Sharpness etc ?

[dee]

There must be something very wrong with me , or maybe I just do not belong here .
I am quite content with my ex-Kiev Sonnar clones , the Summitar , Fed collapsible and CV 35 f 2.5 with my M8 .

Love playing with Soviet glass 39mm on the Panasonic G1 , ' cos the focus is out on the M8 with old manual Pentax lenses on the K10D ....

Uncritical of the standard zooms on the G1 / L1 [ Olympus ] K10D ...
which seem no less capable than those I recall from the early 90s .
Adapt my Rokkors to 4/3rds without worrying .

I just tend to use what I have .
Most photos come out acceptably , provided I have not messed up the settings LOL .

I enjoy reading the comments about this lens or that , and admit that my benchmark maybe 50s Kodachromes from a Praktina / Biotar , but my cameras deliver all that I deemand .

Maybe I am uncritical , having no need for exhibition quality , or am a self confessed considered snapshooter ... but it's often about elusive atmosphere which the Sonnar clones , the Summitar and sparkling little Fed seem to create for me .

 

[Roger Hicks]

Deear Dee,

Atmosphere wipes the floor with technical quality every time.

But they aren't always mutually exclusive. SOMETIMES (far from always) atmosphere demands technical quality too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfogiel]

Somebody could also ask: how big do you print ?, or : do you shoot landscapes?

 

[Nikon Bob]

Not a thing wrong with you if your gear gives you what you are satisfied with. The unending search for the holy grail is an interesting persuit but not always necessary. Contentment has it's own rewards.

Bob

 

[xxloverxx]

It's about what you like.

 

[LKeithR]

One of the "good" things about the current generation of digital cameras is that they are capable of producing very high resolution "reproductions" of a scene; rendering it exactly as we would see it with the naked eye. For a lot of situations this is fine, often desirable, in fact. The problem is that many people now think that "every" image they see should look this way.

What these cameras don't always replicate is the mood, aura or soul of the scene and that's where a little motion blur, flare or mis-focus can often add character to a picture. It's that "look" that can make one image stand out from another; that can give it life.

So there are times when sharp is important, but there are also times when it's not, and in the end, what is important is whether or not you appreciate the image. Here's an example of some pictures that are anything but sharp but demonstrate a lovely, mystical character...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1038&message=37290457

 

[back alley]

Not a thing wrong with you if your gear gives you what you are satisfied with. The unending search for the holy grail is an interesting persuit but not always necessary. Contentment has it's own rewards.

Bob

Contentment has it's own rewards...

i like that!!

 

[peterm1]

Too many pixel peepers keep obsessing about sharpness - all the time making crappy photos. You have got the right idea. What is important is how you use the lens. Sonnar designs and Summitars all are capable of making excellent images. Go for it I say. In image making I always go for feel of the image more so than technical perfection of the image. That's what real artists do.

 

[jsrockit]

I've come to find out that I like lenses that are just good enough. There just isn't enough of a difference for me when it comes to most lenses to worry about having the best. My type of photos don't need the best.

 

[Nikon Bob]

I've come to find out that I like lenses that are just good enough. There just isn't enough of a difference for me when it comes to most lenses to worry about having the best. My type of photos don't need the best.

Yea, came to the same conclusion but for a slightly different reason. I found I could make profoundly crappy photos with either very sharp/expensive glass or just oridinary glass.

Bob

 

[Brian Levy]

I have found over the years that many times I do not like the results with overly sharp lenses. Yes, they can tell it like it is but can tend to lose the emotion of the actual scene whereas a somewhat less sharp lens can provide a more emotional interpretation. Of course no lens/camera can render and reproduce the original scene any more than any electronic audio system can reproduce the original music as originally played.

 

[thegman]

Depends what you're shooting I guess, architecture I think looks best with sharp lenses, whereas street shots on BW film, it matters much less.

 

[Keith]

Sharpness where sharpness is needed ... otherwise it doesn't matter too much IMO.

 

[Jack Conrad]

Roger nailed it. Atmosphere every time.

Except maybe sometimes. lol

 

[Neare]

Huge exhibition prints look sharp when you stand far away.

Who cares though, just take the photo with whatever.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

"Content" beats "Precision" most every time, in my opinion. Stay the course, Dee and keep making those beautiful images.