squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I don't really give a damn about the aesthetic and practical differences between film and digital--I like working with both, and like the different advantages of both. But I think that one thing has suffered in our gradual transition to digital, and that's our sense of what constitutes acceptable technical performance.
I've been in the market for an M8 for about four months, and finally bought one the other day (it should be here tomorrow). I did a lot of research about it beforehand and one thing really surprised me--I have never heard more people complaining about images that looked so good. The IR/vignetting and performance issues with the M8 appear to be real, of course, but you'd think, reading around the internet (not here so much), that Leica had produced a hunk of garbage.
I've noticed this with pretty much every digicam I've owned, in fact. Do a little research before you buy, find out about all these problems, get the camera, and it works about a dozen times better than expected. DPReview's forums consist largely of people complaining about small difficulties, hyperventilating about color casts, comparing 100% crops, and declaring the worthlessness of one brand or another.
Or take a more general issue, like sensor dust. Yes, it's a problem, but it's nowhere NEAR the problem dust on film negatives is. I've had to heal out sensor dust marks and run hot-pixel corrections and the like, but it's nothing compared to what has to be done taking the flaws off of a frame of film.
Don't get me wrong, I really like working with film, dust and all--it's all part of an enjoyable process. But the ease of use with digital is tremendous. Why complain? Look for, and talk about, solutions, sure--but this technology is so versatile and easy to use, it boggles the mind.
The main thing, though, isn't that it's irritating to hear people complain--it's that the quest for perfection (or, alternately, the assumption that it even exists) gets in the way of our discovering what makes the technology interesting. "Leica glow," excessive grain--these "flaws" give our film photos character. So can the shortcomings of digital technology, but if all the manufacturers are busy trying to eliminate any trace of character from their products, we won't get to enjoy the uniqueness that interesting engineering can bring to a device.
I'd like to see more manufacturers embrace imprecision on the way to greater character. Say what you will about Leica, they are dedicated to character (at a cost, of course, but still). Sigma's DP series and Foveon sensor are another good example. Micro Four Thirds has also been eager to provide unique (and uniquely flawed) products that a lot of us are finding to be superb creative tools.
In other words, most of the buzz is about stuff that isn't quite right. This is as it should be.
Carry on.
I've been in the market for an M8 for about four months, and finally bought one the other day (it should be here tomorrow). I did a lot of research about it beforehand and one thing really surprised me--I have never heard more people complaining about images that looked so good. The IR/vignetting and performance issues with the M8 appear to be real, of course, but you'd think, reading around the internet (not here so much), that Leica had produced a hunk of garbage.
I've noticed this with pretty much every digicam I've owned, in fact. Do a little research before you buy, find out about all these problems, get the camera, and it works about a dozen times better than expected. DPReview's forums consist largely of people complaining about small difficulties, hyperventilating about color casts, comparing 100% crops, and declaring the worthlessness of one brand or another.
Or take a more general issue, like sensor dust. Yes, it's a problem, but it's nowhere NEAR the problem dust on film negatives is. I've had to heal out sensor dust marks and run hot-pixel corrections and the like, but it's nothing compared to what has to be done taking the flaws off of a frame of film.
Don't get me wrong, I really like working with film, dust and all--it's all part of an enjoyable process. But the ease of use with digital is tremendous. Why complain? Look for, and talk about, solutions, sure--but this technology is so versatile and easy to use, it boggles the mind.
The main thing, though, isn't that it's irritating to hear people complain--it's that the quest for perfection (or, alternately, the assumption that it even exists) gets in the way of our discovering what makes the technology interesting. "Leica glow," excessive grain--these "flaws" give our film photos character. So can the shortcomings of digital technology, but if all the manufacturers are busy trying to eliminate any trace of character from their products, we won't get to enjoy the uniqueness that interesting engineering can bring to a device.
I'd like to see more manufacturers embrace imprecision on the way to greater character. Say what you will about Leica, they are dedicated to character (at a cost, of course, but still). Sigma's DP series and Foveon sensor are another good example. Micro Four Thirds has also been eager to provide unique (and uniquely flawed) products that a lot of us are finding to be superb creative tools.
In other words, most of the buzz is about stuff that isn't quite right. This is as it should be.
Carry on.
snausages
Well-known
I agree completely.
I had the same experience when purchasing the RD1. I had to ignore so many negative opinions en route to what's proven to be a delightful picture making tool.
You start to realize that inspired photographers tend to be generous in their appraisal of equipment because they realize that cameras and lenses are the least of the obstacles to their art...
ferider
Veteran
Don't forget: with the M8, the complaints were done when the camera was much more expensive than it is today on the used market.
The more expensive the camera, the higher the expectations, the more complaints on even the smallest issues.
The more expensive the camera, the higher the expectations, the more complaints on even the smallest issues.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
True--and the same goes for the R-D1, I suppose. But (at least in the case of the R-D1, with which I am personally familiar) these are weird, interesting cameras, that do something quite different from everything else. What you're paying for is a unique photographic experience--unusual feel, distinctive digital files, and 75 years of interesting optics. That said, I certainly would have complained, too, if my brand new $6000 rangefinder gave me only pictures with a green line running through them.
Well put.
nightfly
Well-known
"the power men have to annoy me, I give them by my weak curiosity" - Emerson
At the risk of stating the obvious, you don't have to research things to death on the internet.
It's a modern ailment but there was a time when you just went out and bought something with perhaps a cursory glimpse at consumer reports or the recommendation of a trusted friend.
The internet magnifies nit pickiness to the nth degree. Reviewers tend to be the people who are unhappy with things rather than those that are content and find no reason to post a comment to the internet.
Status on the internet is enhanced more by being negative than positive. We tend to focus on the one person with a gripe rather than the ten people who say, yeah it works great.
I say this not as criticism but as someone guilty of the same thing. I don't buy new cameras but virtually everything else I purchase gets researched to death. Thankfully, DP review never turned it's sights on my M4-P. I'm sure they would have found a flaw that I've overlooked in these last few years of using it.
At the risk of stating the obvious, you don't have to research things to death on the internet.
It's a modern ailment but there was a time when you just went out and bought something with perhaps a cursory glimpse at consumer reports or the recommendation of a trusted friend.
The internet magnifies nit pickiness to the nth degree. Reviewers tend to be the people who are unhappy with things rather than those that are content and find no reason to post a comment to the internet.
Status on the internet is enhanced more by being negative than positive. We tend to focus on the one person with a gripe rather than the ten people who say, yeah it works great.
I say this not as criticism but as someone guilty of the same thing. I don't buy new cameras but virtually everything else I purchase gets researched to death. Thankfully, DP review never turned it's sights on my M4-P. I'm sure they would have found a flaw that I've overlooked in these last few years of using it.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
A trenchant analysis. I really like the M8 and think it is a great camera; its image quality can be superb. Like any camera, it has its limitations and it does not do every job equally well, but I haven't regretted my own purchase for a moment. In fact, now that used prices are down from the stratosphere, I'm tempted to get a second one. It is only the fact that the M9 is out there and I can't afford it that is keeping me from that sort of purchase. Save save save. Maybe when the M10 comes out, I will be able to afford an M9.
Ben Marks
Ben Marks
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Oh yeah, I am certain I will dig the M8...it just got me thinking about this phenomenon.
It's true about the internet magnifying nitpickiness...because the information is there, and we know it is there, we go looking for it. And then of course we find it, and begin to worry about it.
It may be true that people used to buy an acceptable camera without much forethought, but that was when there were camera shops in most large towns, and you could see what felt good to you. Plus, you knew that the camera body didn't matter so much to actual IQ--your film would give you the kind of pictures you wanted regardless of the manufacturer of camera. Now we have sensors to think about, and when we buy into a camera, we buy into its sensor for good.
It's true about the internet magnifying nitpickiness...because the information is there, and we know it is there, we go looking for it. And then of course we find it, and begin to worry about it.
It may be true that people used to buy an acceptable camera without much forethought, but that was when there were camera shops in most large towns, and you could see what felt good to you. Plus, you knew that the camera body didn't matter so much to actual IQ--your film would give you the kind of pictures you wanted regardless of the manufacturer of camera. Now we have sensors to think about, and when we buy into a camera, we buy into its sensor for good.
SShhhh. Those awful M8's. Horrible. Just lucky some people will agree to buy them second-hand...
peterm1
Veteran
Personally I think that perfection (if it exists) comes not from the equipment but from the photographer. Who is it that said " Genius is the infinite capacity for taking pains"? I think this is true and is something I try to live up to in my photography. Not that I am a genius - a long way from it. But I put a lot into composing and then into post processing to make something of my photos in an effort to set them apart from the mundane. This is where I think too many people go wrong. They believe that by owning the "perfect" bit of equipment this will automatically produce perfect images with minimal effort on their part - point an click. Just aint so! Hard work and effort is what wins out every time - hopefully with a bit of talent for spotting the "perfect" potential image before pressing the shutter button. I often get a belting on this forum for admitting that I (a) shoot digital and (b) post process fairly extensively. But its all the work that I put into this that helps turn what are probably pretty ordinary photos into something at least a bit better and more interesting (well, I think so anyway.)
Last edited:
back alley
IMAGES
i think that rollie has it right...at such high initial prices we want and expect things to be perfect with absolutely no inconvenience to us.
as for the rd1, i love the black & white images i get from mine.
as for the rd1, i love the black & white images i get from mine.
helen.HH
To Light & Love ...
I have always Preferred PURRfection to Perfection...
its all in the purring & creating ATMOSPHERE
than in the sterile world of getting caught up in Perfection ...
its all in the purring & creating ATMOSPHERE
than in the sterile world of getting caught up in Perfection ...
pachuco
El ****
Hell, I think iPhone photos are good. I'd have a Leicagasm with the image quality of the M8. I think the images i have seen are pretty damn good. I guess those dppreview folks just like to complain?
snausages
Well-known
I think we're wired to obsess with the peripheral and external at the expense of self-examination. This manifests in photography with over-analysis of gear and technical details.* I'm completely susceptible to this hysteria. Of course there is equipment that suits a person more or less, but it takes vigilance to focus primarily on yourself.
*I'm not talking about the kind of technical analysis someone like Brian Sweeney provides us. The science of optics and the mechanical side of photography is fascinating. I only refer to my own habit of thinking too much about the character of the gear...
*I'm not talking about the kind of technical analysis someone like Brian Sweeney provides us. The science of optics and the mechanical side of photography is fascinating. I only refer to my own habit of thinking too much about the character of the gear...
robklurfield
eclipse
Bob, how right you are. I love my M8. Is it perfect (purrfect, if you prefer... er, purrfer, Helen)? I have no clue. I know I'm not perfect. If there's anything imperfect about my images it's either due to something I did or didn't do OR I just don't care. I don't make images to decorate medical textbooks or to argue court cases. So long as my cameras work, I'm happy. When my newly-acquired M2 was giving blank images every 3 out of 5 frames, I decided a CLA was in order. Youxin fixed a balky shutter. Now, all the blank frames are my (Helen, please excuse me, I meant "par moi") doing and there aren't many of them.
If I earned my living at this and worked on a deadline (as I do in my day job), I'd be concerned about nitpicking-level imperfections. Frankly, since this isn't my day job, I can live with most of 'em. Since I write for my meager living and the writing is all electronic, I'd be lost if my computer crapped out me.
Bob, enjoy that new M8. I'll bet you will shot a gazillion frames in no time at all. It's great fun. A little bulkier than I hoped (undersized hands), but otherwise, just right for me. I think you'll love it. Shoot in good health. That Nokton on the M8 will also increase your upper body strength.
All I can say is:
If I earned my living at this and worked on a deadline (as I do in my day job), I'd be concerned about nitpicking-level imperfections. Frankly, since this isn't my day job, I can live with most of 'em. Since I write for my meager living and the writing is all electronic, I'd be lost if my computer crapped out me.
Bob, enjoy that new M8. I'll bet you will shot a gazillion frames in no time at all. It's great fun. A little bulkier than I hoped (undersized hands), but otherwise, just right for me. I think you'll love it. Shoot in good health. That Nokton on the M8 will also increase your upper body strength.
All I can say is:
Last edited:
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Yes, you step back and think about the photos of people like Edward Weston, Paul Strand, Edward Steiglitz, Walker Evans, Robert Frank and Garry Winogrand. Those poor guys probably could have have decent photos if they would have only had one of today's good modern cameras.
wgerrard
Veteran
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
You're right of course, but I don't mean this to be one of those it's-the-photographer-not-the-gear threads! I mostly mean that gear DOES matter--but only insofar as we allow ourselves to develop a relationship with it. When we long for technical perfection, we concentrate on the wrong thing...we don't work with the gear, we try to make it disappear. But I like stuff that asserts itself a little bit.
Has anyone seen "It Might Get Loud," the guitarists' documentary? Jack White talks about loving his plastic-bodied, warped-neck Airline electric guitar, because he has to fight with it to get what he wants out of it--and it shows in his playing. He chooses to pit his ego against a tool with a personality of its own, to bring tension into his music. (As an aside, he comes off as something of a tool himself in that movie, but I still dig the White Stripes.)
robklurfield
eclipse
It Might Get Loud just arrived from Netflix today. Got load it up.
bmattock
Veteran
I habitually carry a cheap Kodak C530 digital camera with me. It's 5 MP, non-zoom, no manual controls to speak of. Not a great optical finder, but at least it has one. It is slow, too. But it is small, quiet, cheap, and it has a very nice lens. I've sold photos I took with it.
When I've mentioned it here and other places, and noted that you can buy them for like $20 on eBay now, the universal response I get is none at all. No one is interested. They're too cheap, they're too un-modern, and for God's sake, it says 'Kodak' on it. So everyone turns up their delicate noses. Hey whatever. I get great shots from mine. For $20. Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, whatever. Kodaks work fine. So do Pentaxes. Not fancy? Who cares. Results are all that matters.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
We still have and use the first digicam we ever bought, a Kodak Easyshare DX3900. We were stoked at how nice the photos were. Then we bought a second digicam and it SUCKED. I think it was a sony. Some of those early P&S cameras had really nice lenses...I wonder if any of them is going to be, like, the future Canonet or Hi-matic.