Which is more important...

Started Oct 12, 2012 | Discussions thread
scorrpio
scorrpio Veteran Member • Posts: 3,595
Re: Which is more important...
1

Oh puh-lease.  Smear a wad of peanut butter on that uber-duper-photographer's lens and see if equipment is still just '5%'.

Take a quality DSLR with a quality lens, set it on 'Auto', take it outdoors on a cloudy day, and take a few shots off the hip in random directions.  The compositional and artistic value of the resulting images is likely going to be nil.   However, image quality is likely going to be very good to excellent.   Whatever camera focuses on will be nice and sharp, colors will be correct, etc etc etc.

To actually answer the question: Once the photographer done his '95%' by determining the camera location, direction, serttings, and time to take the shot, the quality of resulting image is really a function of both lens and sensor.

Lens is what determines the picture that sensor will record.   Sharpness, distortion, flare, aberrations, bokeh, etc etc.

But once the light from lens is on the sensor, and sensor is recording, a great many things about the sensor will dictate what the final result will look like.   Cell density, arrangement, color filters, microlenses, noise floor, saturation point, et.al.

If this was about audio recording, you could say that singer's ability accounted for 95% of the result, but a poor quality microphone or inadequate recorder can botch the result something awful.

To put it short: final output is dictated by the weakest link.   The weaker it is compared to others, the more its impact will be felt.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow