Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: John Camp on August 03, 2015, 01:59:53 pm
-
This is a riff on the discussion taking place in the thread called "4/3 vs Nikon APS-C."
I have both full frame and m4/3 systems (and a Sony RX100compact and a cell phone camera) and I've found that the handier the camera is, the more you tend to give up in terms of control.
But to limit the discussion to interchangeable lens cameras, I've found that discussion tends to revolve around four aspects of these various-sized cameras: physical size (dimensions and weight), lens speed, depth of field aspects and sensor qualities.
The advantages and disadvantages of physical size is pretty obvious to all of us, and I think is really a matter of personal preference, a balancing of all the different ways we may shoot as individuals. Your best system isn't mine, simply because we shoot in different ways and may have different subject interests.
It's figuring out the other aspects that's tough.
I would suggest (as I did in the earlier thread) that lens speed (at least in terms of a one-stop difference) is not as important as it was with film, because digital ISO abilities are so much better. In film, I really felt handicapped in terms of quality even shooting at ISO800. I think digital has a two- or three-stop advantage here, which means that an f4 lens may practically be as good as an f2.8 used to be.
Except for depth of field. Here there are two aspects. You have less depth of field control with a smaller sensor (like a m4/3 compared to FF) for any given lens speed. But is depth of field control really important in general purpose lenses? (This is an actual question of mine, not a rhetorical one.) How often do we want to limit depth of field in general shooting, and how much depth of field control do we practically have with f2.8 zoom lenses on even a FF camera? Isn't depth of field control really something you want to deal with in specific circumstances, for which an even faster, more specialized lens would be more effective? The practical effect of this question comes from the other thread, where somebody pointed out that depth of field with an m4/3 system's f2/8 is more like the equivalent of f5.6 of a full-frame system, while a FF's f4 is the f4 we're all accustomed to. But is depth of field really a matter of interest in choosing between f4 and f5.6-equivalent?
Then there are pixel questions. A lot of high quality cameras seem to be settling on offerings in the mid-20s (24-26mp.) The next Panny GX8 will have ~20mp. People have argued since the dawn of digital about the storage capacity of larger vs. smaller pixels, and also about the printing abilities of different numbers of pixels. Is there really a discernible difference between ~20mp and ~25mp at common, fairly large (say full-page large format magazine) sizes? Do marginally larger individual pixel sizes make more difference than the camera's processing engines that produce the final image?
In the guitar world, some people obsess about the sounds produced by vintage, usually incredibly expensive (now) instruments like the '59 Les Paul and the older Strats and so on, but a friend of mine pointed out that given all the different skill levels, by the time you run the signal through a couple of stomp boxes and maybe a looper and out an amp, and given all the different acoustic qualities you might have in any given room, you're sometimes lucky you can tell that it's a guitar being played, much less a quarter-million-dollar 59 LP. Are the analogous qualities true of cameras? That by the time you finish running a scene through your personal technique (tripod, no tripod), the autofocus, the lens glass, the sensors, Lightroom, and finally the printer...does it really matter much whether it's an m4/3 or a Nikon D800?
-
But...but....blah-blah-blah-Full Frame! I win! :)
Your guitar analogy is pretty apt, and works well for other aspects of the camera buying decision as well. I've always told myself that I won't buy a "better" guitar until my (pathetic) skills are such that I can tell the difference when I play. That's going to be awhile. People ask me the "what camera should I buy" question all the time, and I tell them the same thing - get a basic camera with the features you want, one which feels good in the hand, and don't spend a lot of money until the basic camera can no longer shoot what you want.
The sensor size/camera size choice comes down to individual need and preference. We're all different, and there is no one perfect system for everyone (or else we would all own it already).
-
I find I can get what I want from everything I currently own camera- & lens-wise. The limiting factor pretty much equates to me. :) My own standard for DOF control is an 85mm (or so) lens at f/2 using the 35mm format, or the equivalent thereof with other formats. For m43 I've got the Voigtländer 42.5/0.95, which hits the nail on the head…and moreso, given that it focuses down to near-macro range. And, actually, the little Olympus 45/1.8 fits the bill most of the time despite its narrower DOF. I just adjust my strategy & technique a bit. At the other end of the DOF equation I like that I can get deep focus with lenses used in the f/4–8 range. In low light this helps offset the noise advantage of larger formats. (I'm referring to chroma noise. Luminance noise, OTOH, is something I often deliberately intensify regardless of format.) Resolution-wise…I don't print large enough these days to be limited by any of the cameras/formats I use. My main interest in Sony's A7rii actually lies in processing the RAW data down to ~10.5mp true(r) RGB output. That's enough for my needs.
I sold my '58 Stratocaster about 18 months ago after finding a new one (made, to a very high standard, in Mexico) that does everything I need a Strat to do & does it well. Given that I'm not much of a Strat guy anyway, the oldie represented mostly unused value. Selling it paid for the new one and also bought me a new super-efficient furnace as well as a roof re-shingle & all new gutters. Win-win.
-Dave-
-
DOF "control" - as in issue - cracks me up. I've been making photographs for 50+ years and for 40 of those the problem has always been getting "enough" DOF, not pursuing razor thin slices! ;D
Rand
-
DOF "control" - as in issue - cracks me up. I've been making photographs for 50+ years and for 40 of those the problem has always been getting "enough" DOF, not pursuing razor thin slices! ;D
Rand
+1
That has been my own experience. I realize that some people like or even need the razor thin DOF, but I seldom shoot wide open, and try to use either the sweet spot of the lens or smaller aperture to extend the DOF. I was thinking long and hard when buying recently a 70-200mm lens, trying to decide between F2.8 and F4 (having already some F2.8 primes), finally went for F4 version and am very happy with that lens.
-
+1
That has been my own experience. I realize that some people like or even need the razor thin DOF, but I seldom shoot wide open, and try to use either the sweet spot of the lens or smaller aperture to extend the DOF. I was thinking long and hard when buying recently a 70-200mm lens, trying to decide between F2.8 and F4 (having already some F2.8 primes), finally went for F4 version and am very happy with that lens.
That's one of the reasons I started this thread, to figure out exactly how the digital age fits with our old film preconceptions. I think once a lot of people didn't use zooms because they were heavy and slow; with the great improvement in high ISO quality, do we really even need f2.8 for most of our shooting? Is there any real use (other than possibly as a shallow DOF specialty lens) for a FF f1.4 anymore? Like one of the other commenters, I have an 45.5mm (85mm equiv) f0.95 when I need really shallow DOF, so there is room for specialty lenses. I suppose people who shoot a lot at dusk and dawn might need the biggest possible glass...but I'm not even sure about that. You pay a big penalty in weight and usually in money for that extra stop. It seems to me that we might need to rearrange out thinking about lens sets. Zooms have gotten so good, that a series of f4 zooms, along with in-camera lens correction, might be all we need to carry, along with a specialty lens or two.
Are tripods still as important as they once were? If we can get good quality at ISO 3200, we might be able to use shutter speeds in average light that are fast enough that tripods become less important...or we could use lighter tripods or monopods.
And so on.
-
Tripods, that's another repositioning or repurposing of the original tool. As you say, John, tripods were used originally to steady the cameras for long exposures.
Nowadays, majority of tripod images are taken in situations where multiple aligned images are needed - i.e. HDR, focus stacking, panoramas with precise alignment and minimal overlaps, or even for making the streets people and car-free as shown by latest Kevin's tutorial. Very few of theses images are shot at slow speeds (except maybe intentional water blurring which is also becoming passé).
BTW, these new ways are not restricted only to compact cameras.
-
Are tripods still as important as they once were?
I prefer using a tripod to hand-held when shooting landscapes and (plant) macros.
Mainly for composition. I usually take 10 to 15 minutes for a macro, when I pan through each axis (with a 3-way gear head), looking for the best angle, then viewing fore and background with DoF-preview. I often use reflectors or diffusors, so I need my hands for holding these – plus the cable release. Shooting macros hand held? Very seldom.
Landscapes are similar, but usually without the diffusor. But then, with a split neutral density filter.
I’ll stick to the lowest ISO possible and a tripod. Maybe I'm too old to switch to the newer style, but I enjoy my photography nonetheless.
-
I agree with many of the points here. But...
1. It depends on what you shoot. If you need to freeze movement or action, a faster lens (f2.8 vs. f4) can save the day. Even if you shoot at ISO 3200 instead of 1600, you may still need the lens' speed, as the noise at ISO 3200 may be unacceptable to you (especially with smaller sensors).
2. In my case, I still need fast lenses and tripods. I shoot starscapes. And I also shoot landscapes at the blue and golden hours, so a tripod is a must.
All in all, most likely m4/3, and even 1" sensor size cameras can provide what most hobbyists and some serious photographers require. But top quality m4/3 lenses are as expensive, or more, than FF ones, just beware of that.
-
1) In the world of classical guitar we all want an instrument that sounds good to our ears, but the reality is that once we have an established technique the playability of the instrument makes a big difference. Some guitars will have 15 or 20 good notes and a neck that you are always fighting, and some instruments will have 50 or more lovely notes and a neck that supports you. If you are playing for 3 or 4 hours straight you really notice the difference. Think: tired versus injured.
I can't see that a camera is that different.
2) Depth of field control is important. Sometimes I want a huge amount, and sometimes I want a nearby background to be blurred. I don't need a razor thin DoF but the quality of the roll-off is important and the quality of the blur much more so. I can't say I've had an image ruined by not having enough pixels, but I have had images with nasty out of focus highlights that gave me grief.
3) Lastly, having gone from a Canon full frame to a Fuji APS-C the biggest surprise was the way Fuji fiddled the sensor to handle highlight detail. It shows particularly in the way B&W conversions "sing".
The digital age has given us so many real choices in our approach to image making. I still use film but after a little while the word "tiresome" does rear it head.
David
-
The reason for having an expensive (vintage, unique, etc.) guitar is not for the listener. They can't tell the difference between a '59 Les Paul and 2015 Les Paul. The reason is how is inspires the musician. Whether it be the sound, look, feel or mojo of the instrument, it inspires the musician to play a certain way.
Some might be more inspired to shoot with a Sony over a Canon (or Nikon or Leica or whatever). And that inspiration can come from the look, feel, concept, company history, pride of ownership, etc. It all goes into making the photos that you're taking.
Regarding depth of field, I'm considering one of two lenses (crop sensor 56mm 1.2 or 90mm 2.0). My looking for the one that helps me isolate my subject the best. I do care about narrow depth of field.
-
Your guitar analogy is pretty apt, and works well for other aspects of the camera buying decision as well. I've always told myself that I won't buy a "better" guitar until my (pathetic) skills are such that I can tell the difference when I play. That's going to be awhile. People ask me the "what camera should I buy" question all the time, and I tell them the same thing - get a basic camera with the features you want, one which feels good in the hand, and don't spend a lot of money until the basic camera can no longer shoot what you want.
Not disagreeing necessarily, but another perspective is to get equipment that you know won't limit you and that you can grow into. Following the musical instrument analogy, when I took up cello about 15 years ago I, with my teacher's help, spent a good chunk of change on really nice cello and bow. I knew from the start that any problems with my sound was me and not the instrument, and I did not spend time wondering "what if I had a better cello/bow?" That cello is still with me and I'll be growing into it for the rest of my life.
-
Not disagreeing necessarily, but another perspective is to get equipment that you know won't limit you and that you can grow into.
I agree that starting with quality gear is a good thing. My first camera (borrowed from my dad) was a Leica M2. My first guitar was a Guild F-20 that still ranks among the finest acoustic guitars I've played. IMO getting a handle on the basics with non-limiting equipment also allows you to appreciate & enjoy quirkier stuff later on. Lately I've been doing some snapshooting with a tiny Fuji instant camera. And I love weird 1950s & '60s guitars from makers like Danelectro, Teisco and Valco (National, Supro, Airline).
The attached iPhone pic is of a Teisco "Del Ray" ET-300. Flat fretboard, poor intonation when stock (I replaced the bridge with an intonatable one), decidedly non-smooth tuning keys, not much of a looker…yet structurally sound with low action, light weight and resonant acoustics. The pickups, which can be used singly or in any combination, are freakin' amazing. The thing plays well and sounds terrific! Comes with no sense of obligation, and probably cost me less than the monthly insurance premium on a '59 Les Paul. :)
-Dave-
-
Not disagreeing necessarily, but another perspective is to get equipment that you know won't limit you and that you can grow into.
Of course that's another perfectly valid course of action. One of my close friends bought a fairly expensive Martin as his first guitar, never having played a note. He's still playing and it's a terrific guitar, one that he can use for his entire life. I borrowed an old Alvarez from a friend for a few months, then bought a used Taylor that is definitely several steps above any cheap guitar, but it's not something I'll play forever. But until I figure out my playing style and what I want out of a guitar, it seemed less optimal for me to spend a lot of money up front.
I guess the camera analogy is that I bought a 60D with an 18-135, not knowing if I would eventually want a 5D Mark III with fast primes or a 1Dx with f/2.8 zooms. :)
-
The trick if you buy a difficult-to-use camera or guitar as a beginner is that you may not recognize that the equipment is the problem - kind of the reverse of blaming the equipment for your own shortcomings. My first half-way decent bass guitar was a Vox Cougar bass. It wasn't until years later that I realized I couldn't tune it properly because the intonation was all wrong, and couldn't get a clean sound through my amp because one of the pickups was faulty. I've since fixed both problems and still have it, but it's not nearly as fun to play as my more modern and well-made Fenders.
-
As Paulo said, "It depends on what you shoot."
My point was that with "film thinking," we really did need big fast lenses simply to deal with the limitations of film. They came with certain advantages, as well -- we all carried a lens with shallow DOF because we needed the speed, even if DOF wasn't a particular worry. I may be mis-remembering, but it seems like when I bought a new Pentax Spotmatic at an Army PX in 1968, the standard lens sold with the body was a 50mm f1.8. With my current cameras, an f4 would be fine. And probably very small. I guess I'm wondering if people have the "lens kit" mind set from film, without considering the huge changes that camera with digital. When I first started getting serious about photography, way back when, most people shot black and white, and a fairly standard "lens kit" consisted of 35, 50 and 135mm lenses, and sophisticates carried an 85mm or 105mm for portraits. By the time I finished my run with film, I was carrying the three Nikon f2.8 zooms, a 60 macro and a 300, always with two bodies and a tripod, and I'd often have a huge sun shade over my shoulder. (I was doing a lot of archaeological photography in the Middle East and all those lenses had specific uses.) The 35mm film shots were excellent for even double-truck repro in magazines (although archaeological magazines are not Vogue.) But, where I was working was so hot and rotten and dusty that I'd lose weight every day just lugging that equipment around a desert dig site. Now, I'd carry two m4/3 bodies, three zooms and a macro, and a lighter tripod, and probably 1/4 the weight -- and still get excellent repro in archaeological magazines.
To go to the guitar analogy, I think that some people might have a whole panoply of instruments -- nylon and steel string acoustics, a Strat, a Tele and a Les Paul and maybe a 335, and even a resonator. But I think the better you get, maybe the narrower you get -- you wind up with a "curated" set of similar guitars for your particular interests. I think digital, and especially the variety of "good enough" quality in a wide range of cameras and sensors, really gives us a chance to curate our systems.
-
Another attraction of uber fast lenses on conventional cameras was/is the brightness of the viewfinder achieved.
Slow lenses, even if superior IQ-wise - and where DOF is adequate for the task at hand, make for dim viewing.
I still dislike the current implementation of EVF, but they do have an advantage in this regard.
Rand
-
My 1950s & '60s era photo/camera books—The Contax Way (Zeiss rangefinders), for example—extol the virtues of fast lenses as they pertain to low-light shooting. DOF control: nary a mention. Our interest in shallow DOF is mostly a recent phenomenon.
Re. guitars: I did, back in the 1990s, consolidate as John describes. But it didn't last long. When I hear something different, then discover what was used to create that thing, I get curious. This also happened, at around the same time, with photo gear. I think I lack the focus, not to mention the innate talent, necessary to be great at any particular thing…and, being okay with that, I enjoy exploring different tools & techniques, keeping what works well for me and moving on from the rest.
The attached Kodachrome pic was taken by my dad c. May/June 1963. After he died I found it amongst his stuff in one of his yellow Kodak boxes marked "Rejects," with the caption "Margaret [my mom] too blurred" written on the slide mount. He was not a bokeh afficianado. ;)
-Dave-
-
Dave, that is a terrific photo. Love the expression.
-
Good points. The musical analogy is both interesting and apposite - particularly the point about what the final result would be after modulating the original signal through pedals, amps and the acoustics of any particular room. Turning to a different instrument, there were a number of interesting pieces in the UK about Daniel Barenboim's design for a new piano - here is one link - http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/may/26/daniel-barenboim-reveals-radical-new-piano-design-ive-fallen-in-love-with-it. Now I seriously doubt my ability to appreciate the subtle improvements of this instrument over a Steinway D but there is no doubting Barenboim's enthusiasm (particularly if you watch him demonstrate on film). And I fully accept that there are those with better ears than mine who will appreciate those subtleties and that there may be musicians who feel that they can achieve better performances on that instrument than with a mere £150,000 Steinway. But they are a rare breed and if you, or even they, just use it to play chopsticks - what is the point?
I feel that much of what is going on in photography is very similar. There are truly fantastic cameras and lenses in all shapes, formats, sizes and weights available. Would I like a new Phase One system or a Leica S or even the latest wunderkind - the Sony A7rii? Yes please. But would any of these make me a better photographer? Well we all know the answer to that. But the better question is - would any of them enable me to make better photographs? For myself the answer is no because my work doesn't depend upon super fast auto focus in low light, or razor sharpness edge to edge. Others will have different criteria. But far too much time is spent arguing whether lens (or camera) A is sharper than lens (or camera) B or whether there is a hint of CA when viewed at 100% in Photoshop after pushing the file by 4 stops or if there is 1/3rd stop more DR as opposed to asking whether or not any particular photograph really has anything to say or communicate. But then again I too read all the websites and yes, I really would like a Phase One system.
This is a riff on the discussion taking place in the thread called "4/3 vs Nikon APS-C."
I have both full frame and m4/3 systems (and a Sony RX100compact and a cell phone camera) and I've found that the handier the camera is, the more you tend to give up in terms of control.
But to limit the discussion to interchangeable lens cameras, I've found that discussion tends to revolve around four aspects of these various-sized cameras: physical size (dimensions and weight), lens speed, depth of field aspects and sensor qualities.
The advantages and disadvantages of physical size is pretty obvious to all of us, and I think is really a matter of personal preference, a balancing of all the different ways we may shoot as individuals. Your best system isn't mine, simply because we shoot in different ways and may have different subject interests.
It's figuring out the other aspects that's tough.
I would suggest (as I did in the earlier thread) that lens speed (at least in terms of a one-stop difference) is not as important as it was with film, because digital ISO abilities are so much better. In film, I really felt handicapped in terms of quality even shooting at ISO800. I think digital has a two- or three-stop advantage here, which means that an f4 lens may practically be as good as an f2.8 used to be.
Except for depth of field. Here there are two aspects. You have less depth of field control with a smaller sensor (like a m4/3 compared to FF) for any given lens speed. But is depth of field control really important in general purpose lenses? (This is an actual question of mine, not a rhetorical one.) How often do we want to limit depth of field in general shooting, and how much depth of field control do we practically have with f2.8 zoom lenses on even a FF camera? Isn't depth of field control really something you want to deal with in specific circumstances, for which an even faster, more specialized lens would be more effective? The practical effect of this question comes from the other thread, where somebody pointed out that depth of field with an m4/3 system's f2/8 is more like the equivalent of f5.6 of a full-frame system, while a FF's f4 is the f4 we're all accustomed to. But is depth of field really a matter of interest in choosing between f4 and f5.6-equivalent?
Then there are pixel questions. A lot of high quality cameras seem to be settling on offerings in the mid-20s (24-26mp.) The next Panny GX8 will have ~20mp. People have argued since the dawn of digital about the storage capacity of larger vs. smaller pixels, and also about the printing abilities of different numbers of pixels. Is there really a discernible difference between ~20mp and ~25mp at common, fairly large (say full-page large format magazine) sizes? Do marginally larger individual pixel sizes make more difference than the camera's processing engines that produce the final image?
In the guitar world, some people obsess about the sounds produced by vintage, usually incredibly expensive (now) instruments like the '59 Les Paul and the older Strats and so on, but a friend of mine pointed out that given all the different skill levels, by the time you run the signal through a couple of stomp boxes and maybe a looper and out an amp, and given all the different acoustic qualities you might have in any given room, you're sometimes lucky you can tell that it's a guitar being played, much less a quarter-million-dollar 59 LP. Are the analogous qualities true of cameras? That by the time you finish running a scene through your personal technique (tripod, no tripod), the autofocus, the lens glass, the sensors, Lightroom, and finally the printer...does it really matter much whether it's an m4/3 or a Nikon D800?
-
A few weeks ago I had an old friend to stay, who is a string player with a major orchestra which was performing locally. She wanted to bring her instrument along rather than have it travel home with the rest of the instruments, so that she could do a little practice whilst staying here. She told me a story which gave me pause for thought.
Recently, whilst playing overseas, she discovered that she didn't have her bow with her and had to borrow one. Panicking a little she called home and found that she'd simply left it behind rather than having lost it somehow. On her return this prompted her to check on her instrument insurance. The valuer told her that the bow alone was a little under-insured: at £20K... He recommended that she increase this to £30K - and noted in passing that had it not been repaired at some point it would be worth considerably more. The bow...
I have two systems, one based on a D700 (remember the D700?), three 2.8 zooms, plus a selection of primes and "legacy" mf lenses from film days. The other is an EM5 plus 4 primes, the kit lens and a 100-300 for wildlife use. Of course I also own numerous, entirely redundant, film cameras.
I'm through buying photographic equipment for the forseeable future. It would be no exaggeration to say that I bitterly regret buying the Nikon system and should really have unloaded it, swallowing the hideous depreciation, many years ago. The sheer bulk and weight of this gear now strikes me as quite absurd. To recall hauling even a subset of it up and down mountain gorges makes me wince.
As for the Olympus system, I'm somewhat conflicted. The size and weight are ideal. However I have never been able to accept (or get used to, really) the horrendously poor handling characteristics of this camera. I've lost count of the number of good shots that I've lost as a result of the camera suddenly being in some unwanted mode that I've accidentally selected or because the abominable contrast af system is struggling.
Whenever I look at photographic forums these days - increasingly seldom - my heart sinks at the endless proliferation of hardware, much of which outperforms everything I own. There's a terrible futility to it all, this continual raising of the technical bar. Maybe one day there will be a 4/3 body that seems utterly compelling, but..
-
<big snip>
Whenever I look at photographic forums these days - increasingly seldom - my heart sinks at the endless proliferation of hardware, much of which outperforms everything I own. There's a terrible futility to it all, this continual raising of the technical bar. Maybe one day there will be a 4/3 body that seems utterly compelling, but..
On that count, I was recently trying to straighten up some bookcases, where I more-or-less try to keep similar topics in the same place. In doing that, I found the instruction book for my old F5 (which I no longer have) and also the printed-out full instruction book for a Panasonic GX7. The F5 instruction book was a pamphlet about the thickness of a CD case, and about half the size of a CD case. The GX7 full instruction manual was (I think this is correct -- I'm at a different office right now) 360 single-spaced standard printer-pages long.
-
On that count, I was recently trying to straighten up some bookcases, where I more-or-less try to keep similar topics in the same place. In doing that, I found the instruction book for my old F5 (which I no longer have) and also the printed-out full instruction book for a Panasonic GX7. The F5 instruction book was a pamphlet about the thickness of a CD case, and about half the size of a CD case. The GX7 full instruction manual was (I think this is correct -- I'm at a different office right now) 360 single-spaced standard printer-pages long.
And if the F5 manual matches the one from my old Minolta SLR, half of it is teaching you the basics of photography, not even the functions of the camera.
-
Greater capability == greater complexity == greater manual size. An electronic camera with only one color/tonal profile, one white balance setting, one function per dial/switch/button, one EVF and/or rear LCD display config, etc. would be a lot easier to use. To switch to a different color/tone profile you'd turn off the camera and change storage cards…the profiles would be card-specific. It could be done! :D
-Dave-
-
I'm through buying photographic equipment for the forseeable future.
Same here. The amount of money I have (foolishly? needlessly? recklessly?) squandered on camera equipment over the past four decades, endlessly chasing after minor improvements in image quality, is truly too scary to contemplate. Mind you, all of these so-called improvements struck me as being huge improvements at the time: i.e., if I could see a difference, then by definition it had to be a significant one! But history has since provided me with the perspective I clearly lacked in those days and I have (belatedly) come to realize the fundamental error inherent in my prior way of thinking.
Whenever I look at photographic forums these days - increasingly seldom - my heart sinks at the endless proliferation of hardware, much of which outperforms everything I own. There's a terrible futility to it all, this continual raising of the technical bar. Maybe one day there will be a 4/3 body that seems utterly compelling, but..
I've been photographing happily (and exclusively!) with a pair of used Sony RX1s that I bought in March and April of this year. While they're not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, despite my decidedly outlier needs (I photograph mostly at night, among other things) they're not only getting the job done for me, but doing it quite well. You regret buying your Nikon gear? I'll see you that and raise you a medium-format digital outfit that I haven't used in nearly three years that is collecting dust almost as quickly as it depreciates, along with a pair of Fuji bodies and several lenses, a half-dozen m4/3 and 4/3 bodies and several lenses, and also a half-dozen medium- and large-format cameras that I never use but still own only because they're worth so little these days that selling them hasn't seemed worth the effort.
Well, I'm finally done: one camera, one lens (well, actually two lenses, because I also use a wide-angle converter with my RX1s occasionally) and for the next few years, at least, I plan to focus my attention on my compositions and technique instead of continuously researching my next upgrade and then working overtime to fund its purchase.
Unless Sony eventually releases an RX2, of course... :D
-
I've done most of my pic-taking over the past 16+ months with a pair of Leica M8.2s, also bought used. The black one has a Zeiss 28mm mounted and the silver one an old Leitz 50mm "rigid" Summicron. I've figured as long as my eyes are still up to accurately focusing with a rangefinder I should take advantage. But I've indulged in other stuff too, certainly not out of necessity but rather curiosity. YOLO & all that. ;)
-Dave-
-
Greater capability == greater complexity == greater manual size. ...
-Dave-
Dave,
That's one of the things I like most about my Fuji X-T1. While it is very configurable/flexible, I have it set up much like my old "simple" cameras. The analog knobs, aperture ring make it a "glance down to see where I am" kind of camera.
Rand
-
With that being said...people can make any camera as easy as they wish if the body is decently designed.
With the e-m1 you have aperture on the rear wheel, shutter speed on the front wheel, ISO and white balance on the top two buttons. Lock the camera in manual mode and done. You virtually never have to adjust anything again and every actual command needed for making images is under one hand.
I love the feel of the fujis and the old dials...but in reality I find the two wheels system of Olympus, canon, etc.. Quicker to operate and I don't need to change hand position.
-
so, if the camera & lens is the axe (input) what's the sensor (output?) the amp?
we all know that a marshall stack = small genitalia (sorry mf sensor guys.) so i don't feel bad about not having one of those (pun intended.)
then 24x36mm would be what a fender deluxe? or one of those boutique jobs, i'd say my a7ii is a blackstar artisan 15, small yet beautifully articulate and the a7r ii is an artisan 30 with a tube upgrade and a stonkin' b.k. butler overdrive pedal turned up to about 5...
... then this begs the question, the m43 sensor would be what? a practice amp?
;-)
-
With the e-m1 you have aperture on the rear wheel, shutter speed on the front wheel…
Or, if you're me, you set aperture with the front dial & shutter speed with the rear one. :) Such configurability is IMO usually a big plus even if it means spending a good amount of time setting up everything to taste. I don't mind doing that so long as the camera is simple to use once set up.
I leave my M8.2s in manual mode, with fixed ISO (usually 320 à la Tri-X), 'cuz using exposure comp is such a PITA. Pretty much every camera I've ever used has required putting up with something.
Re. the amp analogy, at least when relating image quality to sonic quality: IMO m43 cameras are tweed Fender Deluxes. Clean & sweet at lower volumes, break up easily & harmoniously when pushed but lose definition if you take it too far. Sony's A7r2 is a Hiwatt Custom 100. Big, bold & 3D clean, gets crunchy when cranked (to room-shaking, eardrum-damaging levels) but never loses control. Leica's M8.2 is a temperamental old pre-Top Boost Vox AC-30. Rich & kinda dark, can roar when turned up but always in danger of overheating. :D (Note: this falls apart when taking knobs & switches, or dials & buttons, into consideration.)
-Dave-
-
Interesting thread. On reflection (or maybe purchasing old gear second hand) I find we we often enjoy the "hardware" for its quirks, its character, its "look", or for some ceremony or sense of place/ personal importance or even nostalgic feelings it gives us. Interchangability of old lenses must be the pinnacle of that: it wouldnt stand up to rational or logical analysis much of the time for pure image capture. The rub is that most gear is sold to us, I mean actively marketed to us, when new in a way to say it is better than this or that. Fundamentally that (marketing) is the art of making us feel insecure with what we have already got or what we are using. Advances are great of course (especially if you skip a generation or two) but much of what we are promised wasn't even on our "needs list", and while some of those advances may genuinely be a bonus many arent.
As said above this isn't unique to compact systems, or even photography (nice musical instrument analogies). It isn't even unique to hardware: Im not sure why I want to upgrade beyond PS5, but I ill embrace improved RAW conversion (ironically perhaps to improve the oldest of my files the most).
Rapid advances can be great to a user. The "insecurity" that is engendered around that to "move" the consumer on to more purchases just needs to be filtered out.
(Disclosure, I am guilty of collecting old stuff, not rationalising what I already have, and even purchasing equipment for its out and out finesse)
-
Re. the amp analogy, at least when relating image quality to sonic quality: IMO m43 cameras are tweed Fender Deluxes. Clean & sweet at lower volumes, break up easily & harmoniously when pushed but lose definition if you take it too far. Sony's A7r2 is a Hiwatt Custom 100. Big, bold & 3D clean, gets crunchy when cranked (to room-shaking, eardrum-damaging levels) but never loses control. Leica's M8.2 is a temperamental old pre-Top Boost Vox AC-30. Rich & kinda dark, can roar when turned up but always in danger of overheating. :D (Note: this falls apart when taking knobs & switches, or dials & buttons, into consideration.)
-Dave-
But one is not better than another, for a given purpose:
Ray Wylie Hubbard sings, in "Down Home Country Blues,"
“Now you can take some Black Diamond strings
And put 'em on a J45
You hit them chords, you get that thump
You downright sanctified
Or you can take a lipstick pickup
And play it through a Fender Tweed
Oh, it's sweet, so goddamn sweet
When it squeals, squalls and bleeds”
-
All this worry about which camera is better at a micro level overlooks an important issue in digital shooting: If you shoot RAW, half of your results are tied up in how well you post process the RAW digital image. It would be interesting to compare images taken with a D810 in JPEG by a competent but not expert shooter and compare them to a Micro Four Thirds image shot RAW and fully processed by someone expert with both the camera used and post processing.
I believe that, as in your guitar analogy, the skill of the player/shooter is more important than the instrument. With digital photography those skills include the camera and all the software to get the image right in post.
...But I'll concede that the D810 shot in RAW and properly post processed by an expert photographer WILL blow away any crop sensor image.
-
I don't believe it will "blow away" the crop sensor. I shoot with medium format daily for my clients and use an e-m1 daily as well. I have done the comparisons myself of two identically shot images processed to give me the same results, and you would be amazed how well the m43 stands up. I was astonished that the only real difference I could spot was my m43 file was just smaller due to resolution. In terms of visible detail (in respect of size), color rendition, etc...i have found it completely immaterial to my workflow. It's also made me extremely confident in m43. I know first hand that when I have my e-m1 I literally have my "16mp phase one" in a sense. Obviously with 40 - 80 megapixels you can crop more or print bigger before upresing...but I personally don't care, nor need it. I have several comparisons with m43 and a P45 where I was scouting with the crop and shooting finals later with the p45 and I get the same look.
The look and feel in an image comes from the shooter. It seems we have a lot of musicians in the forum, so i will use that analogy too. Tone comes from the hands, not the instrument nor the amp. Yes, a good instrument or amp enable the players tone to be revealed more...but it comes from the hands. Uli Jon Roth always sounds like Uli...I have seen him play through other gear. Made no difference. Brian May, Steve Vai, etc...
This is the same with photographers who have actually developed their "tone" or feel/style. I know many photographers who's overall body of work is so cohesive and signature that you can t ell their photos anywhere. When you look at their gear....it has changed many times over the years but the images can't be distinguished one from the other. Even before processing.
Gear just enables us to further execute our vision in the field. And that is why there is so much variation of gear. And it's all valid. Vision is different. when your abilities are developed well, what camera your raw came out of will make very very little difference.
-
The only thing to add regarding the music analogy is that some instruments are more highly valued than others. My daughter is a bassoonist and some years back when she entered high school she switched from clarinet to bassoon (the music director had lots of the former and none of the latter). The first year she used the school instrument and when she decided to continue on it we bought her a bassoon. It's a nice instrument and IIRC we paid about $2800 for it. 14 years letter the same model is now selling for $5400. It's one of the few instruments (aside from Steinway pianos and certain Italian violins, violas, cellos) that continues to appreciate.
-
Bloody guitars. I was twelve and saw this movie with the cowboy in black on a horse (also black) plucking his black guitar and singing a song to this lovely lady with an enraptured expression across her chops. I knew nothing of guitars, but at twelve I was already very aware of what made women special.
So, my grandmother bought me one. No, a guitar. It was, obviously, a black Silvestri made in Catania, Sicily. As I said, I was twelve.
By the time I was ready to quit my teens, I sold it to another guy. In all those years I learned E, A, D, G, B, and E. The strings. The only tutor I had suggested that I might like to investigate something like a Swiss squeeze box.
I don't think of guitars or horses much these days. Some things, however, never leave your imagination.
Rob
-
Exactly why we all own a Leica at one point. Regardless if we need it or use it.
-
But one is not better than another, for a given purpose…
Quite right. Having used two new cameras with sensors near opposite ends of the size spectrum—a Sony A7r2 & Panasonic GX8—over the past 10 days or so, I'd say the significant differences between them are these: the A7r2 accommodates a wider range of print sizes and ISO values; while the GX8 is a touch smaller, noticeably lighter (particularly when taking lenses into account) and autofocuses faster. Unless you're making huge prints the GX8 concedes nothing detail-wise at lower ISOs. Color/tonal rendition is a matter of taste…either camera may be "better" depending on what you're going for. Same with noise/grain texture or lack thereof.
-Dave-
-
Here's a GX8 pic from today's afternoon walk. Panasonic 12–35/2.8 lens at 35mm & f/5.6. ISO 500. Quick tweaking of the camera's JPEG on my iPad while I get caffeinated…I'll give the RAW a go later. Anyway, I continue to be impressed with the GX8's tonal range. These gizmos are acting more & more like negative film: with many of the pics I took today I could choose where to place my tones on the sensor's scale without (much) concern over blowing or crushing anything. Nice!
-Dave-
-
Here's a GX8 pic from today's afternoon walk. Panasonic 12–35/2.8 lens at 35mm & f/5.6. ISO 500. <snip>
-Dave-
You know, it's beginning to seem as though cameras like the m4/3 or even the RX100 could be thought of as "primary" cameras, meant to be used or printed without much tweaking at all. In other words, like the old film cameras, where the emphasis was on getting what you wanted in-camera, with limited possibilities thereafter (in the darkroom.) The bigger sensor cameras like the new Sony or the 810 or the MF cameras are more like "secondary" cameras, where the secondary manipulation of the photo comes to the fore -- basically a data collection that you plan to extensively manipulate and perfect in Lightroom or Photoshop, where the extra capabilities of these camera can really be used, where, for example, you can radically crop yet still get a fine-grained image.
There are all kinds of psychological/historical questions embedded in the way we see images -- do we think of somewhat harsh, noisy, contrasty and even blurry images as "action" or "news" photos simply because we've been trained that way, or is there something eye-like in those images? Something that replicates an eye-brain link? Or, if we took the same image with a medium format camera and came back with a really spectacular, fine-grained, noiseless, almost creamy image, would we accept that as a valid action image as readily as the more noisy image? To put it the other way around, would a carefully exposed MF shot seem as intuitively valid as a street shot, as a more noisy image?
To go back to the music analogy, I don't think there are a large number of people (though there are always some) who would argue that chamber music is more inherently valid as music than, say, blues or jazz or rock. In fact, chamber music really used to be more like rock before it got constipated. They are just different experiences. But it seems that in the photo world, the lower-megapixel, shorter dynamic-range, etc., cameras are simply taken as inferior, and that the raison d'etre of m4/3 is simply smaller size and lower weight, rather than an inherent virtue to be found in lower-definition images. In music, an inherent virtue is found in rap, rock, country, jazz, blues, etc. vis-a-vis chamber music. But not so in photography?
-
You know, it's beginning to seem as though cameras like the m4/3 or even the RX100 could be thought of as "primary" cameras, meant to be used or printed without much tweaking at all. In other words, like the old film cameras, where the emphasis was on getting what you wanted in-camera, with limited possibilities thereafter (in the darkroom.) The bigger sensor cameras like the new Sony or the 810 or the MF cameras are more like "secondary" cameras, where the secondary manipulation of the photo comes to the fore -- basically a data collection that you plan to extensively manipulate and perfect in Lightroom or Photoshop, where the extra capabilities of these camera can really be used, where, for example, you can radically crop yet still get a fine-grained image.
Yeah, that's how I'm seeing it. Still in the process of getting the GX8 set up for optimal in-camera results, but I think I'm getting closer. Today was partly a tryout of the "Natural" color profile, which I've concluded is too cool for my taste. But…the GX8 has in-camera RAW processing capability. Nothing like a proper RAW suite, of course, but useful enough for solid out-of-camera images with minimal, if any, phone/tablet tweaking. The same photo I posted above—reprocessed in-camera with the "Standard" profile, a slightly warmer color balance and a tick up in contrast—is pretty much "there" in terms of screen display.
The in-camera JPEG quality of Sony's A7r2 is IMO…rubbish. Spatial delineation is well enough preserved but tonal subtleties are clobbered to keep file sizes small. RAW processing is a must. Given that processing, image quality is the best I've ever obtained from any camera I've ever used. I'm not a big "sharpness" guy but even my jaw has dropped more than once looking at full-res segments of photos I've taken with it. If I had a huge printer I'd be in photo heaven. As it is the camera is total overkill for my needs. I'm actually glad the GX8 arrived at about the same time as the Sony…it's given me a helpful dose of proper perspective. :) Your comments about the virtues of lower-res images are IMO right on, not that many current cameras will provide them by default. But with m43 cameras in particular you can ramp up the ISO, if you want, for some noise/grain and a narrower tonal range. There's a verité aspect to lower-res photography, whether inherent or imputed by us based on history or custom or received understanding, that appeals very much to me.
-Dave-
-
Well, I'm really happy to hear some of these reports about the IQ of M43, particularly Telecaster's comparison with the Sony A7. I've been drooling over the Sonys ever since they were released and it's only getting worse with the new second generation. However, I have a big investment in M43 lenses and really don't want to spring the nearly $10K it would take to recreate the kit to go on a Sony.
These comments help me to put my money back into my wallet and continue on working with what I have. As I've said before in other posts, the camera is only a part of the equation. Shooter skills and good PP count for at least as much as the camera, probably significantly more. I have those skills under control and am getting good results. I think I'll just keep on keeping on!