3 examples where the right tool was not used for the right job

[Zachadoodle]

Before Christ during the Roman empire or Greek empire, the buildings were mainly used with carts and wooden nails and wooden mallets. Now if we were to do it we would use a drill, screws, and several other tools.

This next example may work against my point, back during the Civil War soldiers in desperate need of surgery without the use of nearby medics or doctors had to rely on using a hacksaw, tweezers, and alcohol to survive from deadly bullet wounds.

Lastly way way way back then when our ancestors were cooking they had no access to stoves and microwaves so they cooked everything over a bon fire.

Here is a bonus example, when you go out driving a couple of times you'll see cars so beat up that you got to wonder if it's safe for the road, but because people lack finances to have them they drive it.

So if people got through with the wrong tool for the wrong job and were fine, couldn't the same be for cameras?

 

[CharlesPapert]

Sure. You can shoot anything on any camera you want. You might have to work harder or longer to get the results you want, so that's a factor in your shooting day. If you shoot on an older camera that doesn't have log or raw, you'll have far less dynamic range so you need to take more steps to controlling the image if that is your concern. For example, balancing an interior with a hot window--you'll need more light inside, or ND on the windows. Both of which mean more time and possibly money to achieve the same result as you might get with a modern camera that has more dynamic range.

Ultimately, it comes down to how much you care about the image in your finished product. And also how much longevity you want the project to have. Things that I shot 15 years ago on Canon DSLR's that I was satisfied with at the time don't look very good any more compared to modern sensors. In most of your examples you are talking about getting through a process where the end result was momentary and fleeting, not a piece of work or art that had a legacy life.

 

[Zachadoodle]

Sure. You can shoot anything on any camera you want. You might have to work harder or longer to get the results you want, so that's a factor in your shooting day. If you shoot on an older camera that doesn't have log or raw, you'll have far less dynamic range so you need to take more steps to controlling the image if that is your concern. For example, balancing an interior with a hot window--you'll need more light inside, or ND on the windows. Both of which mean more time and possibly money to achieve the same result as you might get with a modern camera that has more dynamic range.

Ultimately, it comes down to how much you care about the image in your finished product. And also how much longevity you want the project to have. Things that I shot 15 years ago on Canon DSLR's that I was satisfied with at the time don't look very good any more compared to modern sensors. In most of your examples you are talking about getting through a process where the end result was momentary and fleeting, not a piece of work or art that had a legacy life.

There are graffiti artists who are well known for using paints not meant for painting; an example is Banksy.

 

[Alex H.]

Not sure your point here, Zach.

Ancient construction and pre-historic cooking on open fires… those are cases of using the right tool for the job, and using the best tools known and available at the time. The Civil War example is simply a matter of survival. None of these apply to cameras.

And Banksy? Last I checked, he uses spray paint, which is the go-to for graffiti. Not sure what “paints not meant for painting” are.

Charles is spot on. Technologies change, and cameras that might have impressed us 20 years ago may seem quite dated by today’s standards.

Your T2i is a very dated, very basic camera. Yes, it can capture decent images, but it needs light. The image quality is also going to be limited to what that older sensor is capable of rendering, even with the Magic Lantern hack. I had one of those, back when they were the new thing, and shot some decent images with it. But there was always something a little less than great due to the resolution of the sensor.

Like any camera, old or new, the lens is the first and most important factor, as that’s the first thing the light passes through and it affects the image for better or worse. The image cannot get any better than what the lens captures, so start with good glass. The camera’s ability to capture and render images will affect the final image. Past that, it takes good light to shape the image. As Charles pointed out, you may have to work harder to achieve good results with a less-capable camera.

 

[Zachadoodle]

I'm referencing guerilla filmmaking.

Spray paint I don't think was meant for painting on walls to create murals, but instead to paint, for example, outdoor furniture like a lawn chair. You go to the hardware store you'd see that these spray paints aren't exactly meant for artistic purposes; to quote a Wikipedia article: "The product's presence in the United States goes back to 1949, when it was designed with the purpose of painting radiators with aluminum paint."

I think it's the same story for mirrorless, DSLR, and smartphones; a phone was meant for calls, and the other two were meant for photos. As for outdated camera equipment, Star Wars Episode 3 was shot on a 1080p studio camera, yet it's remembered like it was yesterday. Any camera now can have as good of quality as a Sony HDC-F950 (Star Wars Episode 3 camera). Meaning, we can make as a good as a film with nearly any camera now due to the advancements of camera technology.

Creatively speaking, to me the result is more important than the tool used.