The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Gear & Our Art: 2011?

fotografz

Well-known member
This may not belong on the MFD forum, but it's very related I think:

Having just gone through an exhaustive review and research process as I ponder adding the Leica S2, I'm struck by how powerful internet reviewers are, and just how difficult it is for mere mortals to separate fact from opinion, or at the very least from incomplete reviewing. I found it quite easy to get lost in the technical wilderness with no compass other than my own eye to guide me. Then you start questioning your eyes, and that is really disconcerting :eek:

More importantly I cannot seem to reconcile the differences in factual reporting from various sources ... or my own experiences, and those of respected photographers, verses many of these sources :wtf:

How does this concern "our art"? Well, we do have to somewhat trust our tools to get it right technically so we can concentrate what energy we have on creating images. IMO, no matter who you are, if you lack trust in your gear, or have to constantly fiddle with it, it is a distraction ... it takes your eye off the creative ball.

It seems this has become an all consuming focus with photography as digital capture technically advances (along with reaching horrific price levels that increase expectations exponentially, price levels that all film users would have laughed at 10 years ago) . It all feels like it is sucking the fun out of it.

Just as an example: (I'm not specifically singling out Diglloyd as the experiences there mirror experiences elsewhere ... but it is a good example).

A few hours on that site, (initially to review his findings on the Leica S2), and I walked away with the sharp impression that most everything I own and use, or am considering owing and using is pure junk ... incapable of taking a decent image or to be trusted at all.

The S2 supposedly has incomparable optics better than any made by anyone ... which the camera cannot AF to save its live ... with horrendous OOF examples I cannot seem replicate with the S2 I am testing ... and in direct conflict with Mark Dubovoy's claim to "deadly accurate AF" from the S2 (???).

Hasselblad H lenses (including the HCD28 and 100/2.2 he tested) are incapable of resolving enough detail to warrant a H3D/50, let alone the H4D/60 I have on order. His comments on the use of Phocus software, with its crashing and slowness really confused me ... and he is using a computer easily twice as powerful as mine. BTW, I guess I'm really lucky ... I've never had Phocus lock up on me.

Everything associated with the M9 is a nightmare ... specifically with lenses I use: the 21/1.4 ASPH and the Noctilux 0.95 which Lloyd couldn't use without experiencing back-focus even with multiple samples of the 0/95 ... in direct conflict with my 0.95 experiences, and evidently those that Sean published. Not to mention all the excellent images published from this camera and those lenses. The comment that the lack of Live View on the M9 was a design flaw confused me. Is Live View even possible with a CCD sensor?

The Sony A900 is shown in comparison to the Canon 1DsMKIII ... specifically using the 135L and Zeiss 135/1.8 lens ... with Canon the default winner if my eyes are to be trusted evaluating his side-by-sides. Hmmmm?

From what I gather, I should have kept my Nikon D3X ... unfortunately, all the fast aperture AF lenses I'd want are trash and unworthy of the camera :ROTFL:

Anyway, I wonder if MFD peeked at 33 or 39 meg ... and all the following so called "improvements" are a conspiracy by the manufacturers to separate us from more and more money. ;) Other than a few rarified German view camera lenses used on pokey, fiddle-fussy rigs, would a mega resolving 80 meg Leaf back's prowess ever be realized by a real human being? :confused:

Whatdayathink?

-Marc
 

tjv

Active member
I think all this gear obsession does get in the way of just getting out and enjoying making photographs. In many ways I think it's a result of the consumerist world we live in. There is always something bigger and better to spend your money on. Film was just a totally different playing field. You bought into a format, a set of lenses and used a film stock to death. Digital is still immature if you really think about it. I think in ten years things will have leveled out. You buy the resolution and format you need and be done with it. At least that's what I'm hoping!
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I think:

1) Even though I am interested to read the reviews and threads I allways do somewhat question what I read and try to check out myself what works for me.
For example the Canon 7D did not work for me even though many praise it. On the other side I have not experienced an AF problem with my Nikon 24/1.4 so I am not trying to search for a problem (because Loyd sees one) as long as the lens works well and I like the images.
The reviews help to check certain things before buying or when testing new gear though.

2) There are so many factors going into IQ that it is hard to compare/review IQ from just some images shooting a test target or a brick wall. How does a lens perform at different distances, how does it draw under certain light, how is the color (warm/cold), how is the bokeh at different f-stops, etc etc.
Same for a sensor - specially noise behaviour seems to be a lot depended on exposure, colors and tones in an image.
And AF - might work well to focus on a brick wall but what when focusing 3 dimensional things? How does a AF sensor handle to focus on a round tree? How does it work in different light? with different lenses?
How do images look when converted in different converters? How when printed?
So any review from one week testing a camera can be just soe initial impression and hints IMO. But maybe it indicates that there are some "killer factors" which make the camera unusable for someone.

3) The sharper lenses, the higher resolution the more we see small "faults".
I have questioned myself if supersharp lenses are the way to go. Because the sharp plane is so ultrathin with digital sensors and the transition between supersharp and OOF areas can be harsh the sharper a lens is.
One of the things film can do better IMO. (1. thicker emulsion 2. grain can help here too)
And sometimes I believe (just a guess) maybe one of the reasons DSLRs have AA filters?? (besides moiree problem)

4) pure maximum IQ is maybe overrated sometimes. I ask myself which is the "better" system(s) for me right now (Hy6-S2-A900-K5-M9-D700)
So what is better? A system which delievers 100% IQ if everything goes right, but the keeper rate is maybe smaller (due to less flexibility regarding lenses, AF, handling...)=>MF or maybe a system where IQ is maybe 90% only but you get a much higher percentage of keepers and where its much easier to catch the moment? =>A900 or for 80%IQ maybe Nikon

Maybe a combo of both (or 3 systems) but then how good to we learn our gear if we switch systems all the time?

5) I find the quality control of lenses etc. not sufficient. I can just not understand that I buy a new 3500€ Leica M lens and need to send it in for focus calibration from the very beginning.

6) I believe there is no perfect camera (for me it would be a DSLR Nikon body with a 24x36 Dalsa sensor and Zeiss/Leica AF lenses)

My conclusion right now is that I want to spend one more time energy for testing things which are important for me (including AF) in typical subjects of my photography and then decide what works best for me.

One system which I know which works great for me is the M9 (the only downside to eventualy send in lenses before they work perfect).

I then plan to test-use a S2 and compare it to my Hy6 and the A900 to make a decision which of the 3 makes sense for me (and more important which works for me).

And the third thing is a decision for a DSLR system (Nikon vs Sony vs Pentax).

I then hope to finally settle down and just take images and use my energy for that instead for testing.

In the end could be Hy6 + K5 (or D700 or A900) + M9
or S2 + K5 (or D700) + M9
or A900 and eventually K5 and M9


One more thought - maybe this forum (and others) are a group of people who just can not make up their mind. I am sure there are many photographers who just take images with their S2 / Hassy / D700
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I agree that reviews are guides and alerts, and not necessarily the ultimate decision making tools they seem to position themselves as being.

However, not all photographers are engineers, or are necessarily of an uber-technical mind-set ... and as these tools get more complex, the ability to evaluate the value for money spent becomes a mind-boggling task beyond their skill set ... let alone their desire to do so.

I think the decision process is periodic for many ... it comes in intervals ... often promoted by some development that appears to fit one's shooting needs better than existing gear. For me the S2 fit that description ... initially ... but an AF camera with AF accuracy that's highly suspect, severely compromises one's confidence in making a decision.

I don't think about this stuff much when blowing through 1000 images a week doing weddings. If something isn't working at any given time, I toss it aside in favor of getting the shots with something that will work ... without regard for what some review had to say.

It is when you are about to plunk down a King's Ransom that you start with the questioning.

-Marc
 

Mike M

New member
It's good to always try and think in terms of left brain vs right brain. Left brainers have a prove-it-to-me and scientific approach at dealing with gear . These guys are great at figuring out which lens is going to focus shift and what lens has the least barrel distortion etc. They are really good at deailng with the science of gear and things that can be proven. For example, I just read in a thread here the other day about how the some of the tech camera makers are deailng with fine focus issues on the various digital backs. That's exactly the type of thing to learn in a place like GET DPI because it is completely left-brained type of material.

But right brainers are the ones that use the gear and know how it applies in the field. Most of the top and bottom professional photographers of the art world and advertising industry are going to be right brainers. They will understand how the gear works in context but not necessarily the science behind it. They can often show how something works in context and have more of a show-it-to-me attitude than a prove-it-to-me attitude. Usually, they are not good at explaining why something works but know exactly how to use it within a personal context.

The vast majority of gear testers, article writers, gear bloggers are left brained. And most of the enthusiasts in forums are left brainers making a living in professional occupations that are not the arts. These types of people dominate the forum environment. But the arts and advertising industry are dominated by right brainers and they are the ones creating the images that fill our lives and are the "professionals" in the arts and advertising industries. So there is always going to be a disconnect between the two and I would encourage everybody to be vigilant at discerning whether the information and opinion that they are reading is coming from the left or the right brain.

Much of what I just wrote is probably not going to be new information to most surfers. I'm sure that many of you have already been thinking of things like this before. But there is one more thing I'd like to interject and it is not popular and is always controversial. But it is the truth.

Left brainers police each other through science and universal things that can be proven. So a dull left brainer will probably create junk science that can easily be dismantled by a sharper-minded left brainer that can prove the junk science to be wrong according to objective standards.

Meanwhile...

Right brainers police each other through high and low culture. A dull right brainer might create photographic work that can't be judged by objective standards like what might exist in science, but the work can be judged by how it relates to other photography within the context of the culture of the arts and advertising world. Sharp-minded right brainers seek to differentiate themselves from the dull-minded right brainers by aspiring towards a higher culture.

High and low culture are determined by the show-it-to-me world of signs and symbols. For example, imagine that there are two landscape photographers. One of the photographers has a gallery showing at the local coffee shop and the other one is at The Museum of Modern Art. Each one of these photographers might be really good at what he does and use his gear perfectly within context, but one of the photographers is good at being low culture and the other is good at being high culture if the difference in venue can be interpreted as a sign or a symbol.

Let's go back to the gear reviewers and forum commentators. Many of them are great at understanding the left brained science behind photography and know how to applies within a certain context. But, they are almost always applying it within a low or mid culture context. So there is definitely going to be a disconnect between the way a piece of gear applies in a high culture situation and they way it is judged in a lower or mid cultural situation.

I've never encountered a piece of gear in photography that wasn't worth the money. We get what we pay for....and many times the advantages of higher priced gear are subtle and might only be understood by the higher culture. There's an old cliche in gaming that goes something like... "if you're sitting at the table and don't know who the sucker is, then the sucker is you." That's exactly what it's like in the right brained culture of photography. But it can also work the other way around, sometimes the best gear is the worst gear depending on context. Sometimes, a photographer can have the most expensive gear and not know how to use it according to it's advantages. In which case, he's still the sucker at the table according to culture.

Sorry for the long post...but to wrap this up...The S2 is all about culture. Many of the standards that are being used to judge the S2 are left-brained scientific understanding applied to a low or middle cultural context.
 

jonoslack

Active member
HI There Marc
I think that the camera review industry (despite many honest and conscientious reviewers) is a load of old bollocks.

I'm a scientist by training, and I think that there are simply too many variables involved in the use of a camera for one to be able to come to useful conclusions.

Sure - dX0 tests and dpreview noise tests etc. etc. do MEAN something, and in lots of cases they're rigorously performed.

The problem is two-fold:

1. Our use of the kit
has nothing to do with test cards or resolution charts or paperclips and vermouth bottles at ten feet - and perfectly valid conclusions gained in this manner aren't really relevant to most people's day to day use.

2. Variability in kit (mostly lenses)
as someone who is trying to get decent copies of pentax lenses at the moment, I've taken back 4 lenses in 3 weeks, another goes back when they open. Not because the lenses aren't well designed, but because they are simply faulty. It took 4 copies of the Nikon 17-55 to get a decent one.

I don't think there is such a thing as a 'correct' copy of a lens - I'm certain that for any given lens there is a continuum of 'awful' to 'really quite good'. I don't blame the manufacturers - they have obviously decided that the cost of the required QA improvements wouldn't have a beneficial financial reward (i.e. most users read in Sean Reid's review that it's a good lens, and they either don't check or don't care). Leica have the added complication that every camera 'out there' has a different rangefinder adjustment - how to make new lenses to suit everyone?

I really think that camera design now means that (as long as you get something which works in accordance with the design). ALL THE KIT IS FINE.

So it's easier to look at specs, decide which suits your pocket and intent, make sure you get a decent copy of it, and then stop anguishing.

dunno about right brain left brain, but I know that there are two photographers in me - one very expensive one which buys kit and rabbits on about it on the internet, and another, much cheaper one, who takes pictures with whatever bit of kit is to hand. I know which person I prefer.

As for Digilloyd I can't criticise because I've never paid to enjoy his reviews - the cheaper me won that particular battle :ROTFL:

A day spent anguishing about gear is a day wasted
A day spent taking pictures is a day enjoyed.

. . . and Tom - you'll never settle down and just take pictures - even my cheaper side understands this!

HAPPY NEW YEAR!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
It's good to always try and think in terms of left brain vs right brain. Left brainers have a prove-it-to-me and scientific approach at dealing with gear . These guys are great at figuring out which lens is going to focus shift and what lens has the least barrel distortion etc. They are really good at deailng with the science of gear and things that can be proven. For example, I just read in a thread here the other day about how the some of the tech camera makers are deailng with fine focus issues on the various digital backs. That's exactly the type of thing to learn in a place like GET DPI because it is completely left-brained type of material.

But right brainers are the ones that use the gear and know how it applies in the field. Most of the top and bottom professional photographers of the art world and advertising industry are going to be right brainers. They will understand how the gear works in context but not necessarily the science behind it. They can often show how something works in context and have more of a show-it-to-me attitude than a prove-it-to-me attitude. Usually, they are not good at explaining why something works but know exactly how to use it within a personal context.

The vast majority of gear testers, article writers, gear bloggers are left brained. And most of the enthusiasts in forums are left brainers making a living in professional occupations that are not the arts. These types of people dominate the forum environment. But the arts and advertising industry are dominated by right brainers and they are the ones creating the images that fill our lives and are the "professionals" in the arts and advertising industries. So there is always going to be a disconnect between the two and I would encourage everybody to be vigilant at discerning whether the information and opinion that they are reading is coming from the left or the right brain.

Much of what I just wrote is probably not going to be new information to most surfers. I'm sure that many of you have already been thinking of things like this before. But there is one more thing I'd like to interject and it is not popular and is always controversial. But it is the truth.

Left brainers police each other through science and universal things that can be proven. So a dull left brainer will probably create junk science that can easily be dismantled by a sharper-minded left brainer that can prove the junk science to be wrong according to objective standards.

Meanwhile...

Right brainers police each other through high and low culture. A dull right brainer might create photographic work that can't be judged by objective standards like what might exist in science, but the work can be judged by how it relates to other photography within the context of the culture of the arts and advertising world. Sharp-minded right brainers seek to differentiate themselves from the dull-minded right brainers by aspiring towards a higher culture.

High and low culture are determined by the show-it-to-me world of signs and symbols. For example, imagine that there are two landscape photographers. One of the photographers has a gallery showing at the local coffee shop and the other one is at The Museum of Modern Art. Each one of these photographers might be really good at what he does and use his gear perfectly within context, but one of the photographers is good at being low culture and the other is good at being high culture if the difference in venue can be interpreted as a sign or a symbol.

Let's go back to the gear reviewers and forum commentators. Many of them are great at understanding the left brained science behind photography and know how to applies within a certain context. But, they are almost always applying it within a low or mid culture context. So there is definitely going to be a disconnect between the way a piece of gear applies in a high culture situation and they way it is judged in a lower or mid cultural situation.

I've never encountered a piece of gear in photography that wasn't worth the money. We get what we pay for....and many times the advantages of higher priced gear are subtle and might only be understood by the higher culture. There's an old cliche in gaming that goes something like... "if you're sitting at the table and don't know who the sucker is, then the sucker is you." That's exactly what it's like in the right brained culture of photography. But it can also work the other way around, sometimes the best gear is the worst gear depending on context. Sometimes, a photographer can have the most expensive gear and not know how to use it according to it's advantages. In which case, he's still the sucker at the table according to culture.

Sorry for the long post...but to wrap this up...The S2 is all about culture. Many of the standards that are being used to judge the S2 are left-brained scientific understanding applied to a low or middle cultural context.
I've never read a better summation, ever. A big fat dose of much needed clarity. Thanks for risking the heat I'm sure this post will trigger ... I am grateful no end.

My primary career for 40+ years was advertising ... direct creative associations and collaborations with right-brainer directors, (some) cinematographers, and still photographers usually at the top of their game in a very competitive environment. In fact, my entrance into photography was because of this ... initially to gain enough technical knowhow necessary to make sure I didn't create visual ideas that where impossible to execute ... an occasional occurrence with newbie Art Directors (although a little initial knowledge can be dangerous, like the time I asked the studio to shoot my fisheye visual with an 8X10 camera to assure high quality ... lots of laughing ensued).

However initially painful, this interest in creating imagery with photography was directly responsible for a meteoric rise in my profession at a time when Photography was displacing illustration. By creating a print campaign that was one of only two from the US that was published in Graphis International, and another that pushed the boundaries of the technology and required a photographic inventor to accomplish ... the result of which swept the awards shows and led to a high position at the biggest Ad Agency in the world. I owed that photographer a lot! After that, the flood doors swung open and access to the "cultural" standard bearers was wide open.

In fact, in an overwhelming percentage of cases, those photographers employed the services of a left-brained genius to take care of all the tech stuff. Often the shooter knew less about the tech specs than I did. Almost all of our "creative" discussions centered on the idea, emotional elements, composition, and lighting as it related to the idea ... the tech dude took care of all the rest.

I need a tech dude :ROTFL:

-Marc
 
G

GASC

Guest
I almost deleted my account in Lu-La and joined this forum to get some fresh air because of the incredible amount of ridiculous threads about DR and DOX marks stuff, and the endeless stupid wars like: 35mm vs MF.

Each time it's the same (really bad) music: a bunch of provocators, most week-end shooters, joined by the "scientists" of the forums and it does not last long before we start to see those graphics, "scientific" proofs that the D bloody 3x has a better DR than the P65+ and that the new cheap aps entry level sensors are smoking the FF and all kind of stupidities like that.

The sad thing is that those threads are indeed the most popular ones. Then, constant references to DOX, DP review kind of testings, you know, those with the brandy bottle, or brick walls or my house's garden is used to test the new S2. Studio workflow? None. Real shooting? nope. In fact what does not matter, wich is IQ, is what is discussed, compared, and what really matters wich is design and workflow is rarely there. And I'm not even talking about the art of imagery, the intention etc...that are completly missing.

Yes...give me a tech dude, please. I want it. I need it.

You know what? It's like tv. Keep your mind free of those insanities and internet noise.(and your *** will follow)

I must say that in those threads, women are never participating. They are just too busy taking pictures. Those are real men, "thosewiththebigones" threads. I think we have really something to learn from our ladies.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I still believe that there are some things which do not have to do with left or right brain.
A little more or less noise, or tone curve or sharpness maybe not, but if a shot is misfocused than also my wife tells me: this is not sharp . And she doesnt care at all about gear.

IMO the change from film to digital may have changed some factors of equipment: specially it seems to a) need better lenses and b) more accurate focus (meaning also tighter tolerances for lenses and cameras) than film.

Besides that I wish the camera producers would focus more on user interface and simplicity.

For me for example it is a big factor how easy I get the results I want without having to do much post processing. (would love to have a virtual film switch on my camera where I could choose between velvi, kodakchrome, Portra , and trix and get the look of those films without having to do any post)

Regarding user interface I find Leica products to work very well for me.
And the S2 might be one step in this direction.

Marc - if I were you I would take some more images and check if the focus works for you or not. If not I would see/talk to Leica if it is something that can be improved or not.
I believe that this is the most important factor.(It would be for me - besides the question of overall handling)

Frankly I doubt that the differences between lenses of H-system and Leica S and Phase make any real world differences.
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
Point is I think and it's something that I've always fervently believed in, only you can make the decision based on how you use a camera. A landscapers take on AF is not going to count for wedding photography neither is a wedding photographers opinion of any use to a football photographer. This applies to ergonomics, ease of use, IQ, etc, etc. I would also add and I hope I don't get flamed for it, a pro has different requirements from even an extremely skilled amatuer, equipment has to work, first time every time for a pro otherwise they are in big trouble.

I by no means know MF digital however I know that my particular needs are different to others. I didn't change over from Canon to Nikon due to the lack of highlight warning and histogram on the same screen and the need to press a button first to change exposure compensation on the sb-900 flash. Ludicrous! But those were important facts for the way I work. I may be ludicrous but I can decide based on my own needs however silly they may seem to others. I wouldn't even consider an S2 for wedding use due to the lack of two control wheels. It may not matter to you but it does to me.

Point is, when it comes down to it, it's only your own specific use which can dictate whether a camera or lens fits in with your personal shooting style. So those of us who are sensible do what Marc is doing. We don't need to test every last custom function but we need to shoot in the way we usually do, usually that uses a fraction of a cameras capabilities, and if it works, screw the reviews.

One thing that Marc's examples however do throw into the spotlight. Unless the guy is doing something very wrong or is lying, reviews like this are very useful in that they tell us something important, just because it works for the bloke down the street, just because he had a good copy, doesn't mean it will work for me.

I have to admit that it does worry me as a professional. I've seen enough copy variation, experienced it too much, played the 'return to CPS do not pass go or collect your shipping costs' many multiple times until the equipment passed muster and worked as it should. It does make you think though, can I rely on rental equipment? Can I rely on buying any new equipment and expecting to use it for the first couple of months? My experience tells me that the answer is no. Rather sobering is it not. Given that every Hasselblad back is custom calibrated to each body, why do you think that being able to rent a body on location is going to help?

It's a whole new world and one day we will look back and muse on the expense and fustration that the dawning of the digital photographic revolution put us through as we tried to ride the crest of the wave...
 

mediumcool

Active member
I must say that in those threads, women are never participating. They are just too busy taking pictures. Those are real men, "thosewiththebigones" threads. I think we have really something to learn from our ladies.
I think you are on to something.

All photographers must care a little about gear and technique, but photographic results are the goal (aren’t they?).

I have known photographers who are really only photographers in the sense of owning gear and testing it; their pictures of real-world subjects are seldom or never seen. But never female photogs.

I don’t want to see another picture of a brick wall unless it is interesting/compelling in some way; corner sharpness at f8? Who gives a sh1t? :grin:
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I still believe that there are some things which do not have to do with left or right brain.
A little more or less noise, or tone curve or sharpness maybe not, but if a shot is misfocused than also my wife tells me: this is not sharp . And she doesnt care at all about gear.

IMO the change from film to digital may have changed some factors of equipment: specially it seems to a) need better lenses and b) more accurate focus (meaning also tighter tolerances for lenses and cameras) than film.

Besides that I wish the camera producers would focus more on user interface and simplicity.

For me for example it is a big factor how easy I get the results I want without having to do much post processing. (would love to have a virtual film switch on my camera where I could choose between velvi, kodakchrome, Portra , and trix and get the look of those films without having to do any post)

Regarding user interface I find Leica products to work very well for me.
And the S2 might be one step in this direction.

Marc - if I were you I would take some more images and check if the focus works for you or not. If not I would see/talk to Leica if it is something that can be improved or not.
I believe that this is the most important factor.(It would be for me - besides the question of overall handling)

Frankly I doubt that the differences between lenses of H-system and Leica S and Phase make any real world differences.
This makes sense to me also ... mainly because I won't be getting a tech dude to take this off my back any time soon ;) I get a bit intense about these decisions because I want it over with ASAP. Unfortunately, impatience is not a great scientific trait.

The S2 attraction is simply the form factor for me as it relates to my more spontanious and intuitive shooting style ... coupled with more photo data to play Art Director with as compared to a 35MM DSLR (that part I have no doubt in) :rolleyes:. We can whip out our micrometers and blab on about there is no real size difference ... but there is to me which means it'll get taken with me more often than other kit.

So the real considerations are AF (my eyes need it), operating speed (TBD, but promising), and reasonable reliability (the P in the S2P helps that a little).

AF is the main one. Nothing worse than a decisive moment that's ruined by being obviously out-of-focus :angry:

-Marc
 

Paratom

Well-known member
The S2 attraction is simply the form factor for me as it relates to my more spontanious and intuitive shooting style ... coupled with more photo data to play Art Director with as compared to a 35MM DSLR (that part I have no doubt in) :rolleyes:. ...
Marc I agree on the form factor and user interface. I am still looking forward to experience an S2 myself and find out if it is more "spontanious and simple" MF-camera (but still slow and big compared to DSLR) or if it handles really a little bit more like a big DSLR.
 

jonoslack

Active member
So the real considerations are AF (my eyes need it), operating speed (TBD, but promising), and reasonable reliability (the P in the S2P helps that a little).

AF is the main one. Nothing worse than a decisive moment that's ruined by being obviously out-of-focus :angry:

-Marc
. . . and reading any amount of reviews is simply not going to help you here.
The only way to find out is to use it - do some real work, and if you don't have any then simulate real work.

On the simplest level Tom and I are both evaluating the little K5 as a comfortable SLR kit with decent quality. Tom has found that the AF is not good enough for him in low light . . . I've found that it is good enough for me.

There are a thousand factors that could be influencing this difference:
1. Tom has higher standards than I do
2. My camera works better than his
3. the lenses I'm using in low light AF better
4. his subjects move faster than I do
5. he uses a different AF mode from me
6. this is boring, but I could go on and on. (and so could you)

We've been discussing this issue - superficially it's a simple one, but there are so many variables involved it's impossible to come to any better conclusion than:

" This works for ME" (or possibly)
" This doesn't work for Tom"

The idea that you read on a blog/review and come to any seriously useful conclusion about anything as subtle and complex as (for instance) Image quality is patently absurt.

all the best
 

ggriswold

New member
If you just read forums you wouldn't think that any gear or software worked at all. The people learning, shooting and working aren't fretting about gear or grousing about CPU cycles. I read these forums to learn and when it degrades into a slugfest I vow never to read that thread again. Kurt Kamka said it best about some hideous discussion a few days ago.. "it makes my head hurt" My motto: Take what you need/ what and leave the rest.

As far as being creative and productive do as Mom used to say, "Go out and play".
Take pictures, go to the museum, visit a new place, read an old favorite book, make a print. Try something new... like make a figure drawing.. it'll make those lenses seem pretty nifty after just a few minutes... your "backfocus" issues will melt away.
 
G

GASC

Guest
I'm working at the moment in fashion with a big one. So, international campaigns, models Bundchen, Kurkova, Erin Wasson, Rafaeli, Andersen etc...really good stylists, celebs etc...

I'm not kidding to what I'm saying: I've never ever heard just once, somebody talking about gear, focusing issues (there are not), lightning issues (there are not either) and softwares and pp. Yes in pp they are talking about the artistic style they want to acheive, never about tech issues. It's been about 6 months now and never just once gear conversation, even backstage.

So I ask this question: why is this gear endless topics all over the internet?
and more importantly: who is pushing them?

People work with Canon and Hassy and if they had to, with an iron or a washing machine. Nobody ever talk about gear because they simply are professional, and paied to know what they are doing. And it works, beleive me. Cinema you never hear about gear either. Yes, solving this or that problem, some tech stuff can appear of course.

Watch this. It's refreshing. It's all about photography: http://www.peterlindbergh.com/#FILMS/15

Do you think Peter talks about gear or is concern with it?
Watch particularly how he is living the shooting, how he enters, moves, follow the subjects. He is totally involved in what he is doing.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
I solve this easily:

- I don't bother reading the reviews other than for the technical data and pictures of the equipment I am interested in. And for entertainment, of course. :)

- I evaluate equipment myself and by talking to other photographers, whose opinions I understand through long association and conversation, who have used the specific equipment I am considering.

There's nothing like extended first hand experience using the equipment you're interested in. It takes time to learn it .. to learn how to use it, to learn how to exploit it best. It takes practice to be able to engage in performance. NO one-week review is going to do it. There are no short cuts.

There are no "perfect" cameras or lenses either. Not even megadollar MFD or Leica M9 equipment. Everything has some level of compromise due to physical or financial constraint.

... "Equipment often gets in the way of Photography." ...
 

David Klepacki

New member
Marc,

Only you can answer these questions for yourself. You should not consider any particular person's experiences as gospel, whether it be Lloyd Chambers or Mark Dubovoy or anyone else. These people merely share their experiences and preferences and can alert you to possibilities that you may have not considered. In the end, you must decide why it is that you are even seeking answers.

For example, what exactly is it that is causing you to investigate the S2? Is it merely their lens MTF charts, the Leica brand name or something else? Is the source of your conflict simply lens quality versus sensor quality? Are you trying to convince yourself that a 37MP camera can outperform a 60+MP camera if the lenses have a better MTF chart, even though deep down you may not believe this to be true? Or maybe you wish to convince yourself that 37MP is "good enough", and need others to reinforce this desired conclusion for you? If you assert ergonomic reasons like "this camera feels good in my hands", is this just an attempt to justify a desired irrational judgment by somehow lessening the importance of the final image output in your decision? ... etc.

Also, you should consider what are the specific deficiencies that you perceive to be present in your current Hasselblad system? What exactly do you find lacking in it, and how important is it that you satisfy these perceived deficiencies and possibly sacrifice something in your current camera system to get it? Do you feel the Hasselblad lenses are not good enough for 50+MP, and if so what basis do you have for such belief? So, on the one hand maybe the S2's 37MP is "good enough" because their lenses seem sharper, but on the other hand maybe the Hasselblad lenses are "good enough" because their sensor is larger and their focusing is more precise, or maybe even that their software ultimately yields a better image for you.

Again, only you can sort these things out for yourself. Everyone has different needs, tastes and abilities.

David
 
Top