«

Eric Stevens <> writes:

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:59:40 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
>
>>I have to admit, the build quality and materials are impressive. Titanium
>>dials, machined-from-billet aluminum body. The only other company that
>>does machined aluminum is Leica on the M9.
>
> The only quality that matters is that which can be seen in the
> photographs.

Perhaps in Plato-land, or somewhere.

Most of us have to take into account cost, weight, flexibility,
durability, ease of use, and a lot of other things when choosing our
tools. We rarely or never have the luxury of going after the most
perfect conceivable, narrowly-focused, tool for one kind of photography
ignoring all other considerations.

--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Eric Stevens <> writes:

> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:59:55 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd->
> wrote:
>
>>Eric Stevens <> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:59:40 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I have to admit, the build quality and materials are impressive. Titanium
>>>>dials, machined-from-billet aluminum body. The only other company that
>>>>does machined aluminum is Leica on the M9.
>>>
>>> The only quality that matters is that which can be seen in the
>>> photographs.
>>
>>Perhaps in Plato-land, or somewhere.
>>
>>Most of us have to take into account cost, weight, flexibility,
>>durability, ease of use, and a lot of other things when choosing our
>>tools. We rarely or never have the luxury of going after the most
>>perfect conceivable, narrowly-focused, tool for one kind of photography
>>ignoring all other considerations.
>
> Agreed - but I wouldn't class those things as quality. And I'm sure
> that even when you take all these things into account you would not
> ignore image quality.

I do indeed value image quality! You have guessed correctly .

Technical image quality is a small part of the quality of a photograph.
35mm cameras generally produced LESS "image quality" than the Graphic
press cameras they replaced (well, that's *one* thing they replaced).
The ability to have longer and wider lenses got more interesting
pictures, the ability to work faster got more interesting pictures, the
ability to risk more frames on chancy outcomes got more interesting
pictures. So the 35mm cameras produced "better" pictures even though
the image quality (in the strictly technical sense) was lower.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
> Eric Stevens <> writes:
>> On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 05:59:55 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd->
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens <> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 22:59:40 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I have to admit, the build quality and materials are impressive. Titanium
>>>>>dials, machined-from-billet aluminum body. The only other company that
>>>>>does machined aluminum is Leica on the M9.
>>>>
>>>> The only quality that matters is that which can be seen in the
>>>> photographs.
>>>
>>>Perhaps in Plato-land, or somewhere.
>>>
>>>Most of us have to take into account cost, weight, flexibility,
>>>durability, ease of use, and a lot of other things when choosing our
>>>tools. We rarely or never have the luxury of going after the most
>>>perfect conceivable, narrowly-focused, tool for one kind of photography
>>>ignoring all other considerations.
>>
>> Agreed - but I wouldn't class those things as quality. And I'm sure
>> that even when you take all these things into account you would not
>> ignore image quality.

> I do indeed value image quality! You have guessed correctly .

> Technical image quality is a small part of the quality of a photograph.
> 35mm cameras generally produced LESS "image quality" than the Graphic
> press cameras they replaced (well, that's *one* thing they replaced).
> The ability to have longer and wider lenses got more interesting
> pictures, the ability to work faster got more interesting pictures, the
> ability to risk more frames on chancy outcomes got more interesting
> pictures. So the 35mm cameras produced "better" pictures even though
> the image quality (in the strictly technical sense) was lower.

For some kinds of photography what the camera looks like and sounds
like to the general public is very important, e.g. candid portraits,
street photography, etc.. A big black camera plastered with knobs and
buttons and which shoots with a loud clockwork clatter of mirror flap
and shutter snap is much more noticeable and intimidating than a small
unobtrusive silent camera with expensive fashionable decoration. Makes
a really big difference to where and how easily you can shoot
unobserved, and how easily you can gain the co-operation of strangers
for your shot.

Of course that's comparing the FrankenHass to a DSLR. Whether the
FrankenHass would be significantly more usable anywhere than a Nex-7
is dubious. Perhaps at a party of celebrities, where the FrankenHass
would look more like a rich girl's toy than a papperazzo trying to be
unobstrusive. I think Hasselbald missed a trick in not setting
gemstones in the top of the knobs.

--
Chris Malcolm