Tijmendal
Young photog
Absolutely. Though for me it's lenses more than camera's. A camera that handles well, is versatile and can handle extreme situations is important, I don't care too much about the IQ.
Is there such a thing as "Good enough" for you?
- Thread starter shadowfox
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 73
- Views 6K
zuikologist
.........................
Just having this conversation with myself today: Pentax K5, Canon 5D, Sony NEX7 - all good enough for a long time to come.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
I've pretty much resigned myself to the fact that digital will never equal film in certain qualities, and that digital cameras themselves will never be have the qualities film cameras have.
Digital has long been "good enough" but it is still different enough (and lacking in some respects) that I prefer film.
Digital has long been "good enough" but it is still different enough (and lacking in some respects) that I prefer film.
daveleo
what?
Yeh, I should have used "debatable" instead of "argumentative". Or mabe I should have stopped at "ambiguous".
In general, it's complicated because we all have different criteria about what we want our pictures to look like.
Also...... it is a mistake to think that people who feel that today's digital cameras are "not good enough" have higher standards than people who think "digital cameras are good enough". They just have different (not higher, not lower) criteria of what they want their pictures to look like.
EDIT: my favorite example is that, back in the day, most photographers admired smooth grain-free (film) pictures, and Kodak and Fuji were head to head producing "better" films. Now grain is something of a .... must be a phrase for this? .... an emblem of "higher standards (or something like that). To each his own. There are 7Billion of us out here, you know !
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The issue with the term "image quality" is that there is no simple definition. More resolution? More dynamic range? Nicer contrast? Better bokeh? What does "better image quality" actually mean? It means different things to different people, and a good bit of it is lens rendering and then image processing, not sensor related at all. That's why "image quality" often a source of endless and unresolvable debate.
When I say "image quality is good enough" with a digital camera I mean a couple of specific things:
- There's enough dynamic range and resolution to capture individual rendering qualities of the lenses.
- The raw files out of the camera are robust enough to support the level of image processing I want to apply to achieve my photographic ideas.
- I can successfully make prints indistinguishable from the same sizings that I used to made with film cameras, with some leeway (both plus and minus) due to differing format sizes and sensor resolution.
It's quite valid to discuss image quality, but it is necessary to say what it is specifically and clearly enough if you want to avoid endless debate.
G
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Your bias is obvious: You said just about the same thing twice in the first paragraph. ;-)
G
Digital and film photographer—I love Polaroids!
icebear
Veteran
Positively the M9 is good enough for me, no interest to upgrade to a M.
cz23
Well-known
Pioneer
Veteran
Being dissatisfied is part of the human condition and marketers are exceptionally good at exploiting this natural wish to own something a little bit better, even if that improvement is invisible in reality.
So there will always be "better" digital cameras being rolled out and sold. Never mind the fact that photography has been fully capable of producing stunning imagery for generations. The improvements are about more convenient photographs, not better ones.
The last true improvement in photography was Kodachrome, which was a reality in 1935. Even digital, as nice as it can be, has not improved on that.
So there will always be "better" digital cameras being rolled out and sold. Never mind the fact that photography has been fully capable of producing stunning imagery for generations. The improvements are about more convenient photographs, not better ones.
The last true improvement in photography was Kodachrome, which was a reality in 1935. Even digital, as nice as it can be, has not improved on that.
pete hogan
Well-known
Bought a Summaron 35 ltm recently, and the test roll showed that it was good.
The look on my wife's face showed that it was good enough.
The look on my wife's face showed that it was good enough.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I read once, say eight years ago maybe a couple more, that magazines wouldn't except anything that wasn't shot with the latest Canon. That probably isn't true now, but outside the photo community, I bet people are still impressed with the latest.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Sure, we can dissect the term ad-infinitum.
But we all can readily summarize what the term commonly means.
For example, the other thread that talks about the new Sigma DP Merril series, the discussion went on about even better image quality.
Reading that, I was scratching my head thinking, how much better quality should one expect?? I am quite happy with some of the pictures I took with my now "ancient" Olympus E-300, and Fuji S3.
(Just to be clear, I'm not at all downplaying that thread, like Dave said, to each his/her own).
thegman
Veteran
I think if we're happy to print at 10x8" or view on a computer, then 6MP was probably good enough for all of us. In terms of dynamic range, bokeh, and stuff like that, for me, yes, I'd love Velvia to have more dynamic range than it does, but what we have is certainly 'good enough'.
If we're out shooting landscapes to blow up into massive prints, then a 35mm camera with a 400 ISO film is highly unlikely to be good enough, or even close to good enough.
I think if I only printed to 10x8", I'd stick with 35mm, but as it is, I like to print quite big, so I use medium format. Same would be for digital, even though I only use film, I do very much like the R-D1, and think it's 6MP would be plenty so long as I didn't try to print too large.
If we're out shooting landscapes to blow up into massive prints, then a 35mm camera with a 400 ISO film is highly unlikely to be good enough, or even close to good enough.
I think if I only printed to 10x8", I'd stick with 35mm, but as it is, I like to print quite big, so I use medium format. Same would be for digital, even though I only use film, I do very much like the R-D1, and think it's 6MP would be plenty so long as I didn't try to print too large.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Regards the bolded text: Please do. I have no idea what is meant by "image quality" by anyone other than myself.
I mean this without disparagement or the desire to debate. I sincerely have no idea what you mean by "image quality" or what anyone else means by it, other than some fuzzy notion that "Da pitcha's look good to me." 🙂
G
maddoc
... likes film again.
For me the Epson R-D1s was already "good enough" in all aspects except for the sensor-size. The M9 would have been "optimal" because of its FF CCD sensor but quality issues and the high price are large draw-backs to "optimal" ... So there is not such a thing as "good enough" for me at the moment.
If Zeiss / CV would come out with a FF DRF camera and a price-tag < US$3000 it would be for sure "good enough" for me. 🙂
If Zeiss / CV would come out with a FF DRF camera and a price-tag < US$3000 it would be for sure "good enough" for me. 🙂
thegman
Veteran
Can't speak for everyone else, but when I see the term 'image quality' I generally think that it's referring to resolution. It's one of the few technical characteristics of a photograph that 99% of us can agree on, that more is better. Bokeh, dynamic range, tonality, sharpness, Photoshopped or not, are all personal choices really. But aside from speed of dealing with scans or RAW files, we'd all probably rather have more resolution than less.
Cheers
Garry
TXForester
Well-known
With few exceptions, all of my cameras from the 70s to today have "good enough" performance and in digital, I don't buy top of the line. If somebody wants to argue that, then they are probably more gear oriented than photography oriented. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Some of my favorite photos (not necessarily mine) are technically "flawed." If a great photo can be "flawed," then a great photo can be made from something of "good enough" quality. At some point you have to focus on the image and not the grain or pixels that are its parts.
Some of my favorite photos (not necessarily mine) are technically "flawed." If a great photo can be "flawed," then a great photo can be made from something of "good enough" quality. At some point you have to focus on the image and not the grain or pixels that are its parts.
Bill Clark
Veteran
I'm never satisfied with photographs I make.
Each time, I evaluate to determine how I can do better the next time.
thegman
Veteran
That's a little ad hominem for my tastes, you're saying that if someone disagrees with you, then it's because they're more into gear than photography.
Some people may wish to print very large, that might be part of their particular type of photography, and that might require 8x10 film cameras, it's not necessarily about gear, it's about getting the results they want.
It can be about gear certainly, I bought a Rolleiflex instead of a Yashica because I liked it, I know the photos they make will be pretty much the same.
I've got a 4x5 image on my wall right now, it's about 24" across, medium format would have been enough I expect, 35mm probably not, 6MP, well, I suppose it depends on personal ideals. I admit to being into gear, but also if you want a certain photo at a certain size, sometimes certain gear isn't good enough.
Pfreddee
Well-known
Yes. Next question.
With best regards.
Pfreddee(Stephen)
With best regards.
Pfreddee(Stephen)
Similar threads
