thegf
Established
we care so much because of consumerism. it's the reason why we all buy the newest TVs with HD cable, and surely the reason why pixel-peeping exists.
in addition, we care so much because it's easier to complain about the issues with our gear than it is to complain about our chosen lifestyles that prevent growth as photographers, artists, etc. by blaming some thing, we can equate lack of skill with lack of equipment, which is correctable only through more consumption.
photography, like art, is good because its good.
in addition, we care so much because it's easier to complain about the issues with our gear than it is to complain about our chosen lifestyles that prevent growth as photographers, artists, etc. by blaming some thing, we can equate lack of skill with lack of equipment, which is correctable only through more consumption.
photography, like art, is good because its good.
back alley
IMAGES
some dead on answers here...at least they hit home for me.
i like my gear as is and know that the limiting factor is me and lack of time/opportunity to shoot.
but if i were to win the lottery tomorrow...would i go on a massive shopping spree?
i wonder...
i like my gear as is and know that the limiting factor is me and lack of time/opportunity to shoot.
but if i were to win the lottery tomorrow...would i go on a massive shopping spree?
i wonder...
SciAggie
Well-known
I think we are all in relative agreement that the form factor/ build quality/ joy of ownership is more the issue than any discernable image quality. I will confess that for those instances where maximum image quality is a must - I'm starting to feel an itch for a 4X5. I'm pretty sure I can get a complete setup for the cost of one Leica lens.
And to think there was once a time I was happy with my MX and couple of lenses...
And to think there was once a time I was happy with my MX and couple of lenses...
celluloidprop
Well-known
How you relate to your tools is important - whether that's basic ergonomics or something more undefinable ala 'feel' or in terms of format, how you see.
So if someone works better with a given lens or camera (because they grip it better, because they can carry it with them all the time, because etc. etc. etc., or even because they dropped $8k on it and by god they're going to use it a lot), the tool matters.
That said - even in big prints, I seriously doubt that 90% of people in a double-blind test could tell the difference in a Summilux ASPH I, a 'lux ASPH II... or a 35 Nokton MC. The dozens and dozens of other variables that lead up to making that print tend to obscure the differences between them.
So if someone works better with a given lens or camera (because they grip it better, because they can carry it with them all the time, because etc. etc. etc., or even because they dropped $8k on it and by god they're going to use it a lot), the tool matters.
That said - even in big prints, I seriously doubt that 90% of people in a double-blind test could tell the difference in a Summilux ASPH I, a 'lux ASPH II... or a 35 Nokton MC. The dozens and dozens of other variables that lead up to making that print tend to obscure the differences between them.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
I would I'm ashamed to admit ... an f.095 Noct and a cat would be very high on my list!
jky
Well-known
Not into bokeh, the "leica look", etc...
subject matter, composition - these are the things I really pay attention to.
So to me, no it doesn't matter.
subject matter, composition - these are the things I really pay attention to.
So to me, no it doesn't matter.
Brian Legge
Veteran
Lottery scenario, I'd replace some of my gear with stuff that was a bit more reliable.
I was a bottom feeder for a while and, now that I have a sense of what I'm using, I'm slowly ditching some of the less reliable items and am replacing them with stuff I trust a bit more.
Still, there are a lot of shots I miss because of low light. I'd probably put money down for one really fast lens. Probably still something on the cheaper side as I'd be too paranoid to carry a Noct around.
I was a bottom feeder for a while and, now that I have a sense of what I'm using, I'm slowly ditching some of the less reliable items and am replacing them with stuff I trust a bit more.
Still, there are a lot of shots I miss because of low light. I'd probably put money down for one really fast lens. Probably still something on the cheaper side as I'd be too paranoid to carry a Noct around.
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
The differences between good and best lenses are so minimal I prefer to say the lens doesn't matter at all.
I have NEVER seen a great photograph and said what a shame it wasn't done with a larger format and tripod...
Only for commercial photography highest sharpness counts, and Leica lenses are not good enough for that.
When we look at a photography book, if there are comments on a photograph, those are about the content, and some times about the ways the photographer decided to act, to get the shot... I have never seen any great book with a collection of great photographs where in front of them I can read this photograph was taken with the 35 summicron version 4...
Lens quality is as important as brush quality for a painter: the only way to give importance to those things is having an out of focus idea of what really matters.
But IMO gear matters: never the lens, but the camera as a well known, well chosen, well used tool for a given situation.
Cheers,
Juan
I have NEVER seen a great photograph and said what a shame it wasn't done with a larger format and tripod...
Only for commercial photography highest sharpness counts, and Leica lenses are not good enough for that.
When we look at a photography book, if there are comments on a photograph, those are about the content, and some times about the ways the photographer decided to act, to get the shot... I have never seen any great book with a collection of great photographs where in front of them I can read this photograph was taken with the 35 summicron version 4...
Lens quality is as important as brush quality for a painter: the only way to give importance to those things is having an out of focus idea of what really matters.
But IMO gear matters: never the lens, but the camera as a well known, well chosen, well used tool for a given situation.
Cheers,
Juan
f16sunshine
Moderator
I would I'm ashamed to admit ... an f.095 Noct and a cat would be very high on my list!
Ah...hahahah!
That's funny. Those two do seem mutually exclusive on the internet sometimes.
Vincent.G
Well-known
I take photos of my family everyday. They matter much more than the cameras and lenses I want.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
1 Quality threshold. Above a certain level, for a given print size, all lenses above the threshold are likely to be indistinguishable from one another. Lenses below the threshold are likely to show different degrees of different kinds of defects: lack of sharpness, low contrast, distortion... The threshold is not very high even for an 8x10 inch print, and on a monitor, it's very low indeed.
2 'Magic'. Some lenses suit some people so well that they are prepared to pay whatever they can afford. My 75 Summicron is such a lens for me. The 75/2.5 Voigtländer is very good, but not 'magic', and besides, as I rarely carry an SLR any more, it's useful to have one lens that focuses very close (by RF standards).
3 Some people see more differences than others. A friend of mine, an ex-editor of a photo magazine, invariably comments when he sees even an 8x10 from my 38 Biogon, "That's got to be a Biogon shot." I like the Biogon, but I don't see as much 'magic' as he does.
4 With a reasonable-sized wet print (i.e. not strained through a scanner and computer) differences are often much clearer.
5 Most of the time we are indeed looking at the picture, not for varying kinds of technical quality, but I'd lay odds that many people can see quite significant differences in technical quality between different prints if they bother to look, even in a blind test. This doesn't mean they can guess which lens was used, except perhaps in a very few cases such as a Thambar or 50/1.2 Canon, and then only at some apertures. Even then, I can't always tell the difference between my Thambar shots ($3000 ultra-rare Leitz) and my Dreamagon shots (100 euros from Monchrom).
6 There may be no alternatives for a particular camera, as with the Thambar, so unless you want to use/carry two systems, you may have to buy the expensive lens if you want a particular look.
Cheers,
R.
2 'Magic'. Some lenses suit some people so well that they are prepared to pay whatever they can afford. My 75 Summicron is such a lens for me. The 75/2.5 Voigtländer is very good, but not 'magic', and besides, as I rarely carry an SLR any more, it's useful to have one lens that focuses very close (by RF standards).
3 Some people see more differences than others. A friend of mine, an ex-editor of a photo magazine, invariably comments when he sees even an 8x10 from my 38 Biogon, "That's got to be a Biogon shot." I like the Biogon, but I don't see as much 'magic' as he does.
4 With a reasonable-sized wet print (i.e. not strained through a scanner and computer) differences are often much clearer.
5 Most of the time we are indeed looking at the picture, not for varying kinds of technical quality, but I'd lay odds that many people can see quite significant differences in technical quality between different prints if they bother to look, even in a blind test. This doesn't mean they can guess which lens was used, except perhaps in a very few cases such as a Thambar or 50/1.2 Canon, and then only at some apertures. Even then, I can't always tell the difference between my Thambar shots ($3000 ultra-rare Leitz) and my Dreamagon shots (100 euros from Monchrom).
6 There may be no alternatives for a particular camera, as with the Thambar, so unless you want to use/carry two systems, you may have to buy the expensive lens if you want a particular look.
Cheers,
R.
I use the serial port Microsoft Mouse that I bought in ~1985.
Yesterday I took out the 1938 Sonnar rather than the C-Sonnar with the M9. There is something comforting about using something old with something new.
Sparrow
Veteran
Good enough and easy to use does it for me every time, but, yes I care very much about the photos
Sparrow
Veteran
I would I'm ashamed to admit ... an f.095 Noct and a cat would be very high on my list!
... that, or a Harley Davidson and a ponytail
aad
Not so new now.
When my annual film costs exceeded the cost of a digicam that I liked, I jumped.
After I got used to it, the photos I took with the new camera looked pretty much like the old ones (except exposures generally were better and no scratches or dust to deal with).
Landscapes, I think, are one place where gear makes the difference, and by that I mean BIG film vs 35mm and such
Other than that, I see no correlation between gear/gas and the quality of the pictures.
After I got used to it, the photos I took with the new camera looked pretty much like the old ones (except exposures generally were better and no scratches or dust to deal with).
Landscapes, I think, are one place where gear makes the difference, and by that I mean BIG film vs 35mm and such
Other than that, I see no correlation between gear/gas and the quality of the pictures.
Ergonomics and user experience matter to me... as well as short focus throws, size, etc. As long as a lens is sharp at all f/stops with no shift, I'm cool with it.
Gary E
Well-known
Some of my favorite images were made from the Yashica D, Nikon Series E 50mm and the Leica 40mm Summicron-C. All relatively cheap lenses, and this made no difference to the pictures I liked or disliked. All can do the same effect. :angel:
PS: After using the two for quite some time now, I really believe the 40mm is a 35mm Summicron IV in disguise; only single coated of course.
PS: After using the two for quite some time now, I really believe the 40mm is a 35mm Summicron IV in disguise; only single coated of course.
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
I've found the handling of a lens (and a camera, too, of course) more important to me than its optical quality -- provided the latter is 'good enough'.
That's why I like my little Snapshot Skopar so very much: it's so easy to use with its click-stops on the distance ring -- a distance scale that I can feel! Wonderful!
On the other hand the Elmar-C is a very nice lens -- optically. Its very looong focus throw is a pain to use, though. (Probably not on a Leica CL as it was meant to be used, but I have no CL.)
So, yes, I think there is a difference. If you use lenses/cameras/whatever you like, you're familiar with, that don't get into your way, you're likely to make more images you're satisfied with. Unless you're a totally hopeless case, that is.
That's why I like my little Snapshot Skopar so very much: it's so easy to use with its click-stops on the distance ring -- a distance scale that I can feel! Wonderful!
On the other hand the Elmar-C is a very nice lens -- optically. Its very looong focus throw is a pain to use, though. (Probably not on a Leica CL as it was meant to be used, but I have no CL.)
So, yes, I think there is a difference. If you use lenses/cameras/whatever you like, you're familiar with, that don't get into your way, you're likely to make more images you're satisfied with. Unless you're a totally hopeless case, that is.
damien.murphy
Damien
Once you get the shot, ultimate quality then matters.
Now, as for getting the shot..
jippiejee
Well-known
Going through older pictures I felt embarrassed about all the unsharpness and motion blur in most of those; now I praise the faster lenses I've come to enjoy in the last year since getting into Leica m-mount glass. Two or three stops of light is a lot and has certainly helped me getting sharper quite a bit in natural light.