you don't need a big sensor

[emraphoto]

🙄😱😕

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.

the last time I saw Herzog out and about, he was using the same canon Sureshot (film) he had been using for quite some time. that was some time ago.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

the last time I saw Herzog out and about, he was using the same canon Sureshot (film) he had been using for quite some time. that was some time ago.

No doubt, as I was mentioned, for sure.

And here is what else he was seen with by others:


Fred Herzog by Nelson Mouëllic, on Flickr


Opening Fred Herzog by C/O Berlin, on Flickr

Tom A took this photo of him wearing OM-D.
https://flic.kr/p/oJwYAK

https://flic.kr/p/pYWeMx

https://flic.kr/p/3oXdLd

http://batsceba.deviantart.com/journal/COLOR-STREET-PHOTOGRAPHY-7-FRED-HERZOG-560012017

 

[jsrockit]

I don't think showing photos of people using cheaper cameras, well after the release of work that made them famous, means much though. Most of the guys on that list used serious equipment. Maybe not what was considered the best, but serviceable cameras for sure (when doing their most important work).

 

[emraphoto]

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)?

i think 'important' would be a matter of debate. i know that of the people i listed, all of them shot significant bodies of work on what would be considered sub-standard equipment.

Teru for example (Holga) http://terukuwayama.com/

 

[jsrockit]

Ok, understood. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm thinking in terms of each person's most important work i.e. important historically to the medium. Walker Evans used a Polaroid when he was older, but was it his most important work? Fred Herzog didn't use a crappy P&S for most of his 50s /60s color work right? Others had used supposedly inferior equipment, but the equipment is what made the photos work and is part of the appeal of that work.

As we keep saying, it is about choosing the right tool for the image you want to make. Change that tool and it might not have the same impact. We all know a great photo can be made with anything. But we also know that choosing the right tool, whether a toy, a pedestrian SLR, a phone, a P&S, or the most expensive camera, can make or break a project.

 

[emraphoto]

Ok, understood. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm thinking in terms of each person's most important work i.e. important historically to the medium. Walker Evans used a Polaroid when he was older, but was it his most important work? Fred Herzog didn't use a crappy P&S for most of his 50s /60s color work right? Others had used supposedly inferior equipment, but the equipment is what made the photos work and is part of the appeal of that work.

As we keep saying, it is about choosing the right tool for the image you want to make. Change that tool and it might not have the same impact. We all know a great photo can be made with anything. But we also know that choosing the right tool, whether a toy, a pedestrian SLR, a phone, a P&S, or the most expensive camera, can make or break a project.

of course. i'm not much for absolutes thus my original comment. it would be foolish to say that choice of camera does not have an impact on end result. for myself personally, i am willing to trade certain 'benefits' for the sake of convenience. i don't see the small sensor as a hindrance and have been using small sensor compacts effectively, for a long time. it has yet to impact my work in a negative way. there are others who have created significant bodies of work with what most would consider sub-standard gear. the notion that it is simply not possible doesn't line up with the facts.

 

[pvdhaar]

Of course great photographers can create good images with modest equipment, and for them, yes, the eye is more important than the camera. But that leads to false claims.

It's unjust to simply turn this statement around and conclude that for the less gifted photographer the best equipment would be wasted and he/she should be excluded from using the best there is, and come to enlightenment by means of suffering through endless iterations of dreg.

Cheap gear throws up lots of limitations, especially for the inexperienced photographer. How can you capture the decisive moment if the camera is as lethargic as a tortoise, how can you really learn to exploit flash photography if your flash doesn't support manual output and all you've got is a variable aperture zoom, how can you learn about depth of field with a lens that's more or less a pinhole? The list goes on..

So especially the beginning photographers at whom the statement about "it's the eye and not the gear" is most often thrown, need the best of the best to make a running start at becoming great.

 

[Highway 61]

About this "iPhone photo shot by accident by a student" : it's clear to me that it's a photo not at all taken "by accident". I think that the model and the photographer had thought of composing that photo for a while. The photographer cleverly flipped the photo upside down for display. That shows some photographic culture behind. Which is good.

Which camera was used to take this isn't a subject by itself.

Some years ago I took the photo below totally by chance during my lunchtime after a heavy summer rain shower at the local tramway station (connected with a bus stop hence the large arrow markings on the pavement). I shot it on film using an old 24x36 RF camera (no it wasn't a Leica and no the 35mm lens wasn't made by Leitz) because that was what I was carrying at that time.

But I doubt the photo would have been much different had I carried something else. What seems relevant to me is that I had the idea of shooting this and then displaying what I had captured flipped upside down just because I am not totally ignorant about what works with composition.

(Tri-X)

For a while some people having candidly thought that I had used a Leica to shoot this raved about this photo to death. Some time later when they realized I had used something 100% Japanese, that photo (and its photographer) got some heavy bashing for "having fooled people who liked Leica photos".

 

[David Hughes]

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

Hi,

Are as many as 10 needed?

For centuries just three worked; they were "Commodity, Firmness and Delight" but no one seems to have heard of them these days.

Regards, David

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Are as many as 10 needed?

For centuries just three worked; they were "Commodity, Firmness and Delight" but no one seems to have heard of them these days.

Dear David,
you're right, of course.
But: can we expect such an («elitarian»?) education «these days», when everyone who is not inclined to become a synchronised cyborg must be suspected that they're ancient and probably problematic relics? … 🙁

 

[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.

I was really hoping somebody would post a list like this, thank you for taking the time to do so. A list like that is why I love this place.

Nobody took a shot at my question: What is a big sensor? Especially considering 35mm film is the same as full frame?

Like so many RF debates, it'a all about how we read statements. "You don't need a big sensor" That can be read in two fundamental ways: 1)great shots can be taken on small sensors (undebatable-true) 2)don't bother with a full frame digital (BS for most enthusiast and above shooters)

I took the statement the second way, I am honestly not sure how it was intended.

Best to all 🙂

PS it's not just DOF issues (which iPhone 7 has addressed: http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/apple-iphone7plus-portrait-hands-on/#t3Wqj5fVDgqJ


Black Stalks by unoh7, M9 CV21/4

Here is the M9 with a bad (but tiny) 21 😉 I think you are going to need to be pretty picky though to even hit that level on APS-C, let alone smaller, when all factors are considered. Certainly any close exam is going to be quite telling. My RX100 can't get near this: but it takes very good shots for what it is.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Nobody took a shot at my question: What is a big sensor? Especially considering 35mm film is the same as full frame?

Digital cameras comes with sensors, film cameras using different formats of film. 135 film format is known as 35mm film. Digital cameras with sensor size equal to the frame size of 135 film format are called as full frame.

Size of image taking area is related to the viewing and printing size of the final image.

If image is taken with mobile phone, the size of its sensor doesn't matter for viewing on mobile phone and printing, sharing at small size.

What is small size? Open picture full size on the mobile phone.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Ok, understood. Maybe I'm missing something. I'm thinking in terms of each person's most important work i.e. important historically to the medium. Walker Evans used a Polaroid when he was older, but was it his most important work? Fred Herzog didn't use a crappy P&S for most of his 50s /60s color work right? Others had used supposedly inferior equipment, but the equipment is what made the photos work and is part of the appeal of that work.

As we keep saying, it is about choosing the right tool for the image you want to make. Change that tool and it might not have the same impact. We all know a great photo can be made with anything. But we also know that choosing the right tool, whether a toy, a pedestrian SLR, a phone, a P&S, or the most expensive camera, can make or break a project.

I have post here about Herzog, Zimbel and others using digital compact cameras once they became old.
Few months ago LF community has news about one of their big names switching from LF to something small. He is too old to carry-on the LF rig into the swamp.

I also posted couple of times here about HCB, GW choice to work with RF not SLR.

I know photographers who deliberately choose Holga and Brownie. Because those cameras gives the specific and genuine look SOOK, instead of trying to fake it in PS.

Instagram started as project to share pictures taken with mobile phone. FB downgrades image quality for speed up reasons, they know what majority of their users are looking at images on mobile phones and almost never on big screen.

 

[willie_901]

Like so many RF debates, it'a all about how we read statements. "You don't need a big sensor" That can be read in two fundamental ways: 1)great shots can be taken on small sensors (undebatable-true) 2)don't bother with a full frame digital (BS for most enthusiast and above shooters)

This! +1






12345678910