lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

Surfer! wrote:
> 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.
The answer to this is pretty simple, many of use know the photos was
want to take and have over the years found that our equipment/film has
limited what we could capture. It really has to do with one's
mindset, are you setting off to take good photos or do want to capture
image of what is around you? If I am trying to get a good photograph
of a whale that is some distance away no amount of artistic eye is
going to help, I will need a longer lens. If I am shooting in low
light no amount of artistic eye is going to help if I am stuck shooting
with a f/3.5 lens and ISO 100, I need a faster lens and a higher ISO.

Scott

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:45:04 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
wrote:

>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(. ).

Well, actually, under many conditions that $150 camera can be every
bit as capable of photos that are as good as that $5000 camera. Some
of the technical differences are only obvious at high magnification.
Where the expensive camera comes into its own is in extending the
range of conditions where you can get technically good images.


>>
>>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.

Absolutely. But someone with a low budget need not feel he is doomed
to making mediocre photographs. I'm thoroughly convinced of the 90%
/ 10% rule, whereby the camera contributes 10% to the success of any
photograph. The 90% comes from who is using the camera.

I don't know if you know of the legendary photographer Ernst Haas, but
I'm reminded of a remark he made to someone who kept asking him about
the Leica cameras he used in his work... his response was something
like, "Leica, Schmeica, the only thing that matters is in your head."


>>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...

Yes, very true. But IMO that's just a matter of using the right tool
for the job. Tools always get better, as do the expectations of
those using them.

But back to the $150 vs $5000 camera... anyone who has not mastered
the craft of creating interesting photographs with the lesser camera
will be woefully disappointed with his new expensive camera. The
images may be a bit sharper and better exposed, but will the content
of the images be improved? Hardly. If someone can't get down the
basics of lighting, composition, decisive moment to press the shutter,
etc with a normal lens, they won't get much of an improvement using a
wide angle or telephoto or all the megapixels in the world.


Steve



>>
>>Steve

"smb" <justme@here.com> wrote:
>>
>>*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(. ).
>
> Well, actually, under many conditions that $150 camera can be every
> bit as capable of photos that are as good as that $5000 camera.

That's simply comlete BS, _unless_ you specify that you are not allowed to
print larger than 4x6". And don't care about the vast majority of what are
considered "good photographs".

Which was KR's claim.

Basically, it's an extremely stupid straw man argument. If you want flash
snaps of your parties, and won't be printing much larger than 4x6", a P&S
camera is exactly the right tool. Doh! How stupid can you get?

> Some
> of the technical differences are only obvious at high magnification.
> Where the expensive camera comes into its own is in extending the
> range of conditions where you can get technically good images.

Right. The better camera only comes into it's own if you actually care about
the images. For example, if you think deer-in-the-headlights expressions
with horror-film eyes are "good photos", then P&S onboard flash is even
better than the 5D, which doesn't have a flash.

>>>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.
>
> Absolutely. But someone with a low budget need not feel he is doomed
> to making mediocre photographs. I'm thoroughly convinced of the 90%
> / 10% rule, whereby the camera contributes 10% to the success of any
> photograph. The 90% comes from who is using the camera.

There are a lot of things current P&S cameras can't do. They can't take a
decent portrait with the background blurred out of focus. They can't take
available light portraits, they can't do bounce flash. The list is quite
long, actually.

About the only thing they can do is take P&S record shots. (Which is a very
useful thing, especially if that's what you need.) But "good photography" is
largely out of their range.

> I don't know if you know of the legendary photographer Ernst Haas, but
> I'm reminded of a remark he made to someone who kept asking him about
> the Leica cameras he used in his work... his response was something
> like, "Leica, Schmeica, the only thing that matters is in your head."

In those days, the alternatives were also 35mm film cameras, and had similar
properties to the Leica. Both Nikon and Canon made rangefinders, for
example. (Although the Rollei TLR was the main alternative in those days.)

>>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...
>
> Yes, very true. But IMO that's just a matter of using the right tool
> for the job. Tools always get better, as do the expectations of
> those using them.

Right. But the $150 P&S camera is the right tool for only one job: P&S
record shots.

> But back to the $150 vs $5000 camera... anyone who has not mastered
> the craft of creating interesting photographs with the lesser camera
> will be woefully disappointed with his new expensive camera. The
> images may be a bit sharper and better exposed, but will the content
> of the images be improved? Hardly.

If someone actually understands what good photography is about (i.e. has
seen quality portraits, landscapes, architecture) and wants to do that kind
of work, they'll instantly see vast improvements in their work by getting a
5D plus the appropriate lenses.

Practicing with a P&S won't do them any good at all, since it simply can't
do the work.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:43 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>
>"smb" <justme@here.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>*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(. ).
>>
>> Well, actually, under many conditions that $150 camera can be every
>> bit as capable of photos that are as good as that $5000 camera.
>
>That's simply comlete BS, _unless_ you specify that you are not allowed to
>print larger than 4x6". And don't care about the vast majority of what are
>considered "good photographs".
>
>Which was KR's claim.
>
>Basically, it's an extremely stupid straw man argument. If you want flash
>snaps of your parties, and won't be printing much larger than 4x6", a P&S
>camera is exactly the right tool. Doh! How stupid can you get?
>
>> Some
>> of the technical differences are only obvious at high magnification.
>> Where the expensive camera comes into its own is in extending the
>> range of conditions where you can get technically good images.
>
>Right. The better camera only comes into it's own if you actually care about
>the images. For example, if you think deer-in-the-headlights expressions
>with horror-film eyes are "good photos", then P&S onboard flash is even
>better than the 5D, which doesn't have a flash.
>
>>>>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.
>>
>> Absolutely. But someone with a low budget need not feel he is doomed
>> to making mediocre photographs. I'm thoroughly convinced of the 90%
>> / 10% rule, whereby the camera contributes 10% to the success of any
>> photograph. The 90% comes from who is using the camera.
>
>There are a lot of things current P&S cameras can't do. They can't take a
>decent portrait with the background blurred out of focus. They can't take
>available light portraits, they can't do bounce flash. The list is quite
>long, actually.
>
>About the only thing they can do is take P&S record shots. (Which is a very
>useful thing, especially if that's what you need.) But "good photography" is
>largely out of their range.
>
>> I don't know if you know of the legendary photographer Ernst Haas, but
>> I'm reminded of a remark he made to someone who kept asking him about
>> the Leica cameras he used in his work... his response was something
>> like, "Leica, Schmeica, the only thing that matters is in your head."
>
>In those days, the alternatives were also 35mm film cameras, and had similar
>properties to the Leica. Both Nikon and Canon made rangefinders, for
>example. (Although the Rollei TLR was the main alternative in those days.)
>
>>>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...
>>
>> Yes, very true. But IMO that's just a matter of using the right tool
>> for the job. Tools always get better, as do the expectations of
>> those using them.

>Right. But the $150 P&S camera is the right tool for only one job: P&S
>record shots.
>
>> But back to the $150 vs $5000 camera... anyone who has not mastered
>> the craft of creating interesting photographs with the lesser camera
>> will be woefully disappointed with his new expensive camera. The
>> images may be a bit sharper and better exposed, but will the content
>> of the images be improved? Hardly.
>
>If someone actually understands what good photography is about (i.e. has
>seen quality portraits, landscapes, architecture) and wants to do that kind
>of work, they'll instantly see vast improvements in their work by getting a
>5D plus the appropriate lenses.
>
>Practicing with a P&S won't do them any good at all, since it simply can't
>do the work.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>


Sorry, you're wrong. Well, you're right that an expensive camera
will let you do more things and will give you more ultimate quality,
but you're totally wrong that a P&S camera is not capable of good
photography. Check out this gallery to see what a P&S can do in the
hands of someone who understands photography beyond what you can read
in the consumer photo magazines:

http://photography-on-the.net/galler...p?exhibition=2

Absolutely superb work by any standards, all done with a now-obsolete
3MP P&S. I used to own one of those same models, and I can vouch for
how good a lowly P&S can be if you know how to use it beyond the idiot
modes.

If you think holding a 5D in your hands will somehow make you a better
photographer, you're fooling yourself. However, in the right hands a
better tool has more potential. But it's still the person holding the
camera that makes the picture. If you think you need a $5000 camera
to make good photographs, go for it. The camera companies thank you
very much.



Steve

"smb" <justme@here.com> wrote in message
news:8repn2l36bffg8a636l793tu77mdv4agst@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:43 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>>Practicing with a P&S won't do them any good at all, since it simply can't
>>do the work.
>>
>>David J. Littleboy
>>Tokyo, Japan
>>
>
>
> Sorry, you're wrong.
<...>
> If you think holding a 5D in your hands will somehow make you a better
> photographer, you're fooling yourself. However, in the right hands a
> better tool has more potential. But it's still the person holding the
> camera that makes the picture. If you think you need a $5000 camera
> to make good photographs, go for it. The camera companies thank you
> very much.
>
>
>
> Steve


What he said.

JR.

"Jeff R." <contact.me@this.ng> wrote in message
news:457cc8d6$0$9775$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>
> "smb" <justme@here.com> wrote in message
> news:8repn2l36bffg8a636l793tu77mdv4agst@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:07:43 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
>> <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>>Practicing with a P&S won't do them any good at all, since it simply
>>>can't
>>>do the work.
>>>
>>>David J. Littleboy
>>>Tokyo, Japan
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, you're wrong.
> <...>
>> If you think holding a 5D in your hands will somehow make you a better
>> photographer, you're fooling yourself. However, in the right hands a
>> better tool has more potential. But it's still the person holding the
>> camera that makes the picture. If you think you need a $5000 camera
>> to make good photographs, go for it. The camera companies thank you
>> very much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>
>
> What he said.
>
> JR.
>

There is nothing wrong with wanting the latest (and, hopefully, best)
equipment. But we all know people for whom all the equipment in the world
would not make them better photographers, and that is the group that I am
critical of.

Those are the folks that proudly display expensive cameras on their neck
straps. We used to refer to them as the "Cameras As Jewelry" crowd, but now
that cameras are mainly polycarbonate, that description seems somewhat
off-the-mark.

That is the group for whom photography is, not the result, but the
equipment.

That is the crowd that tends to be attracted to newsgroups like this one,
where they can recite specs from memory, and where they can put down those
that have not kept up with the latest equipment.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:32:30 -0500, smb <justme@here.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:45:04 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
>wrote:
>
>>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(. ).
>
>Well, actually, under many conditions that $150 camera can be every
>bit as capable of photos that are as good as that $5000 camera. Some
>of the technical differences are only obvious at high magnification.
>Where the expensive camera comes into its own is in extending the
>range of conditions where you can get technically good images.

*CAN* be. But they are only in certain conditions. In other
conditions, the $5000 camera produces better pictures.
If you want to limit yourself to those conditions where the $150
camera does as well as thew $5000 camera, then *FOR YOU* the less
expensive cameras is as good as the better camera.
But those who continue to say the $150 camera is as good as the $5000
camera don't make that distinction.
>
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>Absolutely. But someone with a low budget need not feel he is doomed
>to making mediocre photographs. I'm thoroughly convinced of the 90%
>/ 10% rule, whereby the camera contributes 10% to the success of any
>photograph. The 90% comes from who is using the camera.

Considering the subject matter, composition, decisions as to shutter,
aperture, etc, yes, I absolutely agree. Never disagreed.
But if the camera isn't up to delivering a decent photo, no
photographer will get a decent photo.
>
>I don't know if you know of the legendary photographer Ernst Haas, but
>I'm reminded of a remark he made to someone who kept asking him about
>the Leica cameras he used in his work... his response was something
>like, "Leica, Schmeica, the only thing that matters is in your head."

Yeah, and Bill Clinton said, "I never had sex with that woman..."
Obviously, if all you want to see is a picture in your head, the
camera doesn't matter. But, if you want others to see the same thing,
you need a camera.
And if the camera you have isn't capable of delivering the image you
have in your head, but a better camera will, the camera matters, too.
>
>
>>>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...
>
>Yes, very true. But IMO that's just a matter of using the right tool
>for the job. Tools always get better, as do the expectations of
>those using them.
>
>But back to the $150 vs $5000 camera... anyone who has not mastered
>the craft of creating interesting photographs with the lesser camera
>will be woefully disappointed with his new expensive camera.

I'm not arguing that, and I think I'm being pretty specific about
that.
>The
>images may be a bit sharper and better exposed, but will the content
>of the images be improved? Hardly. If someone can't get down the
>basics of lighting, composition, decisive moment to press the shutter,
>etc with a normal lens, they won't get much of an improvement using a
>wide angle or telephoto or all the megapixels in the world.
>
>
>Steve
>
>
>
>>>
>>>Steve
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:04:27 +0000, Surfer! <surfer@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>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.

The tool is important.
If a surgeon tried to remove your appendix with a dull spoon, I think
you'd object.

Why some people try to make photography all about the photographer
beats me. Without the camera, photography doesn't exist. It's the
mechanics of the camera that enables the photographer to capture the
image his creativity has imagined. If the camera isn't up to the task,
the photograph the photographer imagined won't be realized.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@there.com> wrote in message
news:uckpn2hpabmvl6rk2qinn1sra33qo3eo2t@4ax.com...
> The tool is important.
> If a surgeon tried to remove your appendix with a dull spoon, I think
> you'd object.
>
> Why some people try to make photography all about the photographer
> beats me. Without the camera, photography doesn't exist. It's the
> mechanics of the camera that enables the photographer to capture the
> image his creativity has imagined. If the camera isn't up to the task,
> the photograph the photographer imagined won't be realized.
> --
> Bill Funk


IOW: "You take great pictures. You must have a really good camera."

--
Jeff R.

smb wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:45:04 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
> wrote:
>
> >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(. ).
>
> Well, actually, under many conditions that $150 camera can be every
> bit as capable of photos that are as good as that $5000 camera.

Impossible. Unless you use some strange cut-off point for your
valuation of "every bit."