DP2M In Perspective

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
KM Legacy
Senior MemberPosts: 1,955
Like?
Re: DP2M In Perspective
In reply to DMillier, Jan 26, 2013

DMillier wrote:

KM

You are now ranting about supposed opponents of sigma.

My post was not sneering, it was objecting to your ridiculous implication hat every photo taken with a bayer camera is instantly forgettable and every photo taken with a sigma is destined to be a memorable classic destined for the walls of the National Gallery.

Despite all the verbiage, image quality is not what makes a good photo, it merely allows you to print larger. If a Bayer camera isn't so sharp at A0 as the latest Foveon, print it 6 x 4 inches. If the picture is any good no one will care.

Here's an example - a gallery of classy portraiture/glamour shot only by window light and with a humble m4/3 lumix G3 to prove the camera really doesn't matter when it comes to making memorable images http://www.flickr.com/photos/66984294@N02/8328461995/in/photostream

-- hide signature --

I never said that any type of camera automatically produces superior photographs, or that Bayer images are poor. I own and use a couple of different Bayer cameras. I never bought Sigma because of some mysterious, hard-to-describe "Foveon quality" to the images, let alone a "film-like quality" which some boast of (I don't miss film at all. Good riddance to the stuff.). I got a DP because it gives really sharp pictures in a small package, without lots of tedious artificial "sharpening" in PP. The style of photography I do requires sharp lenses and sensors (or film) and the DPs gave me that. However, I enjoy looking at, and admire, other styles of photography for which the DP is not an appropriate tool; styles I don't do myself. What angers me is people who seem to actually enjoy blasting Sigma for doing something different, and giving the market more choice. There is really no competition for the DP; you can't get that kind of IQ in anything of similar size, weight, and price.

As far as print size goes, I learned the hard way while exhibiting in galleries that large prints impress people more and get more attention than small ones. And if you want to hold quality in larger prints, you need really good IQ.

As for the old cliche that "cameras don't make good pictures, photographers do," one should realize that such statements arise partly out of the resentment that good photographers feel at the implication that their work is better because of their equipment: they know that good photography is hard work, and they are justifiably proud of their skills. However, most pros and serious amateurs do not handicap themselves by using inferior equipment. Most of them use expensive pro-grade lenses (not "kit zooms"), for example. I posted earlier about how Ansel Adams used the Contarex 35mm SLR at times. Anyone who has handled one knows that the C-rex was heavy and inferior ergonomically to good Japanese SLRs, which is why it never caught on. There was a delay before the shutter fired after you pressed the release. The thing didn't have instant-reopen auto diaphragm. (I think Zeiss did that so they could use more diaphragm leaves and get a rounder, more precise aperture.) Horrors! It wasn't mainstream! It wasn't state-of-the-art! So why did Adams use it? Probably because of the superb Zeiss lenses, which gave a little better IQ than the competition. I.e. he was willing to put up with some inconvenience in order to get better results, just as many Sigma fans are.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow