you don't need a big sensor

[emraphoto]

Tell that to a solider. It's both. As it has been since the dawn of technology.

Please list the great photographers of the film era who shot exclusively with cheap sub-standard gear?

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. More keepers LOL

Oh, you know if your eye is good, you are a true artist, you need nothing past a instamatic, or a pencil and paper. In fact just your finger and some sand. Might be hard to make a living , though.


I'm sure you have a huge one 😉

Fred Herzog
Tichy
Walker Evans
Steichen
Lee Morris
Man Ray
Lartique
Antonin Kratochvil
Teru Kuwayama

i could go on. through dumb luck i know a lot of working photographers, many of them rather prolific. you'd be surprised at how little attention is payed to gear.

 

[Tim Murphy]

Dear Board,

An interesting picture is an interesting picture, period.

If you or I think it is interesting then that is all that matters.

The equipment used is immaterial, a camera has NEVER taken a picture by itself.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[uhoh7]

Fred Herzog
Tichy
Walker Evans
Steichen
Lee Morris
Man Ray
Lartique
Antonin Kratochvil
Teru Kuwayama

i could go on. through dumb luck i know a lot of working photographers, many of them rather prolific. you'd be surprised at how little attention is payed to gear.

That's because they are very familiar with the choices...that's why they are choices.

A person can't make a choice in ignorance. Herzog was often very frustrated with his equipment, and it's widely felt it limited his success during his own lifetime. I love his kodachrome.

You know what digital camera does kodachrome better than any other? Leica M9. It has the same size sensor as a Retina 1. Today most would consider FF a "big sensor", which of course is funny since 35mm film was considered by many just the opposite.

So let's just ask right now: what is a big sensor and what is a small sensor?

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . . a camera has NEVER taken a picture by itself. . . .

Dear Tim,

And equally, no-one take a photograph without some form of apparatus and/or materials. Your point was?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Fred Herzog
Tichy
Walker Evans
Steichen
Lee Morris
Man Ray
Lartique
Antonin Kratochvil
Teru Kuwayama

i could go on. through dumb luck i know a lot of working photographers, many of them rather prolific. you'd be surprised at how little attention is payed to gear.

Lartigue used "cheap, substandard gear"? What are your criteria for "cheap, substandard gear"? I chose Lartigue because I'm much more familiar with his work than with the others you list, but as far as I can see, the same question could be asked about Steichen.

Like you, I know a lot of working photographers, many of them very prolific. You'd clearly be very surprised at how much attention many of them pay to the gear they use/used.

The fact that relatively few photographers blather on about the cameras they use is no proof that they don't care what cameras they use. The first criterion, for all save users of Holgas and other to cameras, is reliability (including consistency). After that, it's a matter of the look they want, and of what I call "the quality plateau". To quote from that, "Up to a certain level, a better camera will give you better pictures. This level is the quality plateau. Above the quality plateau, more depends on you than on the camera".

"Better", of course, depends on what you want.

Cheers,

R.

 

[user237428934]

You can hide boring content behind shallow depth of field, a big sensor is helpful here.

Take all reportages that were done in 2016 and I think that 99% of the good ones could be done with m43, APS-C or FF without impact on the content and quality. The 1% are probably those where you really needed the high iso capabilty of a FF sensor.

 

[Roger Hicks]

You can hide boring content behind shallow depth of field, a big sensor is helpful here.

Take all reportages that were done in 2016 and I think that 99% of the good ones could be done with m43, APS-C or FF without impact on the content and quality. The 1% are probably those where you really needed the high iso capabilty of a FF sensor.

All very true, though of course reportage is only one kind of photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Some of them chose the best because at the time the best was a lens of f/3.5 that was uncoated and they were using a film rated at 12 ASA/ISO. So it's understandable. And I've not factored in the fact that a lot of cameras claimed high shutter speeds but never got beyond 1/350th or thereabouts...

Today, I don't think we need the best because average is more than adequate and we are not doing billboards. OK, some of us are but I'm trying not to talk about extremes.

Then there's those comments about such and such a film's look and I'm happy if the results are normal, natural or whatever you call true to the subject.

Just my 2d worth.

Regards, David

 

[Dektol Dan]

It's Not Just Sensor Size, It's Design

It's Not Just Sensor Size, It's Design

Over the years there have been many models and makes of digital cameras with some very good performance in various areas: color rendition, detail of rendition of shaded subjects, washout control, low light ability, detail by having or not having moire filters, or filters for UV. Even compression compensation counts, do you really want to shoot RAW all the time? Many newer high ISO sensors may suck at color. There is always compromise, and new isn't always better at everything.

There are cameras that made outstanding images with less than 6 mega pixels. If you have an eye and are experienced, or know what you subject will be, go for that camera. For example, go for an M9 or M9 mono for film expression, an old Canon 5D for rich color. 4/3 cameras have their place too. I love my old Canon 40D, and I love my Leica X1 with it's Nikon sensor sans moire filter. I have 30+ guitars AND cameras! You can't have enough!

I'm not a Nikon guy but I am sure there are certain past models that just stand out. It not just sensor size but sensor design and application.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

I'm not a Nikon guy but I am sure there are certain past models that just stand out. It not just sensor size but sensor design and application.

When we're starting to talk about «design», then we should mention Dieter Rams' very famous statement, aka «ten commandments for good design»:

Good design:[3]

1. Is innovative – The possibilities for progression are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for original designs. But imaginative design always develops in tandem with improving technology, and can never be an end in itself.
2. Makes a product useful – A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic criteria. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could detract from it.
3. Is aesthetic – The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.
4. Makes a product understandable – It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user's intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.
5. Is unobtrusive – Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression.
6. Is honest – It does not make a product appear more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.
7. Is long-lasting – It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.
8. Is thorough down to the last detail – Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.
9. Is environmentally friendly – Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.
10. Is as little design as possible – Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.

Does any of the sensor designs fulfill these criteria, particularly #7 and #9?

 

[emraphoto]

Lartigue used "cheap, substandard gear"? What are your criteria for "cheap, substandard gear"? I chose Lartigue because I'm much more familiar with his work than with the others you list, but as far as I can see, the same question could be asked about Steichen.

Like you, I know a lot of working photographers, many of them very prolific. You'd clearly be very surprised at how much attention many of them pay to the gear they use/used.

The fact that relatively few photographers blather on about the cameras they use is no proof that they don't care what cameras they use. The first criterion, for all save users of Holgas and other to cameras, is reliability (including consistency). After that, it's a matter of the look they want, and of what I call "the quality plateau". To quote from that, "Up to a certain level, a better camera will give you better pictures. This level is the quality plateau. Above the quality plateau, more depends on you than on the camera".

"Better", of course, depends on what you want.

Cheers,

R.

i wasn't really arguing a position. i am sure there are folks who put a lot of stock in the gear they use and that is perfectly ok. the absolute nature of either position is what i was trying to dispel.

 

[Tim Murphy]

My point was

My point was

Dear Tim,

And equally, no-one take a photograph without some form of apparatus and/or materials. Your point was?

Cheers,

R.

Dear Roger,

I'm just some pogue looking at pictures. To me, and 99.9 percent of the viewing public a picture is either interesting or it isn't. It may be exquisite and a perfect example of technical perfection but if it's uninteresting then it's just uninteresting.

How interest is determined is up to the person viewing the picture but overall the gear used to take an interesting picture means absolutely nothing.

YMMV

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[Georgiy Romanov]

Nobody invites me to shot their wedding on my smartphone or little Point'n'Shot camera for the money :bang:

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Now THAT's an interesting image! Nicely done. Mirrors my experience, for better DOF on closeups, a small sensor and lens is a big help. I often use my iPhone for flowers and product shots.

Here is an example taken with small sensor today:

Winter sunlight by Joan, on Flickr

 

[DwF]

If you have 30 bags of leaves to take to recycling, then the honda fit isn't best. Perhaps a full bed pickup is the best.

If you are driving 75 miles to and from work each day the fit rocks.

If you are driving from Des Moines to Rochester with a sprouse (NYC spelling), two grown kids and two entlebuchers neither of the previous cars are the best.

Then again, if compared to walking.......

B2 (;->

All I have to say is if Honda merged with Fiat, they'd have had to name that car "Fits and Starts"! 🙂

 

[jsrockit]

Fred Herzog
Tichy
Walker Evans
Steichen
Lee Morris
Man Ray
Lartique
Antonin Kratochvil
Teru Kuwayama

i could go on. through dumb luck i know a lot of working photographers, many of them rather prolific. you'd be surprised at how little attention is payed to gear.

Substandard gear was used by the list of people here? How so... ? Yeah, Tichy, sure, but the rest (well, the ones who actually did something important)?

 

[Calzone]

Substandard gear was used by the list of people here? How so... ? Yeah, Tichy, sure, but the rest (well, the ones who actually did something important)?

John,

Man Ray was a great experimenter and a rather important artist. In art history he is rather important. He kinda invented Photograms.

True he wasn't mostly known as a photographer though.

BTW I don't think a cellphone is my best "tool," although for others it is.

Cal

 

[Kent]

This only shows you don't need a large sensor to take THIS particular picture.

Exactly! And that's the point.

Of course, you can take some extraordinary pictures with crappy gear.
But you cannot every photo with every gear.

Give a Leica Q (excellent camera!) to a sports photographer and ask him to shoot an image of the last touch-down so that it covers the whole frame.

Give the same camera to a wildlife photographer and make him shoot pictures of wild lions.

Give a Nikon D4 with a 400mm tele to a street-photographer and tell him to shoot a reportage about HongKong.

Give a tiny sensor compact camera to a people photographer and ask him to shoot a portrait with a totally blurred background.

etc. etc.

We should stop claiming that it is only the photographer's talent that matters! It is always both - talent and the right equipment.

(And again: "That's what she said!")

 

[jsrockit]

John,

Man Ray was a great experimenter and a rather important artist. In art history he is rather important. He kinda invented Photograms.

I'm well aware of that, but I doubt he didn't have access to good gear (keeping historical equipment availability in mind).

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Fred Herzog

Walker Evans

i could go on. through dumb luck i know a lot of working photographers, many of them rather prolific. you'd be surprised at how little attention is payed to gear.

🙄😱😕

Evans used Leica, Rolleiflex and 8x10 view camera. I'm just studying his latest edition of "Americans" where they keep on mentioning "plates". Brownie wasn't operating on plates.

Herzog used Hasselblad , didn't have luck with Leica M and switched to some advanced SLR. He also had some funky cameras as many of us do. For fun.
Lately I have seen him with Canon G-series and Fuji X series cameras.