How much IQ do you really lose with a Canon?

[JimKasson]

I don't like good enough any more than the rest of you...

For me, good enough is the name of the game.

 

[emdundronald]

For me, good enough is the name of the game.

Hehe, I sense you are (like me) an engineer.

 

[JimKasson]

For me, good enough is the name of the game.

Hehe, I sense you are (like me) an engineer.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

Good Enough. That is what we used to refer to the GE for General Electric as when I was with IBM.

But, I used them for radio modules for laptop PCs to make them into mobile terminals. Good old GE would make us radios in whatever oddball shape we needed them to be in to best fit. Motorola wouldn't hear of doing that.

Which is how I wound up at Erocsson-GE when IBM went on a downsizing spree in 1994. Ericsson was on a 5 year joint venture with GE 2-way radio division at the time.

Anyway, Good Enough it is!

Stan

 

[Miriquidi]

wrote:

[...] and because let's face it there is basically no photographic problem the R5 cannot solve with my existing EF lens set.

Well. You may think about at least to get a standard zoom with RF mount in a few years. Just in case you need top notch focusing speed.

My intuition after taking a few shots with the Canon is that the Fuji has a better sensor at high ISO by at least one stop, but in low light you lose the advantage because of the slow lens.

Canon is baking some kind of noise reduction also into their RAW files, so it may actually be a bit more than one stop. But result-wise it works quite well.

I want to say one more thing: After thinking about what is swaying my decision, it is basically the fact that I like speed of use. I used to shoot the fashion shows here in Paris, and I like taking my pictures very very fast. I like the experience of being behind the viewfinder, composing fast and then choosing the moment when taking stills. The R5 ticks this special box.

As you work with people: One should mention that the R5 II has a sensor read out time of about 1/160s, which fit's most things execpt sport and fast running kids. Contrary to every medium format camera or even the 60 MP full frame cameras.

Even flash use is possible with the R5 II. If you stick your shutter speed in europe to 1/100s (or 1/50 s, 1/25s and so on) you also shouldn't get problems with flickering light sources.

Shooting silent can be very welcome for some kind of portrait situation. Maybe not in case of professional models, but for shy people it's a benefit. And it saves the shutter from wearing out. Having 100k actuations in half a year isn't that unlikely.

One interesting ability of the Canon that is not found in MF, AFAIK, is precapture, which almost turns it into a time machine.

You can also use burst with eye detection and take a kind of movie. Maybe not 30 fps, but 15 or 10. For filtering the good one, you go into play mode and just write protect the few images with right facial expression, composition, sharpness and so on. Later you can delete the rubbish pictures. Just need a really big card. For me that workstyle is quite productive in case I have to deliver some good shots.

 

[UsherFellig]

For me, good enough is the name of the game.

Hehe, I sense you are (like me) an engineer.

My wife and I have had disagreements in the past about what is good enough when it comes to cleaning.

Splitting the cost of even periodic cleaning by a third party takes care of that neatly.

 

[Doppler9000]

For me, good enough is the name of the game.

Hehe, I sense you are (like me) an engineer.

My wife and I have had disagreements in the past about what is good enough when it comes to cleaning.

Splitting the cost of even periodic cleaning by a third party takes care of that neatly.

This isn’t universally true.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

Many of the replies in this thread are from the photographers perspective obviously because of the nature of the forum..... but is the real discussion " How much quality is needed for your client or audience ?

Rather like the TV advert shot with a multi million budget to vent the ego of a ad director when something far more simple and cost effective could communicate as much.

 

[Doppler9000]

" How much quality is needed for your client or audience ?

Rather like the TV advert shot with a multi million budget to vent the ego of a ad director when something far more simple and cost effective could communicate as much.

I believe there is a distinction between commercial work, made for a specific client, and work like Gregory Crewdson’s, where the images convey the photographer’s vision, and the audience buys it or it doesn’t.

 

[JimKasson]

" How much quality is needed for your client or audience ?

Rather like the TV advert shot with a multi million budget to vent the ego of a ad director when something far more simple and cost effective could communicate as much.

I believe there is a distinction between commercial work, made for a specific client, and work like Gregory Crewdson’s, where the images convey the photographer’s vision, and the audience buys it or it doesn’t.

I do a similar calculation when making art. IQ in the file that won’t show in the print is unnecessary. Of course I can hope — usually in vain— for somebody to order an immense print.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

I have in the past referred to trying to buy beef wellington in a Thai food takeaway. Commercially one would hope that clients would look at the style of a photographers images , and hire him to create that sort of image for them.

 

[emdundronald]

" How much quality is needed for your client or audience ?

Rather like the TV advert shot with a multi million budget to vent the ego of a ad director when something far more simple and cost effective could communicate as much.

I believe there is a distinction between commercial work, made for a specific client, and work like Gregory Crewdson’s, where the images convey the photographer’s vision, and the audience buys it or it doesn’t.

Indeed. Warhol’s portraits were all done with a Polaroid.

Edmund

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

Exactly , that was the hardest bit to remember in magazine work, will it show at A4 ! Shooting 5"x 4" , its hardly any upsizing . However when you prepare a retouch for general stock , the day you go for "good enough" is the day someone says "we would like to use that for our stand at an exhibition, what's the largest it can go. I remember seeing a 35mm digital shot of a guy walking towards camera that I had cut out and prepared for an exhibition. As I walked towards it I noticed they had used it life size and thankfully no retouching showed.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

What size polaroid ? I used to love type 55 ( I think it was ) where you had a B&W negative that could be fixed as well as the print. The quality of prints from this when shooting 5x4 was amazing.

 

[JimKasson]

Exactly , that was the hardest bit to remember in magazine work, will it show at A4 ! Shooting 5"x 4" , its hardly any upsizing . However when you prepare a retouch for general stock , the day you go for "good enough" is the day someone says "we would like to use that for our stand at an exhibition, what's the largest it can go. I remember seeing a 35mm digital shot of a guy walking towards camera that I had cut out and prepared for an exhibition. As I walked towards it I noticed they had used it life size and thankfully no retouching showed.

Yup. Future proofing can be a good thing. OTOH, picking gear that delivers the maximum IQ regardless of the shooting situation or intended usage can result in pictures that are suboptimal in other ways than IQ.

 

[JimKasson]

" How much quality is needed for your client or audience ?

Rather like the TV advert shot with a multi million budget to vent the ego of a ad director when something far more simple and cost effective could communicate as much.

I believe there is a distinction between commercial work, made for a specific client, and work like Gregory Crewdson’s, where the images convey the photographer’s vision, and the audience buys it or it doesn’t.

Indeed. Warhol’s portraits were all done with a Polaroid.

I doubt if Warhol thinks in terms of IQ, in the sense that we use that term here.

 

[JimKasson]

What size polaroid ?

Not 20x24.

I used to love type 55 ( I think it was )

55 P/N, if I remember right.

where you had a B&W negative that could be fixed as well as the print. The quality of prints from this when shooting 5x4 was amazing.

And, if you wanted to flaunt it, you could show the matrix of the negative at the edgfes of the print.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

No you are right, I guess he would talk in terms of image artistic quality, which when we part ourselves from the marketing hype , and truly reflect on what we do with our multi thousand equipment investments, should make us blush !

 

[emdundronald]

What size polaroid ? I used to love type 55 ( I think it was ) where you had a B&W negative that could be fixed as well as the print. The quality of prints from this when shooting 5x4 was amazing.

I know the camera was a Big Shot portrait headshot device from Polaroid. That’s all I know.

https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Polaroid_Big_Shot

 

[Teila Day]

Indeed it has. However this part... "and enough pixels to rival 8x10 image quality". We're almost there with 150mp, but not quite. I really do like the 6x7 aspect ratio, but I understand how unrealistic a 67x56 sensor would be.

Expect at least a 3:2 aspect ratio for next gen sensors, since it's better for their aerial reconnaissance branch.
New sensors that large won't be stacked CMOS technology, since it costs to much dynamic range. If you would get 250 or 400 MP, how long are you willing to wait for scanning the sensor? And are you willing to dump all your existing XF lenses?
I don't think that going beyond 6x4,5 cm is wise.

I don't realistically expect such.