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

I'm using released in 2005 FF Canon 5D. Nine years old camera. IQ is excellent.
I quite agree. This is the camera which got me off the digital upgrade merry-go-round. While it has passed my mind to upgrade from my 5D (or my 50D in the APS-C sensor size) I've not done that as I've realised, each time I've thought about it, that there's nothing I need or want to do that can't be done with the cameras I have. If that changes then I will upgrade (assuming I can afford to do it) but not before then.

Others' needs or wants may differ, but for me I achieved "good enough" from digital with the 5D - and probably 30D as well, though I did upgrade from that to the 50D. And that's where I'll stay assuming my cameras keep working and that I don't come across something I want to do that can't be done well or easily with the cameras I have. (My M240 is a different thing - a proper digital FF rangefinder body - which is not available from anyone but Leica. I was able to afford it only because of a generous bequest. Without that I'd still be looking at M9 prices and hoping they'd drop into my affordability range.)

...Mike
 
Thousands of cameras and lenses from major and minor manufacturers, for decades, have offered higher image quality than the image quality the best photographs in photography history show. Image quality doesn't mean a thing at all when we need to pick the best shot, from the same scene, from different cameras or lenses. The worst one in terms of image quality can be the best photograph when it shows the best visual narrative, composition and/or emotive content. Any beaten bargain $10 zoom can make better photographs than any $5,000 current line aspherical summicron... The beaten zoom can't make sharper photographs than the asph. Summicron, but the Summicron doesn't make better images than a cheap lens, only a little bit sharper ones, and that's good for nothing. Good enough image quality gear? Everything. Same for film and digital.
Cheers,
Juan
 
Thousands of cameras and lenses from major and minor manufacturers, for decades, have offered higher image quality than the image quality the best photographs in photography history show. Image quality doesn't mean a thing at all when we need to pick the best shot, from the same scene, from different cameras or lenses. The worst one in terms of image quality can be the best photograph when it shows the best visual narrative, composition and/or emotive content. Any beaten bargain $10 zoom can make better photographs than any $5,000 current line aspherical summicron... The beaten zoom can't make sharper photographs than the asph. Summicron, but the Summicron doesn't make better images than a cheap lens, only a little bit sharper ones, and that's good for nothing. Good enough image quality gear? Everything. Same for film and digital.
Cheers,
Juan

Hallelujah brother. Keep the faith.

(of course everyone who just picked up a new camera or lens and every manufacturer who just introduced a new camera or lens is hoping you are wrong.)

😀
 
Thousands of cameras and lenses from major and minor manufacturers, for decades, have offered higher image quality than the image quality the best photographs in photography history show. Image quality doesn't mean a thing at all when we need to pick the best shot, from the same scene, from different cameras or lenses. The worst one in terms of image quality can be the best photograph when it shows the best visual narrative, composition and/or emotive content. Any beaten bargain $10 zoom can make better photographs than any $5,000 current line aspherical summicron... The beaten zoom can't make sharper photographs than the asph. Summicron, but the Summicron doesn't make better images than a cheap lens, only a little bit sharper ones, and that's good for nothing. Good enough image quality gear? Everything. Same for film and digital.
Cheers,
Juan

Perfect, I wish I could have said it. But since it was you, I'm at least happy it was someone I like.
 
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.

I don't know how true that is. The ability to record very high resolution is of course a plus, but then again in some of the most compelling and inspiring photos I've seen, resolution and detail plays an extremely minor role. Most of what I love in photography is more about emotion and expression rather than the recording of detail.

G
 
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?

Digital isn't even close to "good enough" yet. 135 and 120 film are good enough, however. And it's not just about resolution.

The Foveon Merrill sensors are close, but the bodies and operation aren't. CMOS sensors are an eyesore compared to foveon and film, and there isn't a single digital body on the market that I would prefer to an M3 or an FM.

---

If Sigma released a 135 Merrill-based sensor in a film camera compatible cartridge with clean 1600 iso, I could say it's good enough.
 
Thousands of cameras and lenses from major and minor manufacturers, for decades, have offered higher image quality than the image quality the best photographs in photography history show. Image quality doesn't mean a thing at all when we need to pick the best shot, from the same scene, from different cameras or lenses. The worst one in terms of image quality can be the best photograph when it shows the best visual narrative, composition and/or emotive content. Any beaten bargain $10 zoom can make better photographs than any $5,000 current line aspherical summicron... The beaten zoom can't make sharper photographs than the asph. Summicron, but the Summicron doesn't make better images than a cheap lens, only a little bit sharper ones, and that's good for nothing. Good enough image quality gear? Everything. Same for film and digital.
Cheers,
Juan
Very nice, you've said it well.

G
 
For me the biggest hindrance in getting the absolute best imgae quality and best pictures is..........me. I'm still analoque only but my guess is it wouldn' t make a difference if I did shoot digital.
So my cameras, in formats from 24X36mm to 13X18cm, are all good enough
Best regards
 
Digital isn't even close to "good enough" yet. 135 and 120 film are good enough, however. And it's not just about resolution.

The Foveon Merrill sensors are close, but the bodies and operation aren't. CMOS sensors are an eyesore compared to foveon and film, and there isn't a single digital body on the market that I would prefer to an M3 or an FM.

---

If Sigma released a 135 Merrill-based sensor in a film camera compatible cartridge with clean 1600 iso, I could say it's good enough.
May I infer from this that you're quite open-minded on the topics you've addressed?

...Mike
 
'Good Enough' comes when I look at a Photograph and it puts a Smile on my Face....
Though as most things its ever Fleeting

Good Enough Exists , You just have to 'find' it...
 
Aside from an obviously defective / broken camera / lens, the weak link in the photographic process (in my opinion) is always going to be the photographer. Ansel Adams' camera was pretty basic in every respect compared to "modern" cameras. What made his photographs special was the man himself - HIS creativity.

I've also seen what I regard as utter garbage (just have a random wander around Flickr) produced using the most highly specified and expensive cameras.

We tend to forget that a camera is only a tool.
 
I'm probably to hard on myself sometimes but there are a few photographs from a roll that are good enough. Most of the time it isn't but once in a while after developing there is that image that makes me pause to enjoy it.
 
I am really into the 'good enough' idea... I have a 'good enough' hi fi and don't sweat about cables etc ect, and likewise with cameras, love my Konica Hexar, which is definitely 'good enough.'

My Fuji X100, though, is only nearly good enough; just processed a hexar roll from a shoot I did using the X100, and those pics were so much better it was indecent.
 
Definitely good enough for me. My yardstick is my trusty Mamiya 645 and Portra 400 film, and the Nikon D800E is close enough.

Both colour negative film and my Nikon D800E have similar resolution, allowing me to easily make A1 wide (3 feet) prints for gallery exhibitions that are tack sharp close up. And their dynamic range is also close enough (I agree with him) - film has more latitude if correcting a particularly bad exposure, but then I shouldn't be getting my exposure wrong in the first place!

I do prefer the muted unique colours of Portra, but you can't have everything. The Nikon's colour in portrait mode is natural and gently muted - but different.

I use both the Nikon and Mamiya all the time, and sometimes "mix and match" them in a project: no one can tell the difference even in huge prints once I've added a little faux film grain to the Nikon images.

(I add grain as a matter of course to large digital prints, just visible enough to break up the image. This gives a more natural-seeming, random print surface, especially to edges and blocks of tone, which is how grain affects the appearance of analogue prints - if you had grainless film, it'd have that slightly unreal "digital" appearance. Adding grain also - counter-intuitively - makes digital images seem sharper and crisper. I bought the D800E rather than the D800 for a similar reason: images from digital cameras without an anti-aliasing filter have more micro detail and better tonality than those with a filter, and are thus more "film-like".)

Back on topic after that minor digression on grain, I doubt further improvements to 35 mm "full frame" dSLR image quality will interest me. 36 MP is about as high as you can go for the size of sensor, and that's plenty of resolution for me! More would just create really cumbersome files, and I won't be printing over 4 feet wide very often! The ISO range is also plenty high enough - I don't need to shoot in darkness! And, as I said, the dynamic range is already excellent.

As for functions, I don't want them! I just need shutter speed, aperture and centre-weighted exposure (the same as my Mamiya 645 film camera) - with the addition of ISO. I ignore everything else: I have never shot video on my D800E, my lenses are all manual, and I've replaced the focusing screen with an olde worlde microsprism one.

What I'd really like is a Nikon F with a D800E sensor and screen! I had hopes for the Nikon DF, but these were dashed - Nikon built a fashion statement, a poseurs' tool for those wanting to buy into nostalgia, rather than a serious photographic tool for professionals who prefer cameras with traditional "film" controls.
 
For 75% of what I do, digital is good enough. For 25% I must shoot film, mostly large format, and wetplate. 75% of what I do is snapshots, pictures of items for sale, capture the moment/mood type stuff. Portraits, art, etc., I use film/emulsion.

Example: I just got back from 2 weeks camping in Yosemite and Sequoia National Parks. I carried a Nicca 5L with an Elmar 50/3.5. I also carried a Fuji X-E1 with a Pen-F 25/4. Those shots all came out great, already posted and sent around. The film? Sitting in my ziplock baggie, waiting for days and days of work to see if I got any results. Digital = good enough.
 
Is there such a thing as "Good enough" for you?

Well, yes, obviously. Why would you bother to take pictures with kit that wasn't "good enough"?

"Good enough" is what I have elsewhere called "the quality threshold", the quality of kit where "better" equipment would not give the photographer a "better" picture: where skill counts more than kit.

Cheers,

R.
 
Back
Top Bottom