So I live in this small town that's just a slice of America, with a Main Street chockfull of restaurants and small shops. And an honest to goodness record store. On a recent Saturday night, a crowd of teens overflowed onto the sidewalk as a band was thrashing away inside the shop window.
June 2012 Postscript. The record store is gone now. And the space is still empty. There are a number of empty retail spaces downtown - a sign of the times - but the neighborhood is still vibrant.
This was shot with the Panasonic GH2 in Feb 2011, not long after I got it. As I continue on my Pentax K-01 adventures I am trying to compare it to the GH2 and Micro Four-Thirds in general since I've more or less relegated the format to video. Part of me wants to say that the K-01 is a markedly better camera (dynamic range, noise, blah blah blah). And numerically it may be. There is more shadow detail. I can push and pull the RAW files more forcibly. And so on. But then I stumble upon an old photo like this, taken with a sensor that's too small according to some and that resorts to digital trickery with its lenses according to others and think, maybe the GH2 isn't a bad stills camera after all.
If I sound ambivalent and wishy washy about all of this, it's because I am. I do want good image quality, but I'm trying to walk the fine line between wanting it and it becoming the only thing that I want. First and foremost, I want to become a better photographer and a better cinematographer, and I need to constantly remind myself that the gear is the smallest part of the puzzle but paradoxically the easiest part to pursue.
There are very few bad cameras these days. The biggest difference between two cameras is the people holding them.
June 2012 Postscript. The record store is gone now. And the space is still empty. There are a number of empty retail spaces downtown - a sign of the times - but the neighborhood is still vibrant.
This was shot with the Panasonic GH2 in Feb 2011, not long after I got it. As I continue on my Pentax K-01 adventures I am trying to compare it to the GH2 and Micro Four-Thirds in general since I've more or less relegated the format to video. Part of me wants to say that the K-01 is a markedly better camera (dynamic range, noise, blah blah blah). And numerically it may be. There is more shadow detail. I can push and pull the RAW files more forcibly. And so on. But then I stumble upon an old photo like this, taken with a sensor that's too small according to some and that resorts to digital trickery with its lenses according to others and think, maybe the GH2 isn't a bad stills camera after all.
If I sound ambivalent and wishy washy about all of this, it's because I am. I do want good image quality, but I'm trying to walk the fine line between wanting it and it becoming the only thing that I want. First and foremost, I want to become a better photographer and a better cinematographer, and I need to constantly remind myself that the gear is the smallest part of the puzzle but paradoxically the easiest part to pursue.
There are very few bad cameras these days. The biggest difference between two cameras is the people holding them.
No comments:
Post a Comment