Reading mode: Light Dark

When we are told M43 can't cut it (Link)

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCV
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
Last edited:
TN Args said:
Tommi K1 said:
A Nikon 1 would have been great system, of Nikon would have made 15-20 lenses to it. Now it was couple lenses and multiple bodies and that's it.
Died.
Click to expand...
13
Click to expand...
True, although most of them were rather boring slow zooms e.g. multiple variations on the standard kit lenses.

There were some significant gaps in the lens line-up (e.g. no macro lens or f/2.8 zooms) and the few interesting lenses released for the system (e.g. the 70-300mm) were too little too late.
 
SteveY80 said:
TN Args said:
Tommi K1 said:
A Nikon 1 would have been great system, of Nikon would have made 15-20 lenses to it. Now it was couple lenses and multiple bodies and that's it.
Died.
Click to expand...
13
Click to expand...
True, although most of them were rather boring slow zooms e.g. multiple variations on the standard kit lenses.

There were some significant gaps in the lens line-up (e.g. no macro lens or f/2.8 zooms) and the few interesting lenses released for the system (e.g. the 70-300mm) were too little too late.
Click to expand...
thankfully you could put f mount lenses on it with the adapter.....but it was never going to get any traction with the lack of native lenses and rehashes of kit lenses every couple of bodies, good concept but totally fudged
 
Wu Jiaqiu said:
SteveY80 said:
TN Args said:
Tommi K1 said:
A Nikon 1 would have been great system, of Nikon would have made 15-20 lenses to it. Now it was couple lenses and multiple bodies and that's it.
Died.
Click to expand...
13
Click to expand...
True, although most of them were rather boring slow zooms e.g. multiple variations on the standard kit lenses.

There were some significant gaps in the lens line-up (e.g. no macro lens or f/2.8 zooms) and the few interesting lenses released for the system (e.g. the 70-300mm) were too little too late.
Click to expand...
thankfully you could put f mount lenses on it with the adapter.....but it was never going to get any traction with the lack of native lenses and rehashes of kit lenses every couple of bodies, good concept but totally fudged
Click to expand...
I tried adapting a 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon 1 J1 to use as a 135mm equivalent lens for street portraits. The results were disappointing, both because of by the cropped image quality and crippled AF functionality.

Probably the most impressive thing about the N1 system was C-AF with PDAF points across the sensor, yet Nikon disabled everything except centre point S-AF when using adapted lenses...

I considered adapting a manual macro lens too, but the lack of focus peaking on N1 already had me looking at m4/3 for a better lightweight macro kit.

It's sad that Nikon made such a mess out of a system with such potential. It'll be interesting to see if the Z series end up similarly "fudged" in the long run.
 
SteveY80 said:
Wu Jiaqiu said:
SteveY80 said:
TN Args said:
Tommi K1 said:
A Nikon 1 would have been great system, of Nikon would have made 15-20 lenses to it. Now it was couple lenses and multiple bodies and that's it.
Died.
Click to expand...
13
Click to expand...
True, although most of them were rather boring slow zooms e.g. multiple variations on the standard kit lenses.

There were some significant gaps in the lens line-up (e.g. no macro lens or f/2.8 zooms) and the few interesting lenses released for the system (e.g. the 70-300mm) were too little too late.
Click to expand...
thankfully you could put f mount lenses on it with the adapter.....but it was never going to get any traction with the lack of native lenses and rehashes of kit lenses every couple of bodies, good concept but totally fudged
Click to expand...
I tried adapting a 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon 1 J1 to use as a 135mm equivalent lens for street portraits. The results were disappointing, both because of by the cropped image quality and crippled AF functionality.

Probably the most impressive thing about the N1 system was C-AF with PDAF points across the sensor, yet Nikon disabled everything except centre point S-AF when using adapted lenses...

I considered adapting a manual macro lens too, but the lack of focus peaking on N1 already had me looking at m4/3 for a better lightweight macro kit.

It's sad that Nikon made such a mess out of a system with such potential. It'll be interesting to see if the Z series end up similarly "fudged" in the long run.
Click to expand...
they did a firmware fix for the adapter so C-AF works great but once again....centre point, i tried the 50mm/1.8 G and it was a bit hit and miss, tried a Sigma 30mm/1.4 Art lens and that was quite impressive even wide open.

As for the Z it looks great, but once again they stuck the Nikon 1 style tracking into it....... it wouldn't be Nikon if they didn't do a few things that make no sense :D
 
Okapi001 said:
Great Bustard said:
This current challenge winner is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. It's a fantastic photo. But the lack of fine details in the plane really do detract from the photo for me --
Click to expand...
That is basically a definition of a pixel-peeper. The one that sees a great photos and starts to examine it at 100% magnification.
Click to expand...
Have you talked to a certain type of airshow photographer who goes to airshows chasing details? This sort of criterion exists in real terms for real people.
 
tt321 said:
Okapi001 said:
Great Bustard said:
This current challenge winner is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. It's a fantastic photo. But the lack of fine details in the plane really do detract from the photo for me --
Click to expand...
That is basically a definition of a pixel-peeper. The one that sees a great photos and starts to examine it at 100% magnification.
Click to expand...
Have you talked to a certain type of airshow photographer who goes to airshows chasing details? This sort of criterion exists in real terms for real people.
Click to expand...
i like crisp airshow shots, if there is text on an aircraft i expect to be able to read it in my pictures, can be called pixel peeping or could be called having a standard
 
Technology places bounds on your creative vision or opens new possibilities

But often those bounds create inspiration.

Some people can take advantage of the cutting edge technology to produce something new and fantastic, but more often unlimited capability leads to creative confusion - think of the house project with an unlimited budget that always goes to garish excess.

Black & white photography is a good example of a technical constraint. In the right hand, the work is fantastic.

With m4/3 more people are getting 800 mm shots further out into the wilderness than ever before

But if you want glamor shots on the beaches of Maui - you can look elsewhere for inspirations.
 
NCV said:
Man, I love the way you follow me on this forum memorising and cataloguing my every contribution to this forum..
Click to expand...
Again you seem to excuse yourself when your behavior is called into question. Yet you were just chiding someone else about their past actions.
Member said:
I love the way you pull out my past pearls of wisdom at a click of a mouse.
Click to expand...
That's the irony of the forum. What you say is in writing. I'm not the only one that can see it.
Member said:
Why not start a Thread with my best quotes to liven up the forum a bit.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you've beat me to it.
Member said:
My rare nuggets of wisdom are far more interesting and erudite than stuff that crops up in your other major interest, which is not photography, but a strange obsession that concerns comparing camera formats.
Click to expand...
Look whom is all of a sudden digging for nuggets.
Member said:
Weird man, just flaky.
Click to expand...
You tell me which is more weird. A man who is not afraid to honestly rebut you, without resorting to ad homimems, eagerly waiting for an honest reply in the hope that we both might learn something, or a man who is full of nuggets of wisdom, yet is insulted by his own words?

Everything I've said in this thread comes with an invitation for a sincere and honest reply, it doesn't have to be nice either, your words don't hurt me at all. Just include in the midst of your nuggets of wisdom, why exactly technological advances and the art of photography are at odds, unless one chooses to pursue one over the other?

Some people don't want to be the next Ansel Adams. They buy technology just so they can get snapshots of their grandchildren blowing out the candles on their birthday cake. They don't care if anyone else is impressed with their work, they are only trying to impress themselves, and if they are impressed, their money is well spent. For them, the technology they paid for actually has served its purpose when they are able to get the shot they want with a minimum of fuss and not much expertise.

Those same people may or may not be bitten by an urge to become artists in the field of photography but in the end it's ultimately their own choice.

Likewise with people who choose to compare formats. I'm sure it doesn't matter to them who approves of their choices.

I know. A mere nugget of foolishness compared to those wise nuggets that learned people drop on the forum but a flaky man has to start somewhere. At the end of the day, you seem to know me pretty well. How about explaining why technology and being an artist simply have to be at odds?

Robert
 
Last edited:
JaKing said:
And can you inform me who was permanently banned for making disgusting and obscene comments about my mother ... ?
Click to expand...
For some strange reason, every time you bring that up, it gets deleted. I truly wish that just one time the whole conversation could be be published so that you could own up to your part of the exchange, not that you would, mind you, but so anyone else could see where you took the conversation prior to the response you got.

Robert
 
Last edited:
tt321 said:
Okapi001 said:
Great Bustard said:
This current challenge winner is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. It's a fantastic photo. But the lack of fine details in the plane really do detract from the photo for me --
Click to expand...
That is basically a definition of a pixel-peeper. The one that sees a great photos and starts to examine it at 100% magnification.
Click to expand...
Have you talked to a certain type of airshow photographer who goes to airshows chasing details? This sort of criterion exists in real terms for real people.
Click to expand...
Being able to magnify a plane in flight and read the warning labels around the cockpit is pretty neat, even if it doesn't necessarily make it a better photograph.

I'd say that pixel peeping is definitely part of the appeal of high resolution stacked macro photography. It's cool to be able to see the whole of an insect, then magnify just the eye and still see detail in the compound lenses.

Sometimes the technical side of photography does make a difference...
 
Go back even further, weegee, walker evans, Margarate bourke white, even further than that. I look at their incredible pictures and wonder why i want another camera update. I'm fighting to resist all this newer and newer technology the camera firms are wanting me to partake in.
 
Here we go again 😐

Current m43 has way better IQ then anything from 10 years ago (film or digital). So I guess with that reasoning, no one could cut it 10 years ago or longer.
 
Last edited:
Forgottenbutnotgone said:
Gary from Seattle said:
Forgottenbutnotgone said:
Photo Pete said:
Forgottenbutnotgone said:
Of course the exact same can be said for why people are spending so much for a mft body and lenses when a digicam would do the trick just as well, especially since portability is such a high priority over image quaility.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Other than the the point that image quality can be just as good with a digicam as with m4/3 or FF if you don’t need to go outside of the range they have in common - so picking the most suitable camera and sensor is far from just being ‘bigger is better’.
Click to expand...
That's the ironic thing. I have much more often heard people claiming that someone else said that bigger is better than I've actually heard anyone actually say that bigger was better.

Case in point. Great Bustard has taken a bad rap forever for supposedly perpetuating just such a claim simply for explaining the reality of a certain set of easily substantiated facts, in spite of almost constantly acknowledging that mft is probably overkill for most photographers. Meanwhile, one of those who have been the most vocal and persistent in ridiculing GB's assertions in spite of all evidence to the contrary acknowledges that in some ways bigger is better, while all while continuing to deny that it has anything to do with anything equivalence related.

Go figure.

Robert
Click to expand...
I think you are out of line here.
Click to expand...
I respect your opinion but I don't share it.
Forgottenbutnotgone said:
Seems like the discussion was a simple back and forth with quite a bit of agreement and no significant claims of this or that.
Click to expand...
Seems like, at least if that opening shot about needing "an antidote to the exasperating technicisms that often obsessively dog this forum" went completely unnoticed. Some people actually aren't exasperated by technological advances and their discussion. What exasperates many of them is having their enjoyment of such ruined by people who apparently feel the need to enter such threads just to let people who enjoy said threads know how how exasperating they are.

For the record, I really haven't met anyone who actually thinks that technological advancements in cameras are a substitute for developing one's photography skills. Most every one I know realizes that the two work hand in hand.
Forgottenbutnotgone said:
Then you felt you had to make a veiled personal attack unrelated to this thread.
Click to expand...
What makes what I said an attack? Is it the truth of what I said or the irony? What makes it personal? Recounting what is openly said and done on a public forum hardly seems personal or an attack to me.
Click to expand...
Oh come on. You know very well that you intentionally made a veiled personal attack in this sentence: "Meanwhile, one of those who have been the most vocal and persistent in ridiculing GB's assertions in spite of all evidence to the contrary acknowledges that in some ways bigger is better, while all while continuing to deny that it has anything to do with anything equivalence related." What word in my sentence did you not know the meaning of, 'veiled', 'personal', or 'attack'? It wasn't cool.
Forgottenbutnotgone said:
It seems like the boycott on technology gets suspended when the idea of upgrading from a mk1 to a mk2 em1 is the object of discussion. Hi-res image mode, 5 s stop image stabilization, pre-capture mode, 60 fps. None of that seems to qualify as exasperating technicisms that obsessively dog this forum. None of those features seem to compete with one's photographic abilities. On the contrary they seem to be the exceptions to the anti-GAS movement.

When "WE" are told m43 can't cut it, we don't need to justify anything to anyone. As a matter of fact, if "we" decide that we want to use our cameras to drive 10 penny nails into oak boards (@ 60fps) "we" paid for them and nobody can stop us from doing so.

By the same token, if "we" decide to turn off all of the highly unnecessary gadgetry that clutters our cameras and keeps us from studying important photographic concepts like light and composition, "we" can do that too.

Hopefully when and if that happens, "we" will have the foresight to seek support for our endeavors in an appropriately accommodating photography forum.

For the record, when I say "we", i don't mean me. I'm still "cutting it" with Four Thirds.

Robert
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Henry Richardson said:
This all reminds me of my post from a few years ago. I saw an excellent Magnum photo exhibition.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56299501

Radical Transformation: Magnum Photos into the Digital Age

The photos were excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the people on the internet would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition.

Probably about 90% of the photos in the exhibition were B&W. Some of the photos are famous iconic photos from Capa, Cartier-Bresson, et al that you have seen before.

Later I was walking around with my camera and I sort of wondered if all the photos in the exhibition had been taken with digital cameras if some of them, maybe a bunch of them, would have been deleted in the camera? I imagine these photographers are smart enough to not be over concerned (concerned, of course, but not over concerned) with all the technical details and let those things override what the image looks like and whether it is interesting. Fortunately, the photos had not been deleted.

Most of the photos in the exhibition could have easily been taken with my Canon G16 and the technical quality in many cases would have been even better. Just being able to quickly change ISO or use Auto ISO is a huge advantage. Good ISO from 80 on up to, oh I don't know, 3200. Even 12,800 is usable and quite good compared to just slightly fast film from a long time ago. Especially if shooting in raw. A long time ago ISO 400 film was fast.
Click to expand...
Here is the link to the exhibition I saw:

Loading…

www.hrc.utexas.edu
 
tt321 said:
Okapi001 said:
Great Bustard said:
This current challenge winner is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. It's a fantastic photo. But the lack of fine details in the plane really do detract from the photo for me --
Click to expand...
That is basically a definition of a pixel-peeper. The one that sees a great photos and starts to examine it at 100% magnification.
Click to expand...
Have you talked to a certain type of airshow photographer who goes to airshows chasing details? This sort of criterion exists in real terms for real people.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's called pixel-peeping. A well-known "criterion" for a good airshow photo.
 
Okapi001 said:
tt321 said:
Okapi001 said:
Great Bustard said:
This current challenge winner is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. It's a fantastic photo. But the lack of fine details in the plane really do detract from the photo for me --
Click to expand...
That is basically a definition of a pixel-peeper. The one that sees a great photos and starts to examine it at 100% magnification.
Click to expand...
Have you talked to a certain type of airshow photographer who goes to airshows chasing details? This sort of criterion exists in real terms for real people.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's called pixel-peeping. A well-known "criterion" for a good airshow photo.
Click to expand...
of course details are important.....why use lenses that are "sharp" otherwise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
p
Previous
n
Next
w
Next unread
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top