Philosophy question for the day

[Roger Hicks]

A Kiev 4 in good working order with a well-calibrated lens can take photos as good or better than the most expensive film Leica with the equivalent Leica lens.

Both in terms of sharpness, resolution, etc, as well as the more subjective "artistic" qualities.

This is also true of thousands of other film cameras.

Digital cameras vary to a small degree because of sensor size, quality, and so forth, but almost any modern digital camera can take technically excellent photographs that rank in the highest percentiles.

There is no compelling reason to use a digital M Leica that costs $7000, for example. The photos will not be that much better than other digital photographs, if at all.

The only reason to use one is because you like to. (which is a perfectly good reason)

You're saying there's been no advance in lens design since Zeiss in the 1930s? This is not a very defensible viewpoint.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rodchenko]

Good point, Roger, though I'd argue that, since the 70s/80s, the improvement has not so much been in the optics (though that has happened too) as in the peripheral matters, such as autofocus, weight, use of plastics etc.

Mind you, coatings have come a long way.

 

[Harry S.]

The best thing I have done for my photography (and enjoyment thereof) is minimising my gear. I now only use one system, which has two lenses. It took a long time to realize that having a lot of cameras wasn't helping.

 

[daveleo]

I have a D5000 which is like this...I set the aperture with the aperture ring on the 105/2.5 non Ai cheap lens that I bought when I bought the cheap body. 😛
. . . . .
Perhaps this is a skewed way of looking at photography - treating a digital camera as if it is a manual film camera with no auto anything.

I HATE that hold-button-and-turn-knob procedure on my D5100. Hate it !

And to the second point. . . most of the time I have an older manual focus (and aperture ring)
lens on the D5100 and run pretty much full manual - it is a great (but very slow) way to shoot.
Must take preliminary shots and watch that histogram.

 

[konicaman]

@Jim - I tend to agree with you a long way. The cameras you mention are all very capable picture making machines if in good working order.

I have some rather more expensive gear for paid jobs (nowhere near $7000 though), but it is mainly used for receptions, a few product shots and portraits.

When I had an exhibition together with a couple of other photographers and and some painters a couple of years ago, I one day sat looking at my own pics trying to remember what they were shot with (yes, I was bored). It turned out that most of them where either taken with a Konica C35 or a Powershot A590 - simply because I usually carry one (or both) of these in my bag.
During that same exhibition a guy came up to me commenting on the good colours and fine dynamic range of a couple of pictures (taken with the Powershot A590 and enlarged to A3). The guy was obviously a gearhead, judging from the HUGE camera bag he was carrying, so I told him that they were taking with a 5D MKII and L-glass. Lying is not very nice, but he kind of p***ed me off. Actually he went away happy, because, as he said, I thought it would be something like that...

That being said, rangefinders have their shortcomings so maybe an SLR and a couple of lenses to complement the kit? They can easily be had within your budget.

 

[hepcat]

You're saying there's been no advance in lens design since Zeiss in the 1930s? This is not a very defensible viewpoint.

Cheers,

R.

The question, Roger, is not whether the optics have improved, the question is whether modern lenses make better images. And that's entirely subjective. My reply would have to be that they don't necessarily make better images at all. There's too many other factors that go into an image.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The question, Roger, is not whether the optics have improved, the question is whether modern lenses make better images. And that's entirely subjective. My reply would have to be that they don't necessarily make better images at all. There's too many other factors that go into an image.

No, that wasn't the question. I was replying to the following statement: "Both in terms of sharpness, resolution, etc, as well as the more subjective "artistic" qualities."

Cheers,

R.

 

[giellaleafapmu]

Jim,

When I'm seventy five I won't give a **** what anyone thinks because at that age I'll have the right to live totally to the beat of my own drum! 😀

Yep, 100% agree, if at age 75 I will have a steady enough hand to take pictures I won't care at all to what other will tell me!

A bit more seriously my own opinion is that you definitively don't need a 7,000 US$ camera but, depending on what you do you might need some specific items to be consistent. These are over abused examples but really trying to get into sport or birds without a good long lens and fast autofocus is an exercise in masochism. Sure you can get nice pictures of sports and birds with a screwmount Leica like Leni Riefenstahl would do but eventually you will miss some good moment, and some assignment if you are in the business, which much worst photographers with a fast camera could freeze. You can do glamour in natural light, there are great examples, but usually you will eventually need lights, beauty dishes, whatever...other than that you could do pretty much everything with a shoe box with a pinhole on one side and a piece of old photographic paper on the other. What I definitively find true is that most of the times the needed items are not the expensive camera or lens. If you look in many photographer's bags you will find a lot of cables, triggers, duck tape, cardboards, make up (yep, even food photographers have make up artists...for food) and maybe the final shot is taken with a beaten up D3 and a Sigma lens...

GLF

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

During that same exhibition a guy came up to me commenting on the good colours and fine dynamic range of a couple of pictures (taken with the Powershot A590 and enlarged to A3). The guy was obviously a gearhead, judging from the HUGE camera bag he was carrying, so I told him that they were taking with a 5D MKII and L-glass. Lying is not very nice, but he kind of p***ed me off.

I'm curious as to why he "kind of p***ed me off" and why you want to insult someone for complimenting you on your pictures. Surely you would grateful for the compliment?

It seems like a strange response to someone's goodwill.

 

[zuiko85]

David Burnett has created quite a few published photos with a $30 Holga. He also has several Speed Graphic's. However he also uses full frame Canon DSLR's and lenses. A professional cannot go to a picture editor without bringing home the goods.

If you like to play and experiment with photography like I do then any image making device is worthy of consideration. If you are a professional trying to make a living off of your photography you have to be somewhat more pragmatic in gear selection.

 

[jsrockit]

Remember thought that cheap film cameras require film. If you don;t use a lot of ilm, then you're good. If you use a lot, then it may not be the clear cut cheapest option. You have to add up your film costs and the camera, and then compare that to a digital and a memory card.

Sometimes people have to remember that cheap does not mean inferior (just no longer relavent to the mainstream).

 

[hepcat]

No, that wasn't the question. I was replying to the following statement: "Both in terms of sharpness, resolution, etc, as well as the more subjective "artistic" qualities."

Cheers,

R.

Yes, I got that... still the bottom line remains, do modern lenses make better images? I think that you and I would agree that the answer is "not necessarily."

 

[jim sparx]

Thank you for your comments. Maybe the wrong words in the original post was construed as 'looking for validation' or permission to do something, it was not. I don't even listen to my wife anymore. My VA supplied hearing aids have an off switch and I use it frequently.


The post was more about LENS and the opportunity to use classic cameras and inexpensive cameras that have exceptional lens for that time period.


In no way am I dissing someone for having an expensive Lecia or Hasselbad, or any camera with an expensive lens. The way I think about that is, I paid about $7000 for my used Ford truck, which gets me to town and I can load 15 bails of hay on it. I see that as a more useful tool not being a professional photographer and as a person with an abiding interest in capturing a moment in my personal history with a camera. I am a camera. And a cheap one.


Gas? You betcha. I have GERD and I take a lot of Tums. You don't want to be around me when I eat burritos. Cameras? I'm going to play with what I've got and one poster had a good idea about a self published photo book with pictures from the various cameras. Pre-publication deposits accepted, which I'll spend on burritos and a Dos Equis beer.

 

[Frida]

I asked this question on another photo forum and was shot down, even accused of being a troll, it was my third post in as many months. Although I have been in and around photography since 1957 (Argus C3) I don't consider my self a beginner, but I am new to photography forums, this one (Rangefinder), Digital Review, Ricoh and the previously mentioned no name one where I asked the question.


The question went something like this with the following disclaimer: I do not believe you need a $7000 camera to take an acceptable photo. I believe it is the photographer (his knowledge and background of photography fundamentals) and a good lens. Granted, you a take nice pictures with a cell phone.


So, instead of investing in a $7000 camera, I have been buying cheap cameras (Kiev 4, FED, Minolta Hi Matic), with a few more on my list I would like to try (all recommended as classic, all with excellant LENS, and all for less than $50 ea. I'm doing this because I have gas, I like film cameras and I would like to see what kind of results I get with cheap cameras with good lens.


Is this a skewed way of thinking about photography or is this some sort of defense mechanism for the inability to afford a $7000 camera, being 75 and living on SS and Army retirement?

This rings true with the thread I started here last week. I also enjoy and buying cheap cameras, and feel uncomfortable with expensive ones. The most expensive camera I've ever owned is a D700, which I bought for around $1800 used, and use for wedding work. Besides that, everything else is well beneath $500, and there isn't much else.

I've actually currently shelved my plan to buy an x100/s for the moment, as I can't justify spending the money with a baby on the way. Instead, I'm experimenting with my wife's old SD1100 and my D3000, and will probably use these for the foreseeable future for personal work while keeping my D700 and a handful of lenses for weddings and selling my wife's D700.

 

[mfunnell]

I've actually currently shelved my plan to buy an x100/s for the moment, as I can't justify spending the money with a baby on the way. Instead, I'm experimenting with my wife's old SD1100 and my D3000, and will probably use these for the foreseeable future for personal work while keeping my D700 and a handful of lenses for weddings and selling my wife's D700.

Sounds like a good plan. I suspect there's no cheaper substitute for the D700 for occasions when you really need it; the D3000 seems a nice little camera and I know the SD1100 (aka IXUS 80 IS) is pretty good for an inexpensive small-sensor compact.

...Mike

 

[TXForester]

During that same exhibition a guy came up to me commenting on the good colours and fine dynamic range of a couple of pictures (taken with the Powershot A590 and enlarged to A3).

Did he say anything about composition, artistic merit etc.? If not I would have made it point to tell him they were made a cheap point and shoot. Think how many hours of internet discussions he could have telling people how you "lied" about your gear. 🙂 You would've made his day.

 

[Frida]

Sounds like a good plan. I suspect there's no cheaper substitute for the D700 for occasions when you really need it; the D3000 seems a nice little camera and I know the SD1100 (aka IXUS 80 IS) is pretty good for an inexpensive small-sensor compact.

...Mike

Yup, I think you're right. Now to get back to taking pictures instead of dreaming about cameras : D

 

[TXForester]

I'm curious as to why he "kind of p***ed me off" and why you want to insult someone for complimenting you on your pictures. Surely you would grateful for the compliment?

It seems like a strange response to someone's goodwill.

We don't know that. The only part of the discussion mentioned is colors and dynamic range. If that is all there was to it, then the gear head complimented the camera and not the photographer.

 

[Rayt]

An M3 with F/1 Noctilux cost around $7000. While it is not necessary to have one to take picture though in the right hands the results can be remarkable. Again the right tool in the right hands is what matters not the initial cost.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

We don't know that. The only part of the discussion mentioned is colors and dynamic range. If that is all there was to it, then the gear head complimented the camera and not the photographer.

Well, using that logic, I would ask whether the encounter ever took place or was just made up for reasons known only to the poster.