Is there such a thing as "Good enough" for you?

[shadowfox]

For me, the quality of images from digital cameras is already "good enough" a few years back.

I guess I'm past the fascination on how high the resolution that digital technology can bring us. Therefore I can't get excited over a new camera if it only promises "better image quality" anymore.

How about you?

 

[Sparrow]

... if one can't take a decent photo with a rigid summicron, m2 and hp5 I expect you'er not cut out to be a photographer

ps ... or anything else after the 1970s too that is

 

[Godfrey]

For me, the quality of images from digital cameras is already "good enough" a few years back.

I guess I'm past the fascination on how high the resolution that digital technology can bring us. Therefore I can't get excited over a new camera if it only promises "better image quality" anymore.

How about you?

The quality of photos made with my ancient Olympus E-1 (manufactured Oct 2003) was already good enough and has only gotten better as raw processors have improved over the past decade. Most of what I've been looking for in digital cameras beyond that are improvements in responsiveness, reductions in size and weight, and good ergonomics. The Olympus E-M1 achieves all of that along with providing 3x plus pixel density.

The Sony A7 nets a bit more than the E-1 on another tack, providing a larger format sensor and a lens mount to mate with both my Leica R and Nikkor lenses.

I have little real need for more than this in digital capture.

G

 

[cz23]

For me it's now less about "quality" and more about character. I'm sure many cameras outperform the M9 and GR by most measures, but I find their B&W output distinctive and definitely prefer it.

John

 

[YYV_146]

I grew up shooting film and small format digital bodies. Only in the recent 2-3 years has 135 format digital really caught up with film performance. For me, Tri-x or Provia is the benchmark, and almost all digital bodies available today are by that metric "good enough".

 

[aizan]

i agree that image quality has been good enough for a while now, but for the mirrorless and p&s cameras that i want, the autofocus or manual/snap focus controls and viewfinder offerings have not been good enough except for a few cameras which have some of the key features i'm looking for, but nothing has brought it all together.

 

[Spanik]

Image quality yes. User interface and viewfinder is still miles behind even the most basic '50's slr. They long ago past the qualitywise "good enough" for me. Even my 300D was good enough. But I still haven't found a single digital I like to use.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I'm using released in 2005 FF Canon 5D. Nine years old camera. IQ is excellent.

 

[bobbyrab]

I'm surprised everyone is so happy, I still find all digital could be much much better at how it handles highlights, and skin tones are rarely as nice as colour positive film.

It's getting better but I'd still like improvements in these areas rather than yet higher iso or bigger file sizes.

 

[Pioneer]

My preference for film has nothing to do with the quality of digital capture. My 6.1 megapixel Pentax ist DS is plenty good enough. The problem is the interface.

There are no Contarex, Contax II, Pentax SV or Rolleiflex 3.5F cameras to be found in the digital world. The only one that even comes remotely close is the Leica M9.

I do not get paid for what I do so for me photography is as much about the feel of the tool as I do my work as it is about the quality of the result. I also love the feel of a quality plane in my hands as it slices quietly through the wood while smoothing the top of a table. Power machinery is far more efficient but certainly does not provide the same experience in use. Kind of like the feel of an M3 in your hands as compared to the Fuji X Pro 1.

I personally prefer the M3.

 

[BillBingham2]

Most definitely.

I'm in the throws of figuring that out right now. My years in analog photography led me on a journey where on one of the stops I found that I really liked they way some lenses rendered better than others. Even when the others were sharper, had better names, could light fires in an emergency, and more.

There is an available funds issue that always is poking it's head into the mix, but from what I've read in the past month of being back I'm not sure I'd plop the cash down for a digital M if I had it.

There's a balance that is had between price, reliability, IQ, functionality and flexibility that each owner must make up for his or her own self. It's part of the fun and challenge to select/find/build/discover the system that works for you today.

While I would love to use the few old workhorse lenses I have on a new digital body, I don't need full frame.

B2

 

[maxmadco]

Good enough for the images digital cameras can make I guess so. What bothers me is the way everything, not just cameras has become so complex with multiple layers of menus and buttons that have to do more than one thing to the point that it becomes tedious at best.
I am happy with the old stuff, film, no menus, a Leica M or lately a Leica IIIf with a collapsible Summicron and B&W film.
I pick it up and take a picture, simple is good for me.

 

[Brian Atherton]

Image-wise, for me, my D90 with an 18-200 zoom “is good enough”…though I’d like it to have better IQ in low light and be smaller and lighter.

In the last two or three years manufacturers have made real strides making gear smaller and lighter, with significant improvements in low-light capability, which I welcome.

I’m not knocking digital, but in all honesty I can’t get excited about the latest digital gear, and I’m not itching to get the latest new digital camera, as my interests are firmly with film.

 

[btgc]

My preference for film has nothing to do with the quality of digital capture. My 6.1 megapixel Pentax ist DS is plenty good enough. The problem is the interface.

It always is, whether film or digital. Some really good image makers just happen to have bad interface. Some miss proper controls at all or have them in wrong places, some have bad shape or size and don't lie in hand. Konica Auto S2 has narrow and flush to barrel speed ring, stiff long travel release button and I prefer other cameras to it despite crazy good lens. Sigma DP gained so much after adding grip, despite losing Sigma classic brick look.

This two days I used IstD and thought SLR has to have top deck readout (check) and two wheels (check) to change settings. Old 6mpix sensor at moderate ISOs is good for me. I don't have agencies or curators behind me requiring certain technical characteristics of files.

 

[nobbylon]

My D700 is more than enough for me. My daughter did a job with it the other day and I QC'd the finished files for her this afternoon before being dropped off to the client. I'm always amazed by the way that D700/D3 sensor performs. Coupled to a 24-70 and an sb910 there isn't much it can't do.
As far as menus and complicated settings go, once you've read the manuals and figured out how to get the best out of any digital camera for the users purpose then all that's required is to set it up and forget it. It's just as easy as shooting an old analogue film camera and indeed from what I've found is actually quicker and easier. I like the 12mp file sizes, no massive back up drives being needed in constant supply and for me the 700 gives a quite film like and less digital look than a lot of digital I see.
For me digital peaked at the D3s.

 

[daveleo]

For me, the quality of images from digital cameras is already "good enough" a few years back.

I guess I'm past the fascination on how high the resolution that digital technology can bring us. Therefore I can't get excited over a new camera if it only promises "better image quality" anymore.

How about you?

"Image quality" is an ambiguous and argumentative term.
"Better image quality" lowers the lights and adds billows of smoke to "image quality".

 

[pete hogan]

Good enough for us. iPhone 5c and iPad take care of our needs for picture communications every day with nice images easily handled and stored, sent all over, rarely printed, and then displayed on a Pix-Star frame in sequence.

For my historical imperative a IIf and a Zorki 1c and Tri-X have been good enough for a long time.

 

[shadowfox]

"Image quality" is an ambiguous and argumentative term.
"Better image quality" lowers the lights and adds billows of smoke to "image quality".

I may disagree, Dave.
Like it or not, image quality is *one* of the measures by which we evaluate or express preference for an image (photo in this case) over the other.

So it is valid to discuss it (not to argue about it).

I'm simply stating that I think I've reached my "ceiling" on digital image quality. I personally don't need more. That doesn't mean I don't like new camera releases, it's just "image quality" would no longer be one of my criteria.

I agree with a lot of comments in this thread so far.

 

[gilgsn]

Quality means different things to different people. My X100S for instance is more than enough quality in terms of resolution. My Pentax 6x7 however beats it hands down for skin tones, "punch" and resolution of course, that's a given. The images have more depth, that's quality to me. I think skin shouldn't look like plastic, which digital does, somewhat. An image taken with my M4-P looks better than an X100S one, although I can come close with the Fuji with Lightroom. I keep a digital camera because of convenience. If I was to live off being a photographer again, I'd use digital. My film photographs always have something "extra" in terms of quality though. When I post an image from a 6x7 negative, I get more positive comments, even though people do not know which camera took the shot...

Digital is great for journalism. If you're not in a hurry, film is better IMHO. But that wasn't the original question, whas it? ;-)

They are definitely good enough. You can get a great image from a D2X at 12mp... Less from what I read here. Sony just released a 12mp camera, so... I think improvements will involve making digital photography look more natural. Which brings me to the fact that too much "quality" might be detrimental to an image at some point.. Especially if there is an excess of post-processing. A lot of the images I see on 500px make me want to puke.. Fortunately we don't see those here.

Gil.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I'm surprised everyone is so happy, I still find all digital could be much much better at how it handles highlights, and skin tones are rarely as nice as colour positive film.

It's getting better but I'd still like improvements in these areas rather than yet higher iso or bigger file sizes.

Fuji went that way with the S Pro series and they are still somehow trying to offer something different than just more pixels and higher iso with their sensors and so it is for Sigma and the Foevon sensors but it seems that it a bit hard to market that kind of stuff.

I still use my S5 Pro with "just" 6 Mpx (but producing a 12Mpx file with a double set of photosites sensitive to high light and low light) and find that the printed result is often nicer and more "film-like" than that produced by many newer camera. In the end however I would say that to produce better images than that of professional digital cameras with film you need to go probably into MF cameras and in that case you lose speed and practicality quite a bit. In that sense I would consider today's cameras "good enough", which of course doesn't mean they cannot get better.

GLF