Frank Theriault wrote:
'I think maybe the relevent question might be "which camera has a higher ratio of interesting photos to duds?"'
That question could probably be better phrased as "which photographer has the higher ratio of interesting photos to duds?" or "which camera brand / type has the higher ration of interesting photos to duds?" That last question may be the one that Shel was actually posing. My answer to it would be: it depends on your definition of interesting. A Nikon 35mm slr or a Graflex press camera would probably be my answer.
"And I'm not saying that taking piles and piles of photos with a smaller ratio of "winners" is a bad thing - it's always been said that taking lots of photos is a key to improving."
I don't know if I agree with that. I believe that the key to improving is to slow down, take your time and think about what you're doing. John Shaw recommends asking yourself the questions: "what is it about this subject that I find interesting" and "how can I best capture that characteristic using the equipment that I have?" That method obviously wouldn't work for a sports photographer but it's certainly helped me improve my average.
"BUT, taking 10,000 photos and indescriminately deleting 9,900 of them without learning "what went wrong" or what's improvable, isn't doing much good either."
I definitely agree.
"I do think it's interesting (but maybe totally meaningless in the overall scheme of things) that 70 year old Leicas are still ticking and taking great photos."
It's certainly a testament to Leica build quality. It may also say something about those who own and use Leica cameras.
"My guess is that the current crop of DSLR's will all be out of service in 10 years (if not sooner). Indeed, the current digital photo capture/storage system may be completely out of date and unusable by then."
No comment. I don't want to get the Digiphiles riled up anymore than they already are.
Tom Reese
