It never was about noise.

[Richard Fossum]

After a few thousand pictures taken, one realise how difficult it is to catch something really striking. Take pictures of your cat with a Canon, all smooth. Do you feel the hairs raising on your arms? Probably not.

Now, go take a look at pictures with soul. Of people embracing in a crowded, dim lit railwaystation. Maybe even with noise. Maybe even blurry. Who ever cared about noise when you see that?

I am a Nikonian. Nikon is not especially good in the noise department. We have dust. The new D80 is softer than my D70S. So what? On forums I see people 'catching the moment' with point and shoots, making art with simple tools. A good example is the poster here, who posted pictures from the rebellion in Hungary. One reply was that the noise even brought out a certain feeling from the pictures he'd taken at the crowded squares.

Why make NOISE about NOISE when the real battle, is how to be a PHOTOGRAPHER?

--
Kind regards,
Rich.

 

[Cynops]

Oh so well said.

Marc
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdezemery

 

[thebard37]

It is so great to hear that. It is so true.
--
'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

 

[shg]

exactly. very well said

--
http://www.pbase.com/shg2

 

[garycane]

What a change to see someone talk so much sence, couldn't agree more. A change from hearing someone drivle on about the next camera they wont be getting. or is photography not art and I have been missing the point for the past 25 years. Pictures of your dog with every bit of detail in the veins of the eyball showing are good to see but a picture that catches mode and atmosphere stays with you, just look back at some of the stuff that was shot during the Vietnam war.
--
Gary

 

[George Cramer]

You're so right!
All that tech talk. Let's photograph, successor for the E1 or not.

A bit less or a bit more noise does'nt make your pic a lot worse or a lot better.
Nobody becomes abetter photographer with a better camera.
It's about what and how you photograph.
Geo

 

[shg]

look at this guy's work, half if not more the photos were taken by canon G5.

nothing can take the place of good eye, imagination and technique.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=639613

--
http://www.pbase.com/shg2

 

[Daniel from Bavaria]

Hello,

what a wise post. You are absolutely right.

Best greetings
Daniel

 

[JR_Sprawls]

--
J.R.

Somewhere south of Amarillo

 

[thebard37]

In all fairness, that guy is as good in PP as he is with his rig. Excellent photos.
--
'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

 

[shg]

In all fairness, that guy is as good in PP as he is with his rig.
Excellent photos.
--
'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.'
Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

yep, his high pp skills is going along with his photos, he captures very special moments and processes them profissionally

--
http://www.pbase.com/shg2

 

[butachan]

People use a digital camera for a variety of reasons and there are many styles of photography.
It is not always about "capturing the moment" or just "getting the shot".

Sometimes noise (or correct focus, etc.) does not matter.

Sometimes noise can (quite obviously) ruin an otherwise beautiful photograph.

Think about it.

--
'There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees.'

 

[shg]

People use a digital camera for a variety of reasons and there are
many styles of photography.
It is not always about "capturing the moment" or just "getting the
shot".

Sometimes noise (or correct focus, etc.) does not matter.

Sometimes noise can (quite obviously) ruin an otherwise beautiful
photograph.

Think about it.

--
'There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody
agrees.'

rare. where do you actualy need high iso? list them and link to photos where the photographer only succeeded because he used clean high iso and captured so effecting moment.

--
http://www.pbase.com/shg2

 

[Bill_Turner]

I'm glad that I found this before it fell off of the first page.
Thanks for posting this. You are so right!

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.
Eschew obfuscation.
The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[butachan]

rare. where do you actualy need high iso? list them and link to
photos where the photographer only succeeded because he used clean
high iso and captured so effecting moment.

Rare??? Are you joking???

There have been a countless number of times that I took picture in relatively low lighting (which often happens indoors). In most cases, the use of flash was either undesirable or prohibited. Add to that the lack of IS and you can easily understand the need for low noise performance in many situations.

--
'There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees.'

 

[D Q E]

Why make NOISE about NOISE when the real battle, is how to be a
PHOTOGRAPHER?

Well said, but we used to gibber on just as badly about the grain, tonality, latitude and whatnot of our favourite films, too.

I like grain, except when I don't. Know what I mean?

--
mumbo jumbo

 

[shinndigg]

In all fairness, that guy is as good in PP as he is with his rig.
Excellent photos.
--

This is leaning toward digital art. A little overprocessed form MY personal taste, but moving images nonetheless. EXCELLENT images!
--
shinndigg
http://www/pbase.com/shinndigg

 

[Louis_Dobson]

That's the hair shirt view of photography.

Of course photography is 99% photographer and 1% camera. A brilliant photographer with a rubbish camera will come back with great picures, a rubbish photographer with a great camera will get nothing - that's a given.

However give a brilliant photographer a great camera and he will get MORE brilliant shots. Less chances lost, basically.

This is a camera forum, and the assumption is people want a good camera. WHY they want a good camera isn't the issue.

Which takes us back to noise.

Low noise IS a desirable attribute. If you WANT noise sometimes, you can add it. Most of the time you don't.

4/3rds (Oly) is noisier than APS-C (Nikon) which is noisier than 35mmFF (Canon 5D) which is noisier than MF (in theory).

So, should we all buy MF cameras?

No, because low noise is ONE desirable attribute amongst many. And the gaining of it tends to bring many UNDESIRABLE attributes in its wake (vignetting, heavy lenses and cost, to name but three).

So, you are right, it isn't and has NEVER been about noise. But not because some talented artist can get great results with a Box Brownie, that's not the point.

Noise on modern cameras is not a major issue for 99% of shooters 99% of the time.

Getting a great picture requires a good eye, a good idea, actually having the camera and the lens you need with you (weight/portability), correctly set (handling), focused and correctly exposed (various performance aspects of the hardware), sharp (optical quality of the lenses), and ideally of a high enough resolution to be saleable to a mass medium (IQ and resolution). SOMETIMES it helps if the camera works well in poor light (noise). But to imagine noise is the be all and end all of camera performance is a bit less than bright

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

 

[Bill_Turner]

Based on your final sentence, you actually agree?

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.
Eschew obfuscation.
The frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Barrie Marshall]

Here is an image taken with the E-1 with noise and not particularly sharp, as far as I am concerned it works better than a noise free image, I printed this to 11x14 and it looks great and I have sold a couple, I was delivering one and a friend stopped me on the street, saw it and loved it so much he wanted one.

Barrie