raid
Dad Photographer
Most of the time when I take photos I set ISO to 160, and sometimes to 320.
Corran
Well-known
If Kodak's T-max 3200 film had the same grain and overall performance as T-Max 400, folks would be head-over-heels about that film and likely not shoot much TMY anymore in darker conditions. That's about the difference between the M9 and my D800, and most FF sensors most likely.
Of course whether one "needs" that or not is a different question. The technical performance of the M9 is easy enough to quantify though. I preferred to shoot it in good to decent light. When I did commercial work in low-light, I grabbed my Nikon every time.
Of course whether one "needs" that or not is a different question. The technical performance of the M9 is easy enough to quantify though. I preferred to shoot it in good to decent light. When I did commercial work in low-light, I grabbed my Nikon every time.
Huss
Veteran
It's not the symbol of quality. It's the symbol of luxury.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
The older film Ms that are still going strong are a symbol of quality...an M10 body for $7300 USD (body only) is indeed a symbol of luxury....
Huss
Veteran
My M3 that has worked perfectly since 195.. is a symbol of quality.
My $5500 M-E that broke after 3 months of use is a symbol of...luxury.
My Summicron 50mm DR is a symbol of quality. The 50mm Sumicron APO that Leica released without internal flare coating is a symbol of... luxury.
Right, and not many are singing the praises of CCD Nikons that sell for $100-200 these days... ok, not FF, that's one side... but...
Compared to modern CMOS... there is a major difference. You know this... you just love playing devil's advocate.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm ain't playing anything. My night at the fairground photography was published. Handheld taken with M-E.
I covered day and after sun went down Manhattan 2017 trip with same camera. Including street photography.
Modern CMOS rendering on high ISO is not natural, after all, it is amplified, calculated to amount of light which not exists.
Sure it is handy for faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures, but I prefer flash even at CMOS FF cameras instead of high ISO or with high ISO.
Just small hint of -2.0 and bounced flash makes huge difference.
olifaunt
Well-known
Digital cameras will always depreciate in the long term, no matter how well kept.
willie_901
Veteran
I agree completely with regard to 2018. I'm not so sure about 2025. However, your point is well taken. The photographer is much more important than the camera and lens.
At the same time, dismissing significant improvements in imaging technology as being frivolous is self-deceiving. Camera signal-to-noise and resolution improvements that improve of MTF 50 performance (independent of lenses, displays and printing technologies) can improve every photograph regardless of the scenes' light level, or subject detail.
Technology and creativity are not mutually exclusive.
Ccoppola82
Well-known
Every once in a while I get the urge to splurge on a digital Leica. The likelihood of me getting more than 6-7 years out of a digital is slim. That being said, if I got a good one for a steal, I would likely jump at it.
willie_901
Veteran
This is simply disinformation.
After the shutter closes it is physically impossible to create information that was not present when the shutter is open.
Neither amplification nor calculation can increase the datas' information content. That light (spatial illuminance level) did in fact exist. The difference with contemporary CMOS imaging technologies is the uncertainty for the parameters estimated to model the light's spatial illuminance is much lower than before.
However, as signal-to-noise levels increase and artifact levels decrease, DC signal amplification and calculation create the potential for people to render images that don't match the perceived light observed by the photographer. The issue is how people use the increased information content.
Digital imaging is just a method to measure light. More measurement accuracy is not inherently bad or misleading. Whether it's for medical imaging, chemical and biological sample analyses or radar applications (just to name a few areas) corporations and governments pay a lot of money for advances in measurement accuracy. Are they throwing their money away?
Your criticism actually addresses how some photographers intentionally or naively render the images in ways you find aesthetically objectionable. I feel the same way.
Blaming the technologies or trying to make the case inferior measurement accuracy is an advantage is just a distraction.
Skiff
Well-known
I've done such shots without a problem almost a decade ago with the Nikon D3s. Since then the progress in sensor performance has not been so dramatical. If I compare today the D3s to its third successor D5 the difference is negligible in 99% of the shots. You cannot distinguish the shots in a blind test. Been there, done that.
Most of the little sensor progress in the last years happened in the "extreme" areas as e.g. extremely high ISO.
But whether you have a little less noise at ISO 12800 or wether you have 1/4 stop more dynamic range is irrelevant for 99.9% of the shots.
But you have to pay thousands of bucks for this little progress.
Used professional-type DSLRs of 5-10 years old offer a much better price-performance ratio compared to the new stuff. You can save lots of money buying used.
Have a look at e.g. the Nikon D700, D3, D3s, D3x, Canon EOS 1Ds MkII and MkIII, EOS 5D Mk II and III.
Its the opposite of what you have said, you get very good price-performance ratios.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Photography is about more than a price/performance ratio. I know that's hard to grasp, but for some photographers here, its seems to be all about finding the cheapest whatever it is. Could be the cheapest developer, could be the cheapest film, could be the cheapest digital camera. It is almost as if the resulting image is of no importance. Although you may not be able to see a difference between a D700 and a D850, many can. In large measure, it depends on what you do with the image after you take it. If you are just posting to the web, almost anything will do. If you are making large prints, it's another story.
Skiff
Well-known
I've written that I've compared the D3s to the D5.
Nevertheless, what are 99% of digital shooters doing? They just view their pictures on a computer monitor with a 2k or 4k resolution = 2MP or 8MP pictures. The 12 MP of the D700 are completely sufficient for that. And the 45 MP of the D850 are just simply destroyed and not visible in this standard viewing situation.
This fact that the whole imaging chain is decisive for quality is unfortunately ignored by most photographers.
To really see significant differences you have to make big prints bigger than 30x40cm. How often do digital photographers do that? Likely in less than 0.01% of the cases.
I`m not talking about turning night into day... I am talking about making a lower noise image at the same ISO.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
One in ten thousand photographers makes a print larger than 30x40cm? I never realized I was in such an elite group. Most of the prints I see are at least that large.
A standard photo printer does up to 13 x 19" but with borders it is closer to 30x40cm. He might not be too far off. Many people do not even print. My preferred format is making books. My biggest book is 30x30cm or 12x12" ... sure, I`ve made the occasional 24x36" print, but I generally don`t. So, yes, you could be more unique than you realize based on the people you keep company with.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
You need 16MP for a 30x40cm print at 300dpi with no cropping, so I think a 12MP Nikon D3 would come up short even for most photographers. Of course, as I said, if you only post to the web, almost anything will do.
Yes, but let us remember many great photos were made with 12mp cameras and some people still use these to do serious work today. Large prints have also been made with these cameras... it only depends on viewing distance. For up close inspection, more res will always feel better. But I`ve also seen huge prints made from 35mm film that are not sharp or clear up close. They still make an impact though...