benefit my photography but about how I will feel if it doesn't deliver as much as it promises. Autofocus is probably the prime example for me. Each new generation helps a little, but no improvement in autofocus is going to help as much as just practicing, practicing and more practicing.
Upvote
0