back to basic ?

[dee]

I bought Sony to use my Minolta AF lenses of 1990s ' vintage ' and specifically liked the 35-80 basic silver plastic zoom which translates into 52-120 - perfect for me .

However , it's at best , a snapshot lens - perfect for me !

The demise of one digi-box urged a revival of the Pentax K10d , bought and successfully used with a manual 50 f1.7 but subsequently a bit heavy .
However I do love the two dials for aperture/shutter speed with manual lenses .
In the same vein of demoting and demoralising perfectly acceptable cameras I have invested £10 in a similar Pentax silver version of the 35-80 .

The much loved Leica Digilux 3 is now permanently Rokkorised due to a stuck adapter - fr£100 is too much to non-adapt I love my Rokkors . The twin L1 will carry the 4/3rds flag with a pair of Olympus standard - i.e. cheap and cheerful zooms .

It's odd that I am content with just a reasonable snapshot - although I do try harder with the M8 / CV 35 f2.5 / ex Brian 1959 J3 in Contax mount / lovely Summitar and too-good-to-be-true Fed collapsible and new Helios.
In this respect , my findings are that all of the lenses inflicted upon the M8 are of acceptable 'quality' yet gain in individuality .

As non professionals - can we get too hung up on maximum detail and sharpness - or should it be essential to acceptable picture taking ??

dee

 

[Charlie Lemay]

Hi Roger,

I was a slave to sharpness in my youth, but in the last 20 years, as my eyes began to see less sharply, a whole new world opened up. I much prefer the look of pre-computer design lenses in most cases. I look for super sharpness sometimes in 28mm or wider, but I mostly like lenses with character. My latest find is the Komura 105mm f2. It has it's own unique magic, like the Soviet Export 85 f1.5 Helios, a lens that won't focus beyond 20 ft when adapted to my Nikon FM 2n, but renders a creamy world like no other. Sharpness has its place, but it no longer calls the tune for me.

I bought Sony to use my Minolta AF lenses of 1990s ' vintage ' and specifically liked the 35-80 basic silver plastic zoom which translates into 52-120 - perfect for me .

However , it's at best , a snapshot lens - perfect for me !

The demise of one digi-box urged a revival of the Pentax K10d , bought and successfully used with a manual 50 f1.7 but subsequently a bit heavy .
However I do love the two dials for aperture/shutter speed with manual lenses .
In the same vein of demoting and demoralising perfectly acceptable cameras I have invested £10 in a similar Pentax silver version of the 35-80 .

The much loved Leica Digilux 3 is now permanently Rokkorised due to a stuck adapter - fr£100 is too much to non-adapt I love my Rokkors . The twin L1 will carry the 4/3rds flag with a pair of Olympus standard - i.e. cheap and cheerful zooms .

It's odd that I am content with just a reasonable snapshot - although I do try harder with the M8 / CV 35 f2.5 / ex Brian 1959 J3 in Contax mount / lovely Summitar and too-good-to-be-true Fed collapsible and new Helios.
In this respect , my findings are that all of the lenses inflicted upon the M8 are of acceptable 'quality' yet gain in individuality .

As non professionals - can we get too hung up on maximum detail and sharpness - or should it be essential to acceptable picture taking ??

dee

 

[rbelyell]

the only issue i have with your post is your characterizing the results of the cameras you mention as mere 'snapshots'. i think the results are very good. you know the old kodak pro, canon 5d etc used to be state of the art and were good enough for professional and published work. what we get 'hung up on' is that somehow those tools are no longer appropriate for those purposes, when the truth is they are.

i recently sold what i consider the pinnacle of modern camera tech, the sony rx1, to shoot instead with the epson rd1 for manual focus and your very own L1 for autofocus. the sony is a great camera and produces technically excellent images. in the end though i preferred the look i got from these other cameras. no, they dont produce the super high resolution nor the paper cutting sharpness of the rx1. but to me they produce the deep lively colors and nuanced b&w that i personally could not wring out of the sony. the overall look is much more satisfying to me, and the fully analogue user experience is much more engaging and enjoyable. imo there is nothing 'snapshotty' about them. and this is said good-naturedly.

 

[Godfrey]

...
As non professionals - can we get too hung up on maximum detail and sharpness - or should it be essential to acceptable picture taking ??

It's not only "non professionals" that get hung up on technicalities of detail and sharpness.

The only things essential to 'acceptable picture taking' are whatever it takes to express the photographer's intent.

G

 

[daveleo]

I use 4 contemporary Fuji lenses on my XE1 and 4 "vintage" lenses (Minolta, Sigma, CZJena). Each serves it's purpose very well, and "sharpness" per se almost never drives which lens I pick for the day.
My favorite lens for the kind of look and feel that I want to wrap the world in is the Minolta MC 50mm/f1.4. I have "sharper" lenses but so what.
No one has ever commented that what is wrong with my pictures is that they are not sharp enough.
I think the whole topic of "sharpness" became silly about 20 years ago (in the evolution of lenses). Maybe 30 years ago.

 

[uhoh7]

As non professionals - can we get too hung up on maximum detail and sharpness - or should it be essential to acceptable picture taking ??

dee

There is much more than detail and sharpness if someone wants to get techy. Where is the sharpness, and when? It will vary both across the frame, and with the stop. How is the color? How is the OOF? Lens basics. Depending on the shot such matters may make more or less difference.

Then there are all the body aspects. OVF? Sensor? Crop? Feel in the hand. MF or AF. It's up to the shooter whether he is interested in the technical details. Pro or hobbyist, no matter. Some care and are inspired by the complexities, others don't. Nearly everyone will take an interesting photo now and then, regardless.

Alot of people look at mountains and just see rock. But some see Geology and the many stories it tells. Photography is the same way. Life is short and time is limited, so close attention to anything is a choice, conscious or not. Something else will not be paid attention to.

You don't have to feel guilty about it.

Either way.

What is tedious is denigrating those who make a different choice.

 

[Mcary]

I think the whole topic of "sharpness" became silly about 20 years ago (in the evolution of lenses). Maybe 30 years ago.

Agree!

The 1950-1970s LTM and M mount lens that I use on my M8 more then meet my needs in regards to sharpness.

 

[willie_901]

It's not only "non professionals" that get hung up on technicalities of detail and sharpness.

The only things essential to 'acceptable picture taking' are whatever it takes to express the photographer's intent.

G

Exactly.

Some photographers take pride in exceptional detail and sharpness. This is similar to audiophiles or videophiles who pursue extraordinary reproduction technical excellence.

In my view expressing "the photographer's intent is more challenging than pursuing the ultimate technical detail and sharpness.

 

[Jan Pedersen]

In my view expressing "the photographer's intent is more challenging than pursuing the ultimate technical detail and sharpness.

Well said.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have no personal experience with old RF lenses on digital RFs.
From what I see I see the same problems I have seen with old SLR lenses on digital FF SLRs.

Also where is no point to use FF lenses on cropped sensors to me. I like to see how lens renders on entire frame. Vignetting and soft corners aren't dirty words to me.

On digital I prefer lenses designed for digital cameras. And on film - film era lenses. Results are most appealing at both, if I don't mix.

I like digital high end lenses (Canon L-series) not because they sharp. Where are dirt-cheap lenses with high sharpness. DLSR kit lenses are sharp enough.
It is in the special glass formula, which has better components and something else, which gives nice colors, contrast, micro-contrast and OOF difference over cheap digital or even old "prestige" film era lenses.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Exactly.

Some photographers take pride in exceptional detail and sharpness. This is similar to audiophiles or videophiles who pursue extraordinary reproduction technical excellence.

In my view expressing "the photographer's intent is more challenging than pursuing the ultimate technical detail and sharpness.

Bold: not really. This may be part of "the photographer's intent". My own view is that if you can't express something in a small picture, you probably can't express it in a big one either. Indeed, even if you can express it perfectly in a reasonable-sized picture, it may fall apart in an overly enlarged print anyway, as witness all too many of Ansel Adams's grotesquely big Hasselblad pics.

On the other hand, some pictures do look better big. A picture that "wants" to be really big demands a bigger format or more technical skill or possibly just more pixels. Contrariwise, huge pictures with exceptional detail and sharpness are all too often just huge pictures with exceptional detail and sharpness and no redeeming aesthetic quality.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Henri Cartier Bresson:
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"
🙂

 

[f16sunshine]

Henri Cartier Bresson: "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" 🙂

And by sharpness It seems he meant .... Being in Focus 😉

 

[Roger Hicks]

Henri Cartier Bresson:
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"
🙂

Dear Jamie,

Did he actually say that? (I'm not questioning your research; I just can't be arsed to verify it.)

If so, he was well qualified, as a grand bourgeois. Like a lot of other photographers from well-to-do backgrounds who didn't actually have to earn a living from taking pictures, at least at first. It's much easier to dip your toe in the water when someone else is paying for the trip to the seaside.

Cheers,

R.

 

[lukitas]

Henri Cartier Bresson:
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"
🙂

Photography is a bourgeois concept.

The art of the flaneur, the man who has time to stroll, and on the way collect a few exquisite samples of local exotica, strangeness and moments of beauty. A perverse and sometimes sympathetic interest in phenomena that are not part of bourgeois life : gypsies, workers, poor, beggars, circus artists, freaks. The discovery that the fallen petals from a bouquet of roses form an exquisite composition, with the sunlight falling through the vase. The sort of thing that goes with tea and cookies.

As the best of bourgeois concepts, photography is democratic, a medium rather than an art : if you can see, you only have to click the button. And then, as only a true bourgeois would, you show off your taste to your fellow bourgeois.

cheers