Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Nick,
First, no. You can't "add in post" the look of a particular lens, so your camera had better be capable of accepting the lens(es) you want to use.
Second, why piddle about trying to "add in post" effects that you can get straight out of the camera, IF you choose the right camera and lens?
I'm just getting back into using a 50/1.2 Canon. My favourite films with it were Agfachrome and Ferrania 1000. Sure, I could 'add grain, mood, "what have you"' but why would I? Why not explore what I can do with my M9 instead?
My fundamental objection to your argument is that you have too rigorously separated art and science. A photographer who concentrates too much on the one at the expense of the other is risking something. Call it what you will: vision, artistic integrity, your immortal soul. Or even just personal preference.
Cheers,
R.
Yokosuka Mike
Abstract Clarity
Nick, you've got...
Well I'm ever upper class high society
God's gift to ballroom notoriety
And I always fill my ballroom
The event is never small
The social pages say I've got
The biggest balls of all
--AC/DC "Big Balls"
Rock on dude! Never give an inch!
Mike
Well I'm ever upper class high society
God's gift to ballroom notoriety
And I always fill my ballroom
The event is never small
The social pages say I've got
The biggest balls of all
--AC/DC "Big Balls"
Rock on dude! Never give an inch!
Mike
NickTrop
Veteran
I use an Epson Artisan 1430, generally just 8X10's sometimes larger, assorted Red River papers, and OEM inks always.
PKR
Veteran
Given that case, why not use a 100mp Phase ? it's a Bayer array I think, as per previous sensors, and could be tested by DXOMark I would guess?
I wonder if DXOMark tests Phase One cameras ?
https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF100MP.aspx
I don't own a Phase but, they are rentable. My studio mate has a Phase back on his Sinar P. Great image quality. I'm sure it would score high on the pixel peeping chart.
.Oh look.. I'm wrong. DXOMark does test them, and the 180 got beat by a Pentax K5 !
https://www.dxomark.com/phase-one-iq-180-the-new-king-of-all-sensors/
And then, there's Red Camera.
https://fstoppers.com/editorial/exclusive-red-has-big-plans-be-your-still-camera-maker-34469
.
Axel
singleshooter
Just found one of my cameras, the Sony A33, in the Database.
Same Rating as an EOS 1D Mark III.
1. astonished
2. just tried a picture
3. nothing changed
Now I can guess about my Fuji X-M1.
Compared to the A33 it is better in all categories.
Although these are astonishing rankings for two of my old workhorses that tells
me nothing.
I have no need to compare when I know what I want and which camera fulfills my requirement.
Same Rating as an EOS 1D Mark III.
1. astonished
2. just tried a picture
3. nothing changed
Now I can guess about my Fuji X-M1.
Compared to the A33 it is better in all categories.
Although these are astonishing rankings for two of my old workhorses that tells
me nothing.
I have no need to compare when I know what I want and which camera fulfills my requirement.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE. - Ernst Haas
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more.
Dogman
Veteran
Yep. I've said it before, ain't a one of my cameras ever gone out and made a great pictures without my help. Ain't a one of 'em ever made a crappy picture without it being my fault.
PKR
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Um... Yes it does. or at least it can. Up to what I call the quality plateau, a better camera will give you better pictures. Beyond that level, your vision matters more than the camera.
The quality plateau is not fixed: it varies from photographer to photographer. But it exists.
Cheers,
R.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
What is better pictures? I mean I have seen insanely good bodies of work shot with a holga.
I have seen insanely crappy, look a like, clean, in focus, non inspiring images taken with the latest greatest. Most people that are photographers today can't see. They can't see light. They can't see moments. They have absolutely nothing to say visually.
The person that shot the body of work with the holga could really see.
Then you have inspiring photographers like Haas that could really see.
I have seen insanely crappy, look a like, clean, in focus, non inspiring images taken with the latest greatest. Most people that are photographers today can't see. They can't see light. They can't see moments. They have absolutely nothing to say visually.
The person that shot the body of work with the holga could really see.
Then you have inspiring photographers like Haas that could really see.
kuuan
loves old lenses
Photography is a wide field, the ideal gear for a landscape photographer will be different to that of a street photographer. Size, handling, performance.. each photographer weighs his personal needs and preferences.
For many or even most photographer any new m4/3rd and bigger sensor camera will perform well enough, nevertheless great to have sensor ratings and they will be important, also with reason, for some.
This is about choosing gear, not about what makes good photography.
( edit: thread started with gear but please airfrogusmc, go ahead, "what is better pictures" is of higher interest )
For many or even most photographer any new m4/3rd and bigger sensor camera will perform well enough, nevertheless great to have sensor ratings and they will be important, also with reason, for some.
This is about choosing gear, not about what makes good photography.
( edit: thread started with gear but please airfrogusmc, go ahead, "what is better pictures" is of higher interest )
Stuart John
Well-known
Or shoot shoot some high speed B&W film with that film M.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite. Which is why I did not attempt to define "better camera" in the post above. If a Holga gives you better pictures than you're getting with your latest DSLR, the Holga is the better camera.
You are, therefore, agreeing that there is such a thing as "a better camera", and with my premise that "The quality plateau is not fixed: it varies from photographer to photographer. But it exists."
Cheers,
R.
David Hughes
David Hughes
I couldn't agree more but, trouble is, we often see posts that ought to be about suitable cameras turn into snobbery versus sense rows. From time to time I wonder how many people would notice the difference if they had to use (a film example) a Cosmic Symbol but I dare not suggest it...
And a lot of people would find things improve a lot if they bought a tripod instead of another lens.
Regards, David
Stuart John
Well-known
Thats something I've always agreed with, but I think the quality plateau is much lower than most hobbyists want to believe especially with digital today.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Stuart,
I could not agree more, but equally, there are some applications or artistic visions (not many) for which you need ultra large formats or very large numbers of megapixels or maybe just weird lenses. Or indeed a Holga.
I'd also suggest that many hobbyists were equally unrealistic when film ruled the roost.
Cheers,
R.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Like I said earlier in post #136 on pg 4
"It's not about buying the technically best gear you can afford but it is and should be about having equipment that best matches the way that you see and work."
PKR
Veteran
Yep, most pro/consumer level cameras do a fine job. Many of the older niche cameras were/are used by pros and art photographers. The GF-1 comes to mind. And today, the little Sony X 100 series are often used for some work.
You know what, you are damn right that emotion comes into play when I am buying a camera. It comes into play when I put it in my hands and decide that it feels right. It comes into play when I feel that I want to use it every single day. It comes into play when I raise the VF to my eye to make that photo that felt right (felt good) to make. I'm not ashamed that my camera may cost more than the best bargain. What's a couple of hundred dollars when it comes to my happiness and comfort? Nothing.