We need an intervention...

[comment23]

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.

 

[Jeffcs]

She’s spot on

 

[StephenB]

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]

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.

 

[ralf-11]

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]

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]

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]

The real differences in IQ between sensor sizes include max output size, DoF, noise at low light levels, and DR. Sometimes diffraction too.

 

[speedy]

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

 

[ektar]

I thought she was brilliant.

 

[pondball]

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.

What a wonderful little video!
Thanks for sharing Simon!

 

[Macroramphosis]

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.....

 

[Macroramphosis]

That's an interesting read, thanks Isaac!

 

[tkbslc]

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.