On putting money into 4:3 gear ...

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
esco
Senior MemberPosts: 1,780
Like?
Re: It's no different than film was....
In reply to veroman, May 16, 2013

veroman wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

So why is the lens/sensor combination some how not important today?

Who is saying it's not important? The lens has only recently been brought into the discussion via my recent response to you. Up to now, the central discussion has pretty much been solely about camera bodies and the latest sensor designs. The fact is, most are well aware that upgrading lenses will do more for picture quality than getting a new body with a new sensor.

And over time, a new body is no more expensive than switching film being used was. As far as "trying it out" you can see the results from each sensor type easily online to see the strengths and weaknesses.

The proof is in the prints, not on 100% views online. Everything looks great on the web. Prints are where the sensor meets the road.

The reason why I still have a large print portfolio is because there is something to be said of someone that can give results from start to finish, that once the image has been captured and worked on that the process doesn't just fall apart once it comes time to put it on paper and that no matter what the camera used there is consistency. Some art directors appreciate this.
I believe though in some ways electronic image viewing is tougher though. When you attend a live physical print gallery viewing you can only get soo close, your eyes can only focus soo close and you will take a moment to step back and take it all in. Your attention is soley on the photo and nothing else, there is a great deal of control that is taken away and because of this the photographer and his work an honest fair judgement. With electronic viewing people will pixel peep, they will place bias based on brand, lens and or exif data, they will disect every bit of visual and non-visual part of a photo and some will do this without ever realizing.

Obviously skill is needed for any of this to matter (why this keeps being brought up is beyond me), but you guys seem to be discounting the importance the sensor has on the end result.

I can post a dozen different images taken with a dozen different cameras going back to 2002 and up to the present, and I doubt you'll be able to see much of a difference in quality among them ... nor would you be able to tell which image was taken from which camera. My archives total about 150,000 pure digital RAW images across 9TB of storage. My cameras date back to the Kodak DCS 520 (2 megapixels!) and into the present with Canon DSLRs, Fuji, etc. Via Lightroom, I can browse the images pretty quickly and can maneuver from one body to another via a keyword. I can tell you for certain that the biggest change, by far, in image-making has come by way of image-processing, both in-camera and via external software. Capture One processes my old Canon 10D images way better than my original Canon software ever could. Getting Capture One was like getting new cameras. Yes ... I'm saying that the improvements in sensor design have not been quite as great as improvements in conversion software or in-camera JPEG processing. Let the arguments begin.

And the "This guy with a lot of skill and an old tech camera can make better images than this novice with the newest tech" is just silly and obvious to anyone.

Sorry ... but there's nothing silly about it. There are images being shot today with very, very old 11 X 17 view cameras that put even medium format digital to shame. The difference isn't the technology as much as it is the photographer's knowledge about how to use old tech ... which dovetails into the fact that so many photography schools and photography departments at the university level start out with teaching film-based photography.

-- hide signature --

 SteveG

'When love and skill work together, expect a masterpiece.'
— Found in a Chinese Fortune Cookie
www.stephenmichaelgarey.com

What you're saying is that because multi winning F1 champion Michael Schumacher never drove an f1 car of the 50's that he couldn't possibly be as good as he is now. . .Yeah your argument is flawed sorry. . .and i'm someone who did learn on flim and manual cameras too - i also went to art school.
The point is that most people know it takes skill to be a good photographer in the same sense it takes great driving skill to be a good driver and that hopping in a race car isn't going to make them better but you musn't discredit those that actually are very good drivers and drive a race car.

Why people on this forum automatically assume that everyone doesn't understands this is what's silly, it's basically a defense mechanism at this point.

-- hide signature --

Oldschool Evolt shooter

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
skeys MOD
skeys MOD
+1New
skeys MOD
Say,New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow