This Hilarious Australian Video Pokes Fun At Clueless DSLR Users

Everyone has a friend who packs all the gear, but has no idea. When it comes to photography, that means mates who run around with their shiny new DSLR, mouthing off about their love of photography, with next to no idea of how to use any of their kit. This video, by Sony Australia, boils that right down.

These people aren't hard to spot: they make a song and dance out of composition; their pointless integrated flash pops up when they don't expect it; and above all, they talk about their kit rather than just using it. We all know one: do the stereotypes match up with a friend of yours? [YouTube]


    Sounds like my friends who have Sony DSLR's lol.

    Now i've got the perfect video to send to all my clueless DSLR mates. Thanks Giz!

    Is this better than people with iphones instagramming everything?

      was looking at buying a car yesterday...
      all the pics of this car were instagrammed! w.t.f.

    So the point of this video is that...people don't know how to use the zoom function on the lens?

      I feel it points out the fact that even if you have the best equipment, doesn't mean you're a good photographer.... And the point of them doing that? The camera is not right for you, there will be a new Sony point and shoot, general camera with decent specs at an affordable price for the average photo taker coming out soon.

      Not really, real photograpers only use prime lenses baby ;) You zoom with your feet

    Totally agree, people shouldn't be allowed to do what they want with their money if it makes them happy. How dare they!

      I think you missed the point that the video makes about how annoying / inappropriate a lot of these peoples' behaviour is - eg guy smashing artwork, woman in restaurant

        Yes. I'm always going to resteraunts where people with DSLRs are photographing the fish tanks and customers, and as for people in galleries. well I own a gallery and always place delicate expensive pottery on foam pillars in the middle of the room and I cant tell you how many times silly photographers knock them over and then photo them. This video is so accurate its amazing.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Digital photography is the bastardisation of photography.

      it just means you don't understand photography. if you want the real film experience, at the end of a day's shooting, go to the post office, wait in a queue, buy a stamp, send the memory card to a fictitious address with your own address as the return sender. then enjoy the authentic analogue buzz of waiting a week or 2 for your photos to arrive at your door (or not).

      I would beg to differ.
      As mentioned by z3d, waiting for prints to be developed sucked big time.
      Not to mention that, unless you were doing your own developing ( a doddle with B&W, but a pain in the butt for color), you're stuck with someone else's interpretation of how the print should be developed re exposure, color saturation etc.
      This used to annoy the hell out of me when I was trying a new color filter for eg, or going for an unusual effect.
      Now with digital, I can work on the RAW data from the sensor and process the resultant image to my exact preferences any time that suits me.
      Hell, I can even get a look at the shot immediately after having taken it and make corrections as required. No can do THAT with film.
      Plus, I don't have to be worried about what I may be photographing and someone else looking at my images before I can. (remembering a gf once who was quite keen on "saucy" pics)

      No, far from bastardisation, I feel that digital is the liberation of photography.
      Get with the times man, and remember, no one says it has to be one or the other.
      Use whichever medium best suits your chosen subject matter.

        "someone else's interpretation of how the print should be developed re exposure, color saturation etc."

        Perhaps you should get your prints made in a darkroom as opposed to a machine.

          What are you talking about? You simply enjoy old school post-processing. Film, cameras, photo paper, the chemicals used to develop the paper was all made in machines. do you think it's a more organic process because you've taken all of these mass produced items and mixed it in a mass produced bucket in the dark yourself?

          The difference between the 2 avenues has literally nothing to do with photography. Photography is about capturing a moment or emotion. The camera is a bottle-neck with limitations that by which the photographer works with that makes them a "photographer". Photography starts with positioning, scene, framing, understanding light, knowing limitations of a camera and finishes the moment the shutter has closed.

          photo-reactive film vs photo-reactive sensor ... hmmm huge difference.

            You missed the point by a wide margin.

            If your prints came out a normal colour after using a filter, clearly you were using a minilab to have them developed, where the machine uses its sensors to detect colour cast etc, instead of being developed by an intelligent human in a darkroom, who would look at the neg and say "hmm, they must have used a red filter. There would be a reason for that. I will print this as-is".

          I think you missed the bit where I said .. " ( a doddle with B&W, but a pain in the butt for color) "
          Developing your own prints is fine if you want to spend your time developing rather than photographing. Nothing wrong with that, it's part of the "hobby" after all, but "processing" digital is simply far easier and far more flexible than film developing, then transfering that developed image onto yet another light sensitive medium. (the photographic paper involved).
          I'd rather be taking photos than developing them for the reasons I have already outlined.

            Also this human you are referring to is still the one who will determine that "hmm, they must have used a red filter. There would be a reason for that. I will print this as-is".
            What if it wasn't a red filter but a magenta / rose / ruby or any other shade. How does this person determine *exactly* the shade of filter I am using.?
            And how does that person determine exactly what "as is" is? He / she still has to set the calibration up.
            I want to be the one to make the decision, not someone else.
            With digital, I don't even need to use color filters or even effects filters like we used to as I can do all that *exactly to my liking* after the fact, and I can re-do as many times as I wish.
            Digital gives the artist full control.
            This is what I mean when I say digital is liberating rather than bastardising.
            Get it now :)

      I was not referring to or glamourising film at all. What I was referring to was the fact that during the film years, the hobby of photography was an art. It required skills and basic knowledge and understanding of aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, photo composition. Photographers thought themselves these things out of necessity because each shot cost $4-7 to take and one simply didn't put it on 12fps and fired away.

      These days it's all about shoot now, fix it later, or worste shoot now and pick a good one of the bunch. Many don't know even the very basics of camera operation such as 1/3rd rule and even was an f stop is.

      Digital age has made every camera toting person lazy and the art of it all has been diluted extremely thinly.

      Yes sure there is a lot of merit too, it is now cheaper, easier, and more mainstream and accessible. But I bet a vast majority of SLR toting masses who bought them don't know anything about their canner beyond "green" mode. And it is these same folk who bought an SLR wanting to "take better photos".

      A camera is just a box that captures light. Good photos comes from behind the viewfinder. Once people realise this simple fact and invest in knowledge rather than gear, they will benefit immensely.

      And anyway real photographers shot slides. So all this dark room chatter about post processing bla bla is meaningless. Slides were wysiwyg.

        Everything you say about the film years " ... the hobby of photography was an art " still applies as much today as it did years ago.
        Photography is still an art.
        Only the way that the image is recorded and presented has changed.
        This change is what makes it easier for an artist to take full control from composition to printing.

        " These days it's all about shoot now, fix it later, or worste (worse) shoot now and pick a good one of the bunch "
        Absolutely nothing has changed then.
        " simply didn't put it on 12fps and fired away. "
        Ever actually done a model shoot for eg?
        Motor drives whirring away madly, quick change film backs etc? All this was / is so you can indeed shoot now and choose the best possible image after processing.
        That's how professional photographers operate.
        No real photographer expects to get their "shot" on the first go.
        With digital, there's little or no wait for processing.

        " Digital age has made every camera toting person lazy and the art of it all has been diluted extremely thinly. '
        Every one of them??
        Speak for yourself maybe, but I for one, use my DSLR in (semi) manual mode 90% of the time.
        (Aperture priority is my preferred mode, but that's purely a personal choice thing as it better suits my personal creativity.)
        But more to the point, so what? More people taking photos and having a go at it. Brilliant.

        " A camera is just a box that captures light "
        Exactly. And digital captures better / faster / more reliably and significantly cheaper. ( for the most part).

        As for slides, yes. WYSIWYG certainly applies more so here than normal film, but not by as much as you might think.
        The accuracy of slide developing is still the weak link the same as with film / print processing.
        Slide film developing was still a chemical / temperature / time sensitive process and as such results can and did vary.

        Unless you are prepared to go through the hassles and drama of preparing your own chemicals and making a dark room and the expense of the gear needed to develop your own prints, and the time involved in doing so, then digital is the only way the artist can take full control of the final results.

        Film IS fun, but there's a very good reason it's been superseded.
        If film was so great, professional photographers would still be using it exclusively.

        There are 2 reasons I disagree with your point of view.

        Firstly, philosophically the professional photographers don't own photography. It is AMAZING that people who don't know anything about 1/3 rule or f-stops can have a brilliant camera inside their mobile phones to capture moments. If that means they take 100 shots and one is a photo they will treasure for their lives, then this is AMAZING, not bastardisation.

        Secondly, for those who consider photography a profession or hobby, digital photography has changed little. It is a lot cheaper to be a photographer, enthusiast or professional and definitely more people are doing it (like me) who have less creative talent. My strength is portraits from which I learned by taking a lot of shots initially and now can take single great shots. When I have a situation like when I took a pic of my wife and her visiting best friend, I take a burst of about 10 shots. In that second or 2. It doesn't cost anything. My photos are not as good as some professionals but to me they're amazing, they have more meaning than someone else taking the photos and give me a great appreciation for what great photographers produce.

        I think the biggest problem enthusiast/pro photographers have is that at one time, if you said you were a photographer, it was considered a difficult thing. These days, if you say you're a photographer, people think, "yeah good on you. I'm a photographer too. what do you think of the iphone 5 camera?". But pro-photography hasn't named. Perhaps you're just too worried about your image?

    haha, i still use my old olympus SLR(with film) & had to chuckle at the poser dude asking where I had got my retro style digital camera guy that one lol

    This video explains my MOTHER. Woman gets 2 lenses for her DSLR and considers herself a professional photographer... even to the point she offers her 'services' to my sons school as their official photographer for a discounted rate. I've seen their official photographers work, he's got nothing to fear. Dear god.

    I have still got my canon eos 300 film camera and i still use it with my 5d mark 2 and my 7d and but i still love using film and it has a nice grain look that is great for some photos. I still use b/w film and slide film. Just recently i got the new 24 to 70 f2.8 and 70 to 200 f2.8 and i have used them on the 5d mark 2 with the eos 300 film camera the lenses i'll wait until the rolls of film are used up and processed and i can have that done in half an hour depending how busy the lab is and it will be burned to a cd in a pro scanned. Scanned film looks great on the computer display at 2560 x 1440p. I like the grain effect with film and even better on B/W film. I like using B/W film that is c41 witch can be processed at a one hour lab and then have colour and B/W films pro scanned on a cd. But i do like like taking photos digital as well using the same lenses.

    Cool video. I only went fully digital at the end of last year. Up to then I'd been using a canon t70 and a Pentax spotmatic II. Had to change over be ause I just couldn't find anywhere to process film any more. I had been using an old second hand Nikon Coolpix 5700 for a few years and manged to get some great shots, but it was only really good for macro and landscapes due to shutter lag. Horses for courses I guess, but it amazes me how many people think they can get better photos just from buying a more expensive camera/lens. My current favourite setup is a Pentax 2.8, fixed 50 mm on an extension tube attached to my canon eos 550d. I just wish I could afford a full-frame digital camera for wide angle shots. Star trails are the one area where I think I'll always use film for, they're just not the same on digital.

    Whats wrong with taking pictures of the flowers? Am I missing something there?

      I did think the same thing at first.
      Then I had another look and it appears she may be trying to use a telephoto lens maybe?
      Otherwise, yeah, seems legit to me too. Go figure.

        Actually, there's nothing wrong with taking pictures of flowers. Macro/landscapes are what I do best. It was just a pain whenever I wanted to capture 'the moment' of anything other than still life, dealing with the shutter lag. Sorry if my post didn't make sense, but I'm not sure why you think I was using a telephoto lens.

    Real photography died..... waiting for reborn.....

    I don't see the point of this video. EVERYONE does it not necessarily with just cameras either!
    My car is faster than yours
    My pc is better
    my phone is better
    my house is bigger
    etc etc
    So what if they don't know how to use it properly, They can learn can't they,Have to start somewhere, If you got the cash but come by it the hardway why waste it on inexpensive "learning gear" and just get the best one from the start.
    Haters are gonna hate, And people are jealous.
    Let them look like dorks it's their gear and their money

    Wait.. so the youtube video criticizes people for using DSLR's in "Auto" mode and then brags about their Nex camera as "DSLR quality without the difficulty"??

    And the folks complaining about "real photography"? Get a grip. "Real computer users" died when the GUI was invented. "Real accountants" died with MYOB. "Real drivers" died with the automatic transmission. "Real cooks" died with microwave ovens.
    Clue: the "real" skilled folks are still there doing what they've always done, they may be lost in noise but they're still there. If you don't think so then perhaps you never were good enough to be counted amongst the skilled in the first place.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now