lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

In article <I%Deh.141301$Tj1.1010375@weber.videotron.net>,
Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@mailinator.com> wrote:
>My point is precisely that --- for *film* cameras, the argument is
>perfectly valid that the camera is just a dumb box to keep the light
>out (or to keep the dark sealed inside the box) --- better cameras
>mean just better features that allow you to take good pictures without
>getting in the way; and better durability/etc.

I don't know what kind of cameras you use, but many cameras also have
AF and light meters as part of the 'dumb box'. And then there are
viewfinders as well.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In article <s0snn29tlpslglm38avmliqukjo83dub66@4ax.com>,
smb <justme@here.com> wrote:
>That
>being said, if you have specific needs such as shooting sports at high
>speed, you may want a high FPS and good autofocus to make the job
>easier for you. But good sports photgraphers took awesome pictures
>back in the day when these things were not available. The difference
>is that they had to rely on their own skill more than on the camera's
>features.

But would those techniques work today? In a lot of sports, photographers
have much more limited access than they had before. At the same time,
an editor may want to get an entire sequence to pick the image he like
best instead relying on the single image provided by the photographer.

In a lot of fields, once a particular new technology has been introduced,
professionals have to use it or they are no longer competitive.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

smb <justme@here.com> writes:
> easier for you. But good sports photgraphers took awesome pictures
> back in the day when these things were not available.

But did they do it as often as they do now? If a good sports
photographer went to ten basketball games with that old equipment, how
many awesome pictures would s/he likely come back with? What about
with today's equipment?

In fact I think they did use fast motor drives and simply burned a ton
of film. There was a sports photog who used to hang out here, who
spoke of shooting 75 rolls of film in a single basketball game.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 12:55:53 +0100, Philip Homburg wrote:

> In article <I%Deh.141301$Tj1.1010375@weber.videotron.net>,
> Carlos Moreno <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@mailinator.com> wrote:
>>My point is precisely that --- for *film* cameras, the argument is
>>perfectly valid that the camera is just a dumb box to keep the light
>>out (or to keep the dark sealed inside the box) --- better cameras
>>mean just better features that allow you to take good pictures without
>>getting in the way; and better durability/etc.
>
> I don't know what kind of cameras you use, but many cameras also have
> AF and light meters as part of the 'dumb box'. And then there are
> viewfinders as well.

And if the shutter's not accurate and repeatable then you've got problems.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Philip Homburg wrote:

>>My point is precisely that --- for *film* cameras, the argument is
>>perfectly valid that the camera is just a dumb box to keep the light
>>out (or to keep the dark sealed inside the box) --- better cameras
>>mean just better features that allow you to take good pictures without
>>getting in the way; and better durability/etc.
>
> I don't know what kind of cameras you use, but many cameras also have
> AF and light meters as part of the 'dumb box'. And then there are
> viewfinders as well.

True. But while it is part of a potentially philosophical debate,
one could still argue that that does not directly determine the
camera's impact on the quality of the picture --- if anything, it
impairs your capability of taking good pictures by getting in the
way; if the camera does not have a good and robust AF, if it does
not have a good viewfinder, if it doesn't have a good light meter,
then it's getting in the way and doing all in its power to prevent
you from taking good pictures.

(so, definitely, *dumb* is perhaps a very bad adjective to describe
what I --- and the previous poster --- was trying to describe)

But the thing is, for a given instance of taking a picture, with
the given conditions, the camera has no impact on the quality of
the result (provided that the minimum conditions to call it a
functional camera are met --- that is, that it doesn't leak light);
the lens does. And the film also does. (and in the case of the
Digital cameras, the sensor and the pre-processing electronics
and soft/firmware do [have a *direct* impact on the quality of
the result].


Carlos
--

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 06:37:36 -0500, smb <justme@here.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:44:29 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 21:23:15 -0000, "Gerald Place"
>><venosa@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>My that's a complicated question! . Surely the skill and aesthetic judgement
>>>of the photographer will always outweigh the any technical considerations.
>>>
>>>Gerald
>>
>>I don't see how a camera that can't deliver what the photographer's
>>skill and aesthetic judgement want isn't a technical drawback.
>>While it's always possible for a good photographer to deliver good
>>photos with a pinhole camera, it's obvious that a pinhole camera
>>offers a lot of technical problems for a lot of photography.
>>Yes, the input of the photographer is very important. So is the camera
>>the photographer uses to implement that input.
>
>
>That may be true, but the fact is that nobody is using pinhole
>cameras. With regard to the cameras that are actually available
>today, the photographer's input is FAR more important than a box with
>buttons and dials on it.

*IF* you assume that there's no difference between (for example, and
at my peril ) a $150 camera and a $5000 camera.
To make such an assumption is absurd; if it were so, one or the other
wouldn't exist. (Well, it would of course, marketing being what it is.
:0(. ).
>
>Choice of a camera is more often a matter of personal preference and
>convenience features than it is of actual technical limitations.

If only.
Budget comes into play for the vast majority of us.
>That
>being said, if you have specific needs such as shooting sports at high
>speed, you may want a high FPS and good autofocus to make the job
>easier for you. But good sports photgraphers took awesome pictures
>back in the day when these things were not available. The difference
>is that they had to rely on their own skill more than on the camera's
>features.

Yet, those better cameras allow for a vastly greater number of good
sports shots today.
As well as low light shots, underwater shots, candid shots, etc, and
etc, and etc...
>
>Steve
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On 10 Dec 2006 04:45:16 -0800, Paul Rubin
<http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

>smb <justme@here.com> writes:
>> easier for you. But good sports photgraphers took awesome pictures
>> back in the day when these things were not available.
>
>But did they do it as often as they do now? If a good sports
>photographer went to ten basketball games with that old equipment, how
>many awesome pictures would s/he likely come back with? What about
>with today's equipment?
>
>In fact I think they did use fast motor drives and simply burned a ton
>of film. There was a sports photog who used to hang out here, who
>spoke of shooting 75 rolls of film in a single basketball game.

And unless he had an assistant, he missed shots while he was changing
film.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> writes:

> Digital camera sensors show a large performance range,
> beyond megapixels, and include dynamic range, low light sensitivity,

....

Roger, have you ever come across anyone changing the clocking levels
of CCDs to change modes acording to the conditions? Like using MPP
for low levels, and `conventional' levels with greater well capacity
for higher light levels?

> For sensor performance, see:

> Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

> Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
> Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

Do you have data for the Nikons and Pentaxes yet?

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

In message <1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
aniramca@yahoo.com writes
>Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
>distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
>producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ?

<Snip>

In trying to leave out the human touch and talent you are omitting at
least 80% of what makes a great image, probably more. I saw a panel of
photos done by a guy using one of those disposable cameras. He knew how
to use it, the photos were great, the camera was obviously pretty
limited in what it could do. I've also seen lots of awful photos taken
on various expensive SLRs.

Why is it that people want to focus so much on the mechanics of
photography rather than the human element? Because money can buy
mechanics but not an artistic eye, or talent for spotting a photo? It
beats me.



--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

In message <457a42c6$0$9772$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, Jeff R.
<contact.me@this.ng> writes
>
><aniramca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googleg roups.com...
>> Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
>> distribution of critical components of a camera
>
>This rather pointless attribution of % values reminds me of the famous joke
>where the parts of the body are arguing about their relative worth.
>
>A version can be found here: http://joek.com/jokes/joke_102.shtml

LOL! I needed a good laugh, you've pointed me right at one. Thanks.
:D

(I did sort of guess which bit might win, but not how. The joke is in
the telling.)

--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net