Why and Why Not of the A7iii for ME Locked

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
OP CharlesB58 Veteran Member • Posts: 8,974
Re: Going FF is a waste of time for you.

NCV wrote:

Firstly, you are using a camera that you have mastered and can shoot with without thinking about it. This is particularly important if you shoot in a dark theatre. I did theatrical photography some years ago and I could load and unload my film cameras in the dark. I knew where all the switches and dials were without thinking.

Bad habits die hard and I can use my present EM5’s without thinking about where stuff is. I lose less shots that way.

Secondly you do it for money. Equipment is a cost that has to generate income. If your clients start to complain about the image quality of your images or you are starting to lose work to competitors, then a change is essential, otherwise it is just a waste of resources.

Looking at your images the quality seems fine from every point of view. I found that faultless technique combined with good composition outweigh problems like noise that most of your clients will never notice.

We as photographers see the defects like noise and lens softness because we know where to look. Clients hardly ever do. Nobody ever complained about the grain in my 12x16 inch prints shot on Tmax 400 at 1600

I would say than M43 is more than enough for your end use. As I said in a thread that got deleted: shoot and all these problems will go away.

When I shot jazz , ballet and opera, I would occasionally find a well healed amateur beside me with far better gear than my beat up pair of Nikon 801s and my manual focus Nikon 180 2.8 and my Tamron 300 2.8. When I saw the results they were always without fail disastrous because experience, technique and above all a cultural knowledge of the subject you are shooting counts far more than gear.

For us "film era shooters" who used to push Tmax or Tri-X to 1600, current complaints about "unacceptable noise" at ISO 3200 or 6400 can seem pretty laughable. I'd say that's a reason why I find some of the ultrasmooth images some concert photographers produce to be distasteful. They look too "digital" and overprocessed. Ironically, a current trend among some photographers is to use tone mapping and grunge/crisp presets-which tend to make noise more noticeable-to give their shots more impact.

As with any genre, people look for ways to get their images to stand out from the crowd. I do: it's one reason I stick with Olympus, because my images don't look quite the same as the stream of pics done with FF gear.

Again though I need to reiterate that the purpose of my rambling OP is to state why I plan on sticking with m4/3 in spite of the hype and reality of ths A7iii, which Obwould buy only as another tool in my kit. As an old fart, I find all this caterwauling about which system is better humorous. I learned photography from people who owned 35mm rangefinders, 3m slrs, medium format and large format cameras. Nowadays any digital system offers so mucj flexibility as to be mind-boggling in comparison to film, yet the idea if having multiple systems is still viable.

-- hide signature --

Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed. Quote by Garry Winogrand

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