We all sure love anal-izing stuff:ROTFL:
IMO:
Despite all counter-point discussions, in the end the only analysis that matters is the one we have with ourselves … which tool to use to best express ourselves. That differs widely for most of us, but from many debates, you'd think there was some universal truth where one perspective over-rides another.
So, one person's handicap can be another's sweet-spot, and visa-versa.
It also means we all form biases along the way … which by definition are usually unfair. However, bias can also be thought of as a foundation for selectivity. As a grizzled old pro once quipped to me
"The problem with making a decision is that it eliminates all the other possibilities".
At some point we MUST make decisions and believe in them … with the tools we use, how we use them, right down to what images are kept and which are discarded. Creativity is a process of expansive thinking, eventually disciplined by prejudical choice.
Some of us evangelize our photographic prejudices … which, IMO, sometimes can reach a crescendo point that starts feeling more like lack of confidence in the decisions being made.
Raging technology doesn't help matters. Modern photographic marketing survives by creating indecision, doubt, and by extension, peer pressure. Small increments are heralded as significant … even though many of us don't need more, we are made to believe we do.
The root of all that is the thought that with this new thing we will be better photographers … which in some cases is true. If we want to shoot MFD in lower light, then switching to CMOS may be a significant choice. However, in just as many cases, the user may rarely use the new highly touted feature, and it is relegated to a justification in debates more than it has made any difference in the photographer's work. Meanwhile, that photographer is out a lot more money.
Fact is, digital has left its infancy behind. For most of us, we could stop now and be just fine for many, many years. But where's the fun in that?
My own bias is pretty firm, but I recognize it is mine based on a criteria that may not line up with anyone else's.
I'm fine with the S system. I stepped back from Dante's Inferno when I passed on a 200 meg H5D I was set to buy, sold all H gear and concentrated on the S. That decision point made me evaluate what resolution I really needed, not what I was drooling over and wanted to fool around with … because what I shoot had changed dramatically. I also passed on the S CMOS upgrade because I have a prejudice favoring CCD.
My real criteria for selecting the S kit was, and remains, the lenses and the camera's dual shutter. I like fast apertures, and I like Leica's philosophy regarding how optics render. The S lenses are consistent (probably because they didn't have to contend with legacy glass working on a new camera and then try to update each focal length). While other super lenses have come on-line for other cameras, they tend to be "one of" rather the a system of "like kinds". The dual shutter allows me to shoot with high sync lighting one minute, and wide open ambient the next with the same lenses.
Aspect ratio may be more a throw back to film days and antiquated print sizes. 3:2 verses 4:3 is less important than in past days. Neither fit the Golden Ratio notion.
Besides, I think that ratio aesthetics have changed in the modern era. TV and computer screens are ubiquitous, and have altered because the round cropped tube became a rectangle that's more a 3:2 aspect ratio than a 4:3. Personally, I like either a square or the 3:2 … in recent years I've had aesthetic issues composing within an 8X10 print format … it has become a bit visually awkward to my eye.
It seems to me that anyone who needs the ultimate resolution in their work keeps that in mind while composing. Other's like myself may be more interested in spontaneous interaction where extra resolution allows more compositional choices after the fact. Either is easy to calculate based on the end needs and ultimate objective of the imagery.
- Marc
