Big vs Little

[Bill Pierce]

When film was dominant, camera size was important. You could always have a 35mm camera hanging from your shoulder and ready to shoot - a 4x5 view camera, not so much. As for medium format - as its name implied, it was somewhere in between.

These days the majority of my cameras are digital and mirrorless, and it’s lens size that determines whether it’s a rig that is easy to carry around all the time or, like the view camera, only comes out for special ocassions. Certainly there are some big lenses that are worth it. The Sony 135/1.8 and the Sigma 35/1.2 Art or 40/1.4 Art and very good and very big. It’s obvious that these are not everyday They are there for when you need the speed or the look of their wide open performance.

The catch is that with the quality of high ISOs in recent digital cameras, you are going to use these lenses for their look wide open. I think that what disturbs me is the selling of expensive high-speed lenses, physically big lenses, as the choice for everyday shooting at a range of f/stops. Smaller, less expensive lenses can certainly come in a range of qualities, but there are some that are outstanding. The manual focus Zeiss Loxia and 35 and 50 Voigtander Apo-Lanthars are very good lenses made all the smaller by being manual focus. But a number of camera manufactures in addition to independents Sigma, Tamron,,Samyang and Rokinon provide relatively small auto focus lenses. My own experience is limited to Fuji, Sony and Sigma, but a full frame Sony with Sony 24/2.8 and 40/2.5 along with a Sigma 65/2 fit in the same camera bag that can only hold the same body with a single 24/70 zoom and isn’t big enough if the body has any of the big boys mentioned earlier.

My objection isn’t to big high-speed lenses; I love them. But I do object to manufacturers pitching them as all purpose lenses at a time when digital performance at higher ISOs and optical design that includes computer correction are giving really good results from working rigs that are smaller in both size and price. What is your experience?

 

[jsrockit]

My own experience is limited to Fuji, Sony and Sigma, but a full frame Sony with Sony 24/2.8 and 40/2.5 along with a Sigma 65/2 fit in the same camera bag that can only hold the same body with a single 24/70 zoom and isn’t big enough if the body has any of the big boys mentioned earlier.

Well, it wasn't so long ago that Sony didn't have those lenses. That 65mm F2 is a hell of a lens. Love it, but hated my Sony once again. Scrapped it and bought the GFX-50R with 50mm 3.5 as my high res camera. Went back to Fuji X and Ricoh GR cameras for everything else. Why? because I like small lenses on small format cameras. Thankfully, I just bought the Voigtalnder 35mm 1.2 for Fuji X if I need a fast lens and also have the Sigma 56mm 1.4, which are both tiny for what they are.

But I do object to manufacturers pitching them as all purpose lenses at a time when digital performance at higher ISOs and optical design that includes computer correction are giving really good results from working rigs that are smaller in both size and price. What is your experience?

Well, they have to make money. The cheaper smaller stuff doesn't make as much $ and bokeh / low light video is hot. Plus, some people just like big cameras and big lenses.

 

[JeffS7444]

I still still sometimes struggle with the notion that optical excellence can be had at modest expense, and need not be promoted as a flagship product - yes, ego gets in the way sometimes! I could benefit from being more open to high-value lenses like SEL35F18.

 

[580/Q]

I go back and forth. I actually like depth of field and even then an f2 or even a 2.8 will, if one gets the distances right, give as much blur to a background as I want. This means that small wins out 80 percent of the time. I have a D3 with a 20-35 2.8 that could be a cudgel. And, while the files are gorgeous, I can't say that they are any better and in some ways they are in fact of lesser quality than the files out of the GR III with the 21mm on it - at a quarter of the size of the D3 20-35 combo. And, there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with the files coming out of the X100F at 35mm equivalent.

But every once in a while I put the 50mm 1.4 on either a FF or APS-C body and mush everything out except for the subject. (Irony - I often shoot that lens at 2.0. Go figure.)

Best,

S

 

[boojum]

I have a Sony A7 III. I have the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and the Sony 24 - 240 zoom. Both are good lenses. People do not pixel peep a good photo. People do not much pixel peep photos at all other than the photographer. So who are the photos for? I hope other folks enjoy mine. If the detail and focus are not perfect, meh. I do the best I can. These Sony shots are all autofocus and autoexposure because the camera is smarter than I am and a lot quicker.

Here are three I like. The first is with the 55 at high ISO and has noise. The second is with the 55 and is wide open and high ISO and also has noise. The last is with the 24 - 240 and it is low ISO. The photos are pretty good. My position is that we do not always have easy choices and I could be out taking pictures instead of pondering the weightier aspects of cameras. I'll take the tool I have that does the job. The photos:

https://flic.kr/p/L3hsrV

https://flic.kr/p/2dUiVz4

https://flic.kr/p/zRtcKC​

Let me add this, a night photo with the 24 - 240 zoom wide open (f/3.5}, 24mm, ISO 6400. This camera works.

​

 

[Dogman]

I'm of the opinion that people make the best photos with the gear that fits them best. And, of course, that "fits best" is not a constant. I love the GR and the X100S but I sometimes use the D2Xs, D3 or D810 and I'm just as perfectly happy with them--both in use and in results. Generally I prefer smaller lenses and I always use Auto ISO, giving not a care about how high it has to go to get the photo. I guess that fundamentally I'm just a candid snap shooter at heart, not really paying too much attention to image quality.

 

[ptpdprinter]

People do not pixel peep a good photo. People do not much pixel peep photos at all other than the photographer. So who are the photos for? I hope other folks enjoy mine. If the detail and focus are not perfect, meh. I do the best I can.

People frequently pixel peep good photos. Go to any museum or gallery and you will see people approach photos and examine them closely. They are looking at small details. If it is a photographer, he may be looking at small details and also making a technical examination, consciously or unconsciously. It is not limited to photographs. I see the same behavior when people view paintings and sculpture. If that were not the case, there would be no need for the ropes or lines on the floor you sometimes see in museums. I like small prints because they draw you into the photograph.

My photographs are primarily for me, although I may show them to friends and family, or to other students if I am taking a class or a workshop. My phone is certainly not ringing off the hook from institutions wanting to show my photographs publicly. Notwithstanding that, I do not take a meh approach. I throw away photographs that otherwise would be good but for the fact are out of focus, unless I intentionally used out of focus for effect. You do not see many out of focus photographs resulting from poor technique in museums and galleries. You do here. There are threads dedicated to them. HCB said that sharpness is a bourgeois concept. If that is true, then HCB is bourgeois. I saw an exhibit of approximately 70 of his photographs and they were all sharp, with allowance made for the quality of lenses available to him at the time the photographs were made.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My experience... I didn't know about MF and 4X5 until after 2010 or so. I used FED-2 with 50 2.8, then some import P&S with some slow lens and then small EOS 300 with nothing but plastic kit lens. f3.5-5.6. Size was small and results were nice. We realized what Canon ETTL flash is good thing.

Between 2010-2017 I used MF and 4x5 just for curiosity and it gave nothing special results and was non-practical. I'm not still objects shooter. It wasn't size, but absence of ergonomics.

I like small lenses on rangefinders. I could focus with it. Never got used to how it was implemented in SLRs and here is no thing as small lens in SLRs comparing to RF. Manual only focus on digital where AF is supported, it just odd to me.

Here is one thing which comes with digitally amplified low light images a.k.a. ISO. Colors are getting odd. And Sony has odd colors often even at low ISO.
Some might have time to kill with attempts to make it normal in PP, but I just don't have time for it.

I have settled with following:
Canon EOS EF film and digital, same lenses. No EVF limitations, no fast crap outs in the Canadian cold.
Leica M film and digital with just a few compact lenses. Not so much practical, to be honest, but nothing else makes you feel so fancy and elite 🙂
For smaller than phone and better images I have Ricoh GRD III which has everything in focus with f1.9 lens and because of f1.9 it is often using its native ISO 64 on CCD sensor. And to feel fancy on this side and size I have GR original. This one gives special feel. Something like 20 YO camera and still usable, interesting.

PS. Loxia in Russian, if X is read in Cyrillic as H, is close to Лох, Лохи. It means people not spending money smart way.
This is how I feel if I compare 1K$ Loxia 50/2 no AF to Canon 50 1.8 AF lens for $200.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

People frequently pixel peep good photos. Go to any museum or gallery exhibit and you will see people approach photos and examine them closely. They are looking at small detail. If it is a photographer, he may be looking at the small detail and also making a technical examination, consciously or unconsciously. It is not limited to photographs. I see the same behavior when people view paintings and sculpture. If that were not the case, there would be no need for the ropes or lines on the floor you sometimes see in museums. I like small prints because they draw you into the photograph.

My photographs are primarily for me, although I may show them to friends and family. My phone is not ringing off the hook from institutions wanting to show my photographs publicly. Notwithstanding that, I do not take a meh approach. I throw away photographs that otherwise would be good but for the fact are out of focus, unless I intentionally used out of focus for effect. You do not see many out of focus photographs resulting from poor technique in museums and galleries. You do here. HCB said that sharpness is a bourgeois concept. If that is true, then HCB is bourgeois. I saw an exhibit of approximately 70 of his photographs and they were all sharp, with allowance made for the quality of the lenses available to him at the time the photograph was made.

HCB wasn't always sharp with Barnack and 50 3.5. Some of his well known images aren't sharp because of motion blur. Film was slow and so was lens...

I exam paintings and drawings closer. Most of the time where isn't much image detail, but I look at technique. In other words I look how in was created to be able to seen from the distance. I exam drawing, painting not image details which is non in paintings, but sometimes in the drawings. If you were ever in paintings and drawings it is common to look very close to see how image was made.
With Winogrand it is interesting to see photos close to find out if it was the difference between Canon LTM lenses and Leitz. His earlier images are with Canon, late with Leitz.

I'm OK with small prints by myself (easy to print), but for exhibition I prefer larger than 8x10. To see the picture from comfortable distance and step in close to see some details. To me photography isn't much art but documentary. Huge prints aren't very practical, IMO. The only time it was ringing the bell to me was with huge prints by Diana Arbus. Technically sharp Mamiya MF optics and huge prints were to tell and to show what old style society was cruel about and kept on hiding.

VM's Rolleiflex relatively large prints did not impressed me, OK and valuable documentary of humans, but I like her work with Leica more.

 

[robert blu]

...

...I like small prints because they draw you into the photograph.

...

Same here, for the same reason!

 

[ptpdprinter]

If you need a big fast lens, you need a big fast lens. No question about it. Most photographers don't need big fast lenses. I don't need big fast lenses, so I don't have big fast lenses. I do have one fast lens, but it is small. It is a 50mm f/1.2 for my Olympus film camera.

Given a choice between an f/1.4 lens and an f/2 lens, I'll go with an f/2 lens. It is usually half the size. I will be shooting it at f/8 most of the time anyway. If I need f/1.4 occasionally, I would rather bump up the ISO one stop than carry around a big fast lens. But, as I said, if you need a big fast lens, you need a big fast lens. No question about it.

 

[jsrockit]

People frequently pixel peep good photos. Go to any museum or gallery exhibit and you will see people approach photos and examine them closely. They are looking at small details. If it is a photographer, he may be looking at small details and also making a technical examination, consciously or unconsciously. It is not limited to photographs. I see the same behavior when people view paintings and sculpture. If that were not the case, there would be no need for the ropes or lines on the floor you sometimes see in museums. I like small prints because they draw you into the photograph.

And in Japan, they bring a loupe to really view the small details on small prints. Seriously.

 

[JeffS7444]

All lenses feel at least 50% bigger and heavier once the new-toy novelty has passed, and you’ve been carrying them in the blazing sun for a couple of hours.

 

[Canyongazer]

Traded a 56mm f1.2 Fuji X for Fuji's 50mm f2. Both are very good optically.
405 g vs. 200 g
If I shot a lot of portraiture with an XT "SLR style" body the 56 would probably be ideal...but I don't.
The 50 is more compatible with my X Pro2 "RF style" bodies.
No regrets.

 

[boojum]

People frequently pixel peep good photos. Go to any museum or gallery and you will see people approach photos and examine them closely. They are looking at small details. If it is a photographer, he may be looking at small details and also making a technical examination, consciously or unconsciously. It is not limited to photographs. I see the same behavior when people view paintings and sculpture. If that were not the case, there would be no need for the ropes or lines on the floor you sometimes see in museums. I like small prints because they draw you into the photograph.

My photographs are primarily for me, although I may show them to friends and family, or to other students if I am taking a class or a workshop. My phone is certainly not ringing off the hook from institutions wanting to show my photographs publicly. Notwithstanding that, I do not take a meh approach. I throw away photographs that otherwise would be good but for the fact are out of focus, unless I intentionally used out of focus for effect. You do not see many out of focus photographs resulting from poor technique in museums and galleries. You do here. There are threads dedicated to them. HCB said that sharpness is a bourgeois concept. If that is true, then HCB is bourgeois. I saw an exhibit of approximately 70 of his photographs and they were all sharp, with allowance made for the quality of lenses available to him at the time the photographs were made.

Point well taken. Out of the general population how many go to museums and of them how many really care to closely approach the images? When the museums and galleries are mobbed, and I do mean mobbed, and the images themselves mobbed by pixel peepers I will underwrite your thesis.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Point well taken. Out of the general population how many go to museums and of them how many really care to closely approach the images? When the museums and galleries are mobbed, and I do mean mobbed, and the images themselves mobbed by pixel peepers I will underwrite your thesis.

The only places I look at photographs in any serious way are in museums and galleries, and occasionally in a class or a workshop. I do not know how many people go to museums and galleries. I suspect it is only a very small minority of the population. Of that very small minority, I do not not know how many, as you say, really care to closely approach the images. I can only relate my personal observations and experience. I do not recall ever seeing a photographic exhibit mobbed, except once on an opening night at a large group show in a small gallery where there were a lot of photographers and their significant others, so I do not anticipate you ever being able to underwrite my thesis. And really it is not a thesis. It is anecdotal information I offer only as a black swan to your comments that: "People do not pixel peep a good photo. People do not much pixel peep photos at all other than the photographer."

 

[boojum]

The only places I look at photographs in any serious way are in museums and galleries, and occasionally in a class or a workshop. I do not know how many people go to museums and galleries. I suspect it is only a very small minority of the population. Of that very small minority, I do not not accurately know how many, as you say, really care to closely approach the images. I can only relate my personal observations and experience. I do not recall ever seeing a photographic exhibit mobbed, except once on an opening night at a large group show in a small gallery where there were a lot of photographers and their significant others, so I do not anticipate you ever being able to underwrite my thesis. And really it is not a thesis. It is anecdotal information I offer only as a black swan to your comments that: "People do not pixel peep a good photo. People do not much pixel peep photos at all other than the photographer."

Most of our world is unnoticed. Fly fishermen (fisherpeople?) may gush over a well tied Royal Coachman but who else cares? The fine points of what was important in my youth, 3/4 race cams, Edelbrock intake manifolds, high compression pistons, superchargers and so on have little interest outside of a small group even then. On RFF there is more interest in photos and there is a subset of that group which is keenly aware of tiny details in the image. But each subset of a subset is a tinier slice of the population. You like the details, I like the overall impact. And jsrockit's post that Japanese go to galleries and museums with eye loupes is interesting. All Japanese? Of course not. What a tiny slice of the population does is interesting but not terribly indicative. Imagine approaching a Jackson Pollack with a eye loupe, just to cite a ridiculous example. Not everything needs to be seen up close.

 

[jsrockit]

And jsrockit's post that Japanese go to galleries and museums with eye loupes is interesting. All Japanese? Of course not. What a tiny slice of the population does is interesting but not terribly indicative. Imagine approaching a Jackson Pollack with a eye loupe, just to cite a ridiculous example. Not everything needs to be seen up close.

Nope only a few examples that I have extrapolated. Of course.

 

[boojum]

Nope only a few examples that I have extrapolated. Of course…

Aw, come on. I saw you there with an eye loupe. ;o)

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

My favorite art museum in Japan is the Ōtsuka Museum of Art in Shikoku.

All the art pieces are reproductions of masterpieces from all around the world. They photograph the originals and through a laborious and detailed process transfer the images onto ceramic plates. There are no ropes to keep people away from the art, people are encouraged to take photos. I don’t think they care if you touch the art. The collection is huge, the facility is massive. They have a life size replica of the Sistine Chapel, they have two copies of “The Last Supper”; one before it was restored and one after so that you can compare them. It takes a day to look at everything, the place is amazing.

https://o-museum.or.jp/en/

I've visited twice and will probably go again. It helps that there are so many other things to do in Shikoku, it makes the long trip worthwhile

All the best,
Mike