you don't need a big sensor

[Bill Clark]

Does the camera make the photograph or do your eyes?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Does the camera make the photograph or do your eyes?

Dear Bill,

Well, it's a bugger trying to make a photograph with only your eyes and no camera. The answer, therefore, has to be "both".

Cheers,

R.

 

[Bill Clark]

Hi Roger,

But I can form images in my head without a camera.

And I can even, when I want to, bring them up and view again.

Perhaps, someday, be able to view them on an electronic device.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Does the camera make the photograph or do your eyes?

Well, it's a bugger trying to make a photograph with only your eyes and no camera. The answer, therefore, has to be "both".

I suppose, some computer fanatics would say: very soon, cybernetic implants will bridge that gap! 😉

edit: Did Bill say that now?! 😱

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

But I can form images in my head without a camera.

And I can even, when I want to, bring them up and view again.

Perhaps, someday, be able to view them on an electronic device.

Dear Bill,

True, but you did say "photograph", not "memory". Also, rather than wait for "someday", I prefer to rely on my camera.

Makes it a lot easier to illustrate books and articles, too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[daveleo]

"need" .... the start of so many convoluted discussions.

 

[Dogman]

Making good pictures doesn't require most of the crap we use. We just like "stuff" and we're good at justification.

 

[Fjäll]

Total nonsense, sorry.

That's not to say pretty pictures cannot be taken with a iPhone. But it's like a harmonica: plays just one key.

It's all about the possibilities in the limitations.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc

 

[Ronald M]

I need a reliable camera that takes sharp pics. Generally that means a major brand.

The bells & whistles are seldom used and a Leica M suits me fine. Nikons are used in M mode almost always, in fact I can not remember turning it off M.

But to stay on topic, sheet film is better than 35 mm, but harder to carry. 36 mp Nikon with adapted Leica lenses is is digital perfection for me. For better I would need to sell assets.

Can you just imagine a wedding photog showing up with a cell phone ?

 

[LukasB]

"need" .... the start of so many convoluted discussions.

Plus one.

+1

 

[MIkhail]

Sensor size has nothing to do with the artistic expression in photography. There are a lot of photographers that only shoot with their smartphones. There are no settings nor choices of focal lengths, all in absence of optical formulas and fancy features. Just image making. No distractions and only focus on the photograph.

Agree 100%

 

[jsrockit]

Personal preferences passed off as fact... can you make a great photo with low end gear? Sure. Is there something wrong with wanting more? No.

 

[MIkhail]

It's all about the possibilities in the limitations.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E8H-67ILaqc

On one of his master classes Gueorgui Pinkhassov said "the less means I have the more creative I get".
For those, knowing all the variations of summicron's bokeh but not familiar with who Pinkhassov is- here is the link.
https://pavelkosenko.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/a-set-of-photographs-by-gueorgui-pinkhassov/

 

[Calzone]

If you like image quality then a big sensor is an asset. Most people do not print, and their images are just posted and viewed on computer screens, cell phones or IPADS.

Even if you print, unless you are printing big/large the technology is so good that a larger sensor might not be exploited.

Interesting to note that by judging the responses that IQ is not highly rated or regarded. Not important to many...

Cal

 

[Axel]

If you like image quality then a big sensor is an asset. Most people do not print...

What means image quality and where is the connection to printing or not ?

 

[Calzone]

What means image quality and where is the connection to printing or not ?

Viewing photos on a computer, cell phone or IPAD does not display good image quality when compared to a print. Even on my 27 EIZO, a calibrated monitor, I can print more information than I can see.

Anyways it seems that the prevailing culture is that IQ is not that important today, and in the past IQ it seems it was more important.

Anyways I find all of this very interesting. In the end has technology made people lazy? Has the proliferation of cameras actually lowered photographic standards? Is I.Q. important?

Cal

 

[Bill Clark]

My wife and I will be with our family soon.

I'm thinking of getting this and using my iPad mini for my digital photos.

Example:

https://www.amazon.com/Adapter-Univ...=8-1-fkmr3&keywords=bulk4buy+tripod+ipad+mini

Pretty small sensor on iPad but works like a champ for me!

Of course, I will take an M4 as it will identify me as an old fart photographer from the 1960s!

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Can you just imagine a wedding photog showing up with a cell phone ?

Who knows, it might take some of the "sappy" out of most of what I see.

I think my iPhone is the best camera I have ever owned for personal use, by a wide margin.

 

[Huss]

It's such a line of BS which HCB and many others would take: oh, it is not important, the camera the lens. Then you learn they were in fact quite picky and used excellent gear.

This is funny because it is true. So many famous photogs say that, but do not practice it! They instead use top end big $$ gear.

Anyway, I still like the pic in the original link.

 

[Axel]

... Is I.Q. important?

Cal

First we should have to define what "I.Q." ("Image Quality"?) means and how it can be measured.
There may be a lot of technical descriptions but without clear parameters this term is very senseless I think.