DP2M In Perspective

Started Jan 23, 2013 | Discussions
Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 37,130
Re: No they were not

Laurence Matson wrote:

A gear head in my mind has less or nothing to do with brand loyalty or squabbles and much more to do with collecting, tinkering with, valuing and improving their gear collection.

Ok, if you are talking from the camera collector point of view, cool. I can see that. Camera/equipment collecting and appreciation is not photography but something else though. Not knocking it down but it's good to know it's not the same.

Feininger's point you cite goes in that direction. But, he too, very much valued his Leica as did others of his generation.

Actually not at all. He spoke for himself and spoke his opinion on what many photographers do- to think that it is a particular camera that will "get you to the next level, " that will "make you a good photographer" which is absurd.  The quote is pretty darn clear and so is the context of when he said that while he was being interviewed.  There is simply no room for any other interpretation here because that is *exactly* what he was talking about.

He was precisely referring to people who think the equipment will make them a better photographer and that they need to somehow "wait until..." they get "good equipment" (whatever that means).  His point is- it's the photographer who creates the photograph and the important skills involved in doing so.

That tool shaped an entire generation of photography, and very few of them even picked up the very fine Zeiss Ikon equivalent for more than a second. I know why, because we had both in our family.

Yet if that tool didn't exist, you would still see compelling photographs picking the other tool. Or compelling photographs from people who did not or could afford those. And that's hist point- pointing out the absurdity that it's the equipment that makes you a photographer, or better, or to wait for it when you don't.

If you really read about how much emphasis and effort these guys and gals put into their gear, you might understand better the distinction I am trying to make.

Please don't give me that. I believe I have read and heard quite a bit myself. Your sentence comes from a "I am already right" point of view and I am giving you a radar concrete example of someone saying something in the opposite direction.

Do keep in mind I am not talking about collecting/pushing particular tools, exploring a particular tool.  That is different. I am talking about the thought that a particular camera will make you better as a photographer or you need a certain camera to reach a certain level- that's exactly the absurdity (idiocy in his word) Andreas is pointing out.

For instance, read River of Shadows. Muybridge worked hard at his craft and on his gear to develop stop-action photography and become one of the first great panorama photographers.

Working on your gear and pushing your tools is not the same as thinking that the camera takes the shots for you. But to be clear: if you are referring just to what you said in the first paragraph, I can see that. But I do not believe that's the context of the subthread.

Otherwise, nice other thread.

Thanks for the compliment though I do not understand the otherwise comment.  Don't see the relation with what is being said.

- Raist

Raist3d wrote:

They were not gear heads. They cared insofar as picking the tool for their need and done. None of that endless brand or tool bickering (I am talking about the real good photographers, not the film equivalents of digital gear heads)

Almost every good photographer I have seen interviewed or the like tends to say the same thing- it's not the camera nut the photographer that matters

Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'
spot on

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

-- hide signature --

Laurence
laurence at appledore-farm dot com
Sometimes, life is going to hit you with a brick. Don't lose faith.
Steve Jobs
http://www.pbase.com/lmatson
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
http://www.howardmyerslaw.com

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 37,130
Re: I think they cared

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

the masters I have seen on interviews and read about cared insofar as picking the tool but none of the stupid brand bickering or tool bickering because in the end, it's the photographer who creates the photograph and not the camera.

just look at what Andreas said as a good example:

Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

replace Nikon or Leica with whatever camera

look who he was

There are different kind of people, here, there and everywhere. Both among masters and less gifted. Generalisations seldom are all that accurate IMHO.

I am not making a generalization, I am bringing a statement on what photography is in the end. Showing a photo of Ansel Adams gear hardly proves anything.

Ansel Adam´s gears.

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,661
Re: DP2M In Perspective
1

KM Legacy wrote:

Sneer, sneer, sneer. What do you use, and why do you feel it necessary to bash Sigma endlessly? People like me who used to shoot med. format film would have loved to have a tiny camera like the DPxM which produces similar IQ. I didn't care that my med. format cameras could not match the latest 35mm SLRs in terms of film capacity, motor drives, battery life, etc. etc. I didn't go around obsessing about features to see whether my equipment was the latest "state of the art" thing on the market. I knew that med. format could beat any 35mm camera in terms of IQ, and 4x5 could beat med. format, although it was even slower to operate.

Cartier-Bresson made amazing shots of active subjects. Some people here would consider him horribly disadvantaged, because he didn't have any AF or motor drive at all. He didn't obsess bout the technical specs of his camera; he just practiced his skills and learned to exploit what he had.

I think you missed the target somewhat there

David is a quite good photographer, and a believer in that it is the operator and not the camera that makes the images. I dont think he is all hat interested in bling, bling either.

I also think you miss the target regarding artsy images. There are LOTS of images today that are amazing - artistic wise, quality wise, content wise. And nearly 100% of them are made with non Foveon cameras.

Where you might have a point is that a small and slow camera with extreme quality might make some photographer take extra ordinary images. It might be true. Or not. It is very hard to prove.

Some here take good images. Most not extra ordinary. Very, very few here take extra ordinary images actually. What does that say? Probably nothing - as there are too few samples for any statistical relevance.

Georges is one of the extra ordinary photographers. And ... if I dont remember incorrectly ... I think he has said that the special quality of Foveon is a part of his work. He uses both SD and DP cameras. He also always scale down the image before showing it - which makes it very hard to know whether the image has the Foveon sharpness.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,426
Re: DP2M In Perspective

KM

You are now ranting about supposed opponents of sigma.

My post was not sneering, it was objecting to your ridiculous implication hat every photo taken with a bayer camera is instantly forgettable and every photo taken with a sigma is destined to be a memorable classic destined for the walls of the National Gallery.

Despite all the verbiage, image quality is not what makes a good photo, it merely allows you to print larger.  If a Bayer camera isn't so sharp at A0 as the latest Foveon, print it 6 x 4 inches. If the picture is any good no one will care.

Here's an example - a gallery of classy portraiture/glamour shot only by window light and with a humble m4/3 lumix G3 to prove the camera really doesn't matter when it comes to making memorable images http://www.flickr.com/photos/66984294@N02/8328461995/in/photostream

-- hide signature --
Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,661
Re: I think they cared

Raist3d wrote:

I am not making a generalization, I am bringing a statement on what photography is in the end. Showing a photo of Ansel Adams gear hardly proves anything.

Maybe

But you have to admit it is quite a good looking gear.

Ansel Adam´s gears.


-- hide signature --
 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,426
Re: DP2M In Perspective
1

Roland

One of the truest things I heard about the creative process is that 99% of everything is cr*p.

It may not be quite so true of the very best photographers, but for the rest of us, if we deleted 99.9% of our images, we'd hugely improve our portfolio and our reputations

I can be quite honest about my own work - it would need to be more than 99.9%. Looking over your own images can be quite humbling.

And arguing over camera technology, a convenient distraction from confronting your own photographic inadequacies. Then again, if you apply the same rule to your heroes, what rubbish did Adamus, Levin, Haas etc  leave on the cutting room floor....

-- hide signature --
Raist3d Forum Pro • Posts: 37,130
Re: I think they cared

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Raist3d wrote:

I am not making a generalization, I am bringing a statement on what photography is in the end. Showing a photo of Ansel Adams gear hardly proves anything.

Maybe

But you have to admit it is quite a good looking gear.

Oh if you are talking appreciation of gear idea, great craftsmanship or point of view of gear collector, sure. That's cool.  My point is not to confuse it with photography.  But sure, I can appreciate the gear from that context.  Also the shot shows him which is great (or someone doing something).

Ansel Adam´s gears.


-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,426
Re: No they were not

Lots of people who good work in many fields become obsessed with the particular kit they use to do their work. it may be that sometimes they couldn't work so well with something else. but that is mostly psychological, like a sportsman's warm up routine which is mental preparation, not physical even if they believe the opposite.

The point of the quote is very clear: creative work comes from within, not from the kit. The absurdity is in thinking that if only you had XYZ gadget, your work would be transformed. Sharper mediocrity remains mediocrity. Better kit allows the photographer to print bigger more conveniently, it does nothing for composition. Less time buying, more time practising...

-- hide signature --
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,426
Re: DP2M In Perspective

But none of those things is what you said.

You said (paraphrasing): people who use Sigma take memorable images, people who don't, don't.

Maybe you should re-think that post, it will save on a lot of typing....

-- hide signature --
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,426
Re: DP2M In Perspective

Tom

This is a very diplomatic way of saying that Sigma cameras have some operational and performance weaknesses compared to other brands that limits their convenient use for many applications.

(Despite this, of course, the keen user can use them effectively).

These weaknesses hamper mainstream acceptance and if that is their long term goal, Sigma would be sensible to do all they could to improve this aspect of their products and remove these barriers.

Trying to market a revolutionary sensor type is difficult - don't give critics easy targets to take potshots at by wrapping the sensor in weak performing bodies. Obvious really. I suspect Sigma would be in a very different place in the market if they had the equivalent of a D7000 or a 600D or a OMD oe xe1 to put their sensor in. They appear to tie their arms behind their back..

-- hide signature --
Roland Karlsson Forum Pro • Posts: 27,661
Re: I think they cared

Raist3d wrote:

Oh if you are talking appreciation of gear idea, great craftsmanship or point of view of gear collector, sure. That's cool. My point is not to confuse it with photography. But sure, I can appreciate the gear from that context. Also the shot shows him which is great (or someone doing something).

Actually - the image shows something more than that.

Its a car, rebuilt so you can use it as an elevated platform. And its a giant camera. And as far as I understand, the car is full of photography stuff.

This is not a gear collector. It is gears with a very distinct purpose.

Even though you have a point, cant you just back some mm

Ansel Adam´s gears.


 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma dp2 Quattro Sony RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax K-1 +14 more
KM Legacy Senior Member • Posts: 1,955
Re: DP2M In Perspective

DMillier wrote:

KM

You are now ranting about supposed opponents of sigma.

My post was not sneering, it was objecting to your ridiculous implication hat every photo taken with a bayer camera is instantly forgettable and every photo taken with a sigma is destined to be a memorable classic destined for the walls of the National Gallery.

Despite all the verbiage, image quality is not what makes a good photo, it merely allows you to print larger. If a Bayer camera isn't so sharp at A0 as the latest Foveon, print it 6 x 4 inches. If the picture is any good no one will care.

Here's an example - a gallery of classy portraiture/glamour shot only by window light and with a humble m4/3 lumix G3 to prove the camera really doesn't matter when it comes to making memorable images http://www.flickr.com/photos/66984294@N02/8328461995/in/photostream

I never said that any type of camera automatically produces superior photographs, or that Bayer images are poor. I own and use a couple of different Bayer cameras. I never bought Sigma because of some mysterious, hard-to-describe "Foveon quality" to the images, let alone a "film-like quality" which some boast of (I don't miss film at all. Good riddance to the stuff.). I got a DP because it gives really sharp pictures in a small package, without lots of tedious artificial "sharpening" in PP. The style of photography I do requires sharp lenses and sensors (or film) and the DPs gave me that. However, I enjoy looking at, and admire, other styles of photography for which the DP is not an appropriate tool; styles I don't do myself. What angers me is people who seem to actually enjoy blasting Sigma for doing something different, and giving the market more choice. There is really no competition for the DP; you can't get that kind of IQ in anything of similar size, weight, and price.

As far as print size goes, I learned the hard way while exhibiting in galleries that large prints impress people more and get more attention than small ones. And if you want to hold quality in larger prints, you need really good IQ.

As for the old cliche that "cameras don't make good pictures, photographers do," one should realize that such statements arise partly out of the resentment that good photographers feel at the implication that their work is better because of their equipment: they know that good photography is hard work, and they are justifiably proud of their skills. However, most pros and serious amateurs do not handicap themselves by using inferior equipment. Most of them use expensive pro-grade lenses (not "kit zooms"), for example. I posted earlier about how Ansel Adams used the Contarex 35mm SLR at times. Anyone who has handled one knows that the C-rex was heavy and inferior ergonomically to good Japanese SLRs, which is why it never caught on. There was a delay before the shutter fired after you pressed the release. The thing didn't have instant-reopen auto diaphragm. (I think Zeiss did that so they could use more diaphragm leaves and get a rounder, more precise aperture.) Horrors! It wasn't mainstream! It wasn't state-of-the-art! So why did Adams use it? Probably because of the superb Zeiss lenses, which gave a little better IQ than the competition. I.e. he was willing to put up with some inconvenience in order to get better results, just as many Sigma fans are.

KM Legacy Senior Member • Posts: 1,955
Re: DP2M In Perspective

I think you would find a DP-M much more enjoyable than your non-M. For one thing, it has even better IQ. It has a decent LCD instead of the awful dingy grainy thing on the non-Ms. It has a real filter ring, and doesn't have a lens which retracts itself at inconvenient times.

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,426
Re: I think they cared

when adams wanted to photograph off road, he swapped his estate car for a donkey. does the brand of donkey matter?

ps

one of the tricks of the trade he used was getting a lot of elevation on the camera. It gives a different feel from shooting at ground level hence the platform.

-- hide signature --
KM Legacy Senior Member • Posts: 1,955
Re: DP2M In Perspective

I would question the idea that a (D)SLR is an everyday camera. DSLRs are huge, heavy, conspicuous things. Many people really don't want to carry them around "every day." They are far more versatile, but if you want to exploit their versatility, you need to lug around interchangeable lenses, or at least a zoom. For people who do not shoot indoors in dim light, do not shoot fast action, do not do tele or macro work, a DP could indeed be an everyday camera.

We've heard the cliche that "cameras don't make good pictures, photographers do." How about this truism: "a camera can't take any pictures unless a photographer is willing to carry it with him."

DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 20,426
Re: DP2M In Perspective

Agreed the Ms are a big improvement over previous generatoion. Four of my complaints about the original DP1 have been addressed  - larger buffer, non-motorised lens, command wheel, mf ring around the lens. Some haven't been however: still a long delay before you can review the histogram, bad battery life, gripless brick, and crucially no viewfinder (hotshoe carbuncle doesn't really count).

What that means to me is it only a tripod based camera.I'd be happy with it for that restricted usage given the other improvements but what puts me off is the price (especially considering there are 3 of them) for such limited usage . I got the DP1 for £200 but at £800 a fixed lens tripod only camera would have to pretty perfect as a camera to get my money (and there would have to be lightroom support).

-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 659
Interesting thread

The majority of the responses so far are from three dedicated Sigma detractors.

SandyF Forum Pro • Posts: 14,941
Re: DP2M In Perspective
1

DMillier wrote:

Agreed the Ms are a big improvement over previous generatoion. Four of my complaints about the original DP1 have been addressed - larger buffer, non-motorised lens, command wheel, mf ring around the lens. Some haven't been however: still a long delay before you can review the histogram, bad battery life, gripless brick, and crucially no viewfinder (hotshoe carbuncle doesn't really count).

What that means to me is it only a tripod based camera.I'd be happy with it for that restricted usage given the other improvements but what puts me off is the price (especially considering there are 3 of them) for such limited usage . I got the DP1 for £200 but at £800 a fixed lens tripod only camera would have to pretty perfect as a camera to get my money (and there would have to be lightroom support).

David, the DP2M certainly isn't a tripod only camera, at least in my usage. A monopod is more than sufficient usually and you can still do many situations totally hand-held. The only time in Death Valley I used a tripod was for the sunrise shots at Zabriskie Point. The wind was whipping, I couldn't have held the monopod steady!

After discussions here about 'base ISO' and Laurence's and others comments that ISO200 is 'base' and a generally good starting point, I used ISO200 for the majority of my DP2M and SD1 shots. There is another advantage to ISO200 too ... gives you a lot faster shutter speeds resulting in less subject/movement blur.

okay, you may say a monopod is as 'unconvenient' as a tripod, but I don't find it so. At least for my usage, when out walking, visiting gardens, generally almost anywhere except indoors, I find my monopod an easy tool to use for steadier photos. Usually though it's not permitted indoors in Washington, DC, buildings, so I've done a lot of shots hand-held with all the cameras, including DP2Merrill.

Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

 SandyF's gear list:SandyF's gear list
Sigma DP2 Sigma DP1 Sigma DP1 Merrill Sigma DP2 Merrill Sigma DP3 Merrill +7 more
jcollier
OP jcollier Forum Member • Posts: 83
Re: DP2M In Perspective
1

I don't know of a single instance where a great image was created by complaining about the equipment. There's an old saying: "If you REALLY want to do something, you find a way to get it done. If you don't, you find an EXCUSE." It's OK to complain about the tools. Just don't confuse the complaining with photography.

-- hide signature --

jcollier

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 659
Me, me, me
1

DMillier wrote:

Agreed the Ms are a big improvement over previous generatoion. Four of my complaints about the original DP1 have been addressed - larger buffer, non-motorised lens, command wheel, mf ring around the lens. Some haven't been however: still a long delay before you can review the histogram, bad battery life, gripless brick, and crucially no viewfinder (hotshoe carbuncle doesn't really count).

What that means to me is it only a tripod based camera.I'd be happy with it for that restricted usage given the other improvements but what puts me off is the price (especially considering there are 3 of them) for such limited usage . I got the DP1 for £200 but at £800 a fixed lens tripod only camera would have to pretty perfect as a camera to get my money (and there would have to be lightroom support).

Everythhing about 'me', ie some guy David M.

Who cares?

By the way: you got all the following wrong:

It's not a tripod based camera.

It's not for limited usage.

It's not expensive.

You got this right, though:

It's not for you!

Now: what about leaving this forum in peace?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads