ebjo wrote in post #15625116
Lets re ask the question, did a 7x10 view camera or other old camera take as good a photo as the newest pro level cameras of today? Vision, angles, light, knowing what the camera can do all come into play . One should not depend on software to make the photo better. Yes one could say dodging and burning in the darkroom is like sort of using software of today. Therefore I would say the camera used is immaterial to how good a photo can be . Ansel Adams and other photographers would be the proof.
The camera not immaterial. Shooting swimming action sessions, with younger swimmers, I might have three good butterfly strokes before they completely fall apart and start looking like drowning victims. At this point, I don't know the swimmer, their rhythm, or where they look best in their stroke. I have three little 1/3 second bursts to catch them at their best. My 1D3 provides a fast continuous shot rate and brilliant autofocus to guarantee I will catch these brief moments.
With my T2i, I could get some shots, but I missed a whole lot, and had swimmers going back for 4 or 5 swims to try again and again. I barely made it work -- and some families were not happy with what I got. When I moved up to the 1D3, I could catch them in their first swim, compressed the whole group into a much shorter time span, and everyone got quality photos.
Could you shoot a 70-kid swim team with Ansel's 7x10 camera? Practically speaking, no. You could probably get a couple keepers in several hours of work.
It's not just sports either. What if you are shooting some tragedy as it unfolds? What if you are trying to capture wildlife and cannot safely get closer than the reach of a 400mm + 2x?