Is this the reality of EF glass on the A9?

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
Paul Barnard
Paul Barnard Veteran Member • Posts: 3,207
Re: Smalls
2

PWPhotography wrote:

sportyaccordy wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

golfhov wrote:

My point still stands. The level of photography is MASSIVELY higher. Look at books of this from the 60s to 1990s and the few ICONIC shots are awesome but few and far between. Most look pretty rough because of the limitations of the time. Now looking at stuff starting in the 1990s and the stuff that pros have gone on to do with modern stuff shows the benefits.

The images may indeed be technically better as in lower noise etc but from an emotional impact not so much . Do you think this image of Muhammad Ali and Sonny Liston by Neil Leifer would be somehow "better" for being taken by a modern camera

So you mean only film cameras but not modern digital cameras can take this photo? Imagine if Neil shot A9 or 1Dx II or D5 then from the same spot, same angle with the same FL lens, he could not take such photo at the same level artistically? Not only he also could but at much higher chances such as the same scene at 20fps from A9 but technically also cleaner, sharper with more details and less noise, right?

Your mentioning of noise and FPS in the context of this photo really drives home how little you understand the true value of photography. No sane person looks at this photograph and things "man I wish this had better IQ"

No, that is not the point. What I mean is that modern digital cameras can do everything old film cameras can do but only do much better. Do you suggest any PJs today should use old film cameras instead? What I said the above photo no reason cannot be done by modern digital cameras even at the same artistic level. Please elaborate if you actually think so. There are lots more such great moment photos taken by modern cameras these days that we see at daily basis as modern digital cameras not only could capture such moments in much higher rate, but also technically superior (sharpness, details and noise level etc).

Return to OP, why an A9 owner will cripple a top flagship camera with adapted lenses in compromise? This is similar you are trying to challenge those sport PJs at the sideline of sport venues why they use expensive 1Dx II, D5 and A9 if a T7i, D7500 and A6300 also can capture many moments?

I think the point is that this amazing image was captured despite the technological limitations.  That was as a result of great technical skill combined with the ability to see and capture the image.   For sure the sign of a great photographer.

It's imposible to know but could the image have been better if the photographer captured a 20fps burst and was able to chose a more perfect moment?  Would higher ISO lower noise have meant that an image a few moments earlier capturing the actual punch would have eclipsed this image?   Again impossible to know but what we have with current,  and more so with future,  technology is greater opportunities to capture iconic images.

The above image is an example of one stellar image from an event.   Technology opens the possibility for there to be more images of this quality.  It also opens the arena for those who have the 'eye' but not the technical skill. That being a good or bad things is an entirely different discussion.

 Paul Barnard's gear list:Paul Barnard's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony FE 70-200 F4 Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Sony 1.4x Teleconverter (2016) +4 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow