We need an intervention...

comment23

mu-43 frequent flyer
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
1,118
Location
Hampshire, UK
Real Name
Simon
Micro Four Nerds on the prickly subject of why “Gear Doesn’t Matter”.


I thought this was one of the best pieces of its kind that I’ve seen. No bias either way, despite the vlogs name, just well articulated views backed up with loads of excellent evidence.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
1,214
Location
Somerset UK
Real Name
Steve
I enjoyed that presentation. By coincidence I was only thinking (always dangerous:)) earlier about how impressive the technical detail is in some of the photographs I shoot, which is down to lenses, the camera body and some post processing - but they rarely tick a box for me as far as art or emotion is concerned, and that's the thing I want to capture, sometimes luck plays a part and I get lucky, other times I think I've shot well and the reactions to the shots are often tepid. The beauty of being a photography hobbyist though is you can do it for yourself.
 

D7k1

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 18, 2013
Messages
2,256
Spot on. Take the images shot in the depression with far less capable equipment than even a low level M43 camera today and ask yourself why do they have riveting content and artistic perspective. Those you can't buy.
 
Last edited:

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,336
Spotty. On re the above posts (not to mention Alfred S.) but off for trying to capture water droplets, BIF, sports, etc. Photography is a large area, tho maybe not the "Total Art" envisioned by the Germans in 1900 or whenever.
 

davidzvi

Super Moderator
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
3,779
Location
Outside Boston MA
Real Name
David
One of the points she makes is something I considered when I sold off all my Nikon FX gear. We have come SO far in the 15 years I've been using DSLRs and many of my favorite shots where from 6-12mp cameras that I tried not to above 1600 ISO and only went above 3200 when I had to.

Now? Not great, but not bad for 25600 from the E-M10 mkI I use to have (cropped, not other processing)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,551
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
The only real difference in IQ between sensor sizes (or maybe even generations) is max output size. If you aren't happy with the IQ, then you are just viewing it too large. Back in the film era, this was understood. 110 film would not be output at the 16x24 like a medium format frame would be. And yet in the digital age, we view cell phone images, m4/3 and FF all on the same huge monitor (bigger than most ever print) at 100% and then complain that smaller sensors look worse.

(incidentally most phone users view their phone pictures on a smaller device and are VERY happy with the quality).
 

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,336
The real differences in IQ between sensor sizes include max output size, DoF, noise at low light levels, and DR. Sometimes diffraction too.
 

speedy

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Nov 27, 2015
Messages
2,159
The only real difference in IQ between sensor sizes (or maybe even generations) is max output size. If you aren't happy with the IQ, then you are just viewing it too large. Back in the film era, this was understood. 110 film would not be output at the 16x24 like a medium format frame would be. And yet in the digital age, we view cell phone images, m4/3 and FF all on the same huge monitor (bigger than most ever print) at 100% and then complain that smaller sensors look worse.
Yeah, people seem to have forgotten how to look at a picture/photo as a whole. Instead, they obsess over postage stamp sized portions of it. Digital photography seems to have made this worse.
In saying that, even at 6x4 print sizes, one could tell a difference in output between my sister's SLR shots, and my 35mm compact camera. It just didn't seem to matter though. Probably because the interwebz wasn't invented at that time :)
 
Joined
Oct 29, 2018
Messages
631
Location
Charente Maritime, western France
Real Name
Roddy
I'm confused as to how advertising agencies can plaster an iPhone photo across 15' feet of brickwork and they look just fine while mine look shit at A4 size. Are they doing something with magic sprinkle dust I have no access to? I've printed some big stuff in my time but there is no way the photos my iPhone produces would stand up to that printing output.....
 

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,551
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
I'm confused as to how advertising agencies can plaster an iPhone photo across 15' feet of brickwork and they look just fine while mine look shit at A4 size. Are they doing something with magic sprinkle dust I have no access to? I've printed some big stuff in my time but there is no way the photos my iPhone produces would stand up to that printing output.....
Easy. 15' from far away is smaller in terms of angular resolution than a4 up close. If you ever get close to a banner, they have giant pixels.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom