Re: Sony's Oly investment

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 5, 2012.

  1. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Alan Browne
    > says...
    >> That's just component supply.


    > The sensor is the most important component in a camera...


    The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
    quality). It collects and focusses the light, hopefully avoiding
    too many lens imperfections (especially the ones you can't fix
    in post). The sensor only records, and even mobile phone camera
    sensors do good enough with good light.

    Now, if you meant "camera body", you might have a point.
    But again, depending on your type of shooting, you might need
    fast, reliable, predictive AF more than the best sensor. Or you
    might need good automatics for the JPEG engine more --- imagine
    you shoot for newspaper or the web and need the photo really
    quick (say sports), so no time for raw converting and WB fixing.
    Or you need to hold your camera for long time spans, then it must
    be comfortable to hold. No good sensor will help you if your
    hand is too tired to properly hold the camera. How about long
    battery life? Or tilt&swivel LCD, for those types of shooting
    where even an angle finder won't do?

    "XXX is the most important component in a camera" assumes far
    too much about the circumstances of the shooting to be true.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 5, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Alan Browne
    >> says...
    >>> That's just component supply.

    >
    >> The sensor is the most important component in a camera...

    >
    >The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
    >quality).


    The "weakest link" is always going to be the "most important"
    component, in the sense that improvments to the limiting component
    are going to have to most greatest effect on the image quality.
    A lot of cameras do not have optics good enough to exploit a higher
    pixel count, to pick one classic example. For such cameras,
    improving the optics is the only way to improve the image. I
    once owned a compact camera that, in closeup mode, could resolve
    details down to one pixel. It could actually have benefited from
    more pixels.

    --
    "Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
    crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
    TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
    bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Oct 7, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> wrote:
    >>Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Alan Browne


    >>>> That's just component supply.


    >>> The sensor is the most important component in a camera...


    >>The lens is more important (assuming your only goal is image
    >>quality).


    > The "weakest link" is always going to be the "most important"
    > component, in the sense that improvments to the limiting component
    > are going to have to most greatest effect on the image quality.


    True, but that's beside the point.

    > A lot of cameras do not have optics good enough to exploit a higher
    > pixel count, to pick one classic example. For such cameras,
    > improving the optics is the only way to improve the image. I
    > once owned a compact camera that, in closeup mode, could resolve
    > details down to one pixel. It could actually have benefited from
    > more pixels.


    The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
    good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
    sensor.

    With a weak lens ... well, even a good sensor won't help you.

    Put a "coke bottle bottom" in front of a D800, and put a good
    lens in front of a 2 MPix sensor. Guess wich one will give a
    usable result.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 10, 2012
    #3
  4. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    jdanield Guest

    Le 10/10/2012 11:50, Wolfgang Weisselberg a écrit :

    > Put a "coke bottle bottom" in front of a D800, and put a good
    > lens in front of a 2 MPix sensor. Guess wich one will give a
    > usable result.


    the result will ba at best what deserve tha worst element

    jdd
     
    jdanield, Oct 10, 2012
    #4
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Trevor Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > Weisselberg says...
    >> The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
    >> good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
    >> sensor.


    As always, the "weakest link in the chain" rule applies. Why on earth use
    crap lenses with good bodies/sensors, or vice versa?


    > The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
    > you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.



    Actually with many good lenses costing as much as good bodies, there's often
    not much difference in replacing either.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 11, 2012
    #5
  6. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Wolfgang
    > Weisselberg says...
    >> The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
    >> good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
    >> sensor.


    > The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
    > you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.


    It's as easy to replace the sensor as to replace the lens.
    Buy a new body. They're becoming cheaper every hour. Look at
    the prices of bodies first made 5 years ago if you don't belive me.

    Now, good lenses keep their value for a long time, if you don't
    damage them. And often are many times the price of a small
    up-to-date body with a good sensor.


    You seem to advocate the strategy of using low quality lenses on
    high-end bodies and replace the lenses after some years (when
    the body's worth little). That's rubbish. If you want to go
    cheap to test the waters, buy a used, older body and kit lenses
    (say 18-55 + 55-200). See what you like. See what you miss.
    Then make an informed decision which lenses to buy (if any)
    and of what quality and speed they are needed to be. If your
    body works for you, no need to upgrade it.

    Anyway, as I see it, the last few years have brought body
    improvements in
    - adding 20+ MPix sensors, for which you really want high
    quality glasses, and which most people simply don't need,
    - adding higher usable ISO ratings (Sports, available
    darkness shooting, ...) for which you want fast (wide
    aperture) lenses anyway
    - movie mode, the usefulnes of which is limited to
    a) professional movie makers with focus pullers & co
    b) specialized needs
    c) "for fun" projects with little budget and no problems when
    restricted to one focal length and focussing distance
    because otherwise a consumer camcorder is much better.
    And for proper using the movie mode you really want non-focus
    breathing, parfocal lenses, which cost an arm and a leg, an
    external monitor, proper mikes and co and so on.
    - peripheral systems like AF, which you may need to be top notch
    (then you need an expensive top of the line body) or which work
    OK for you anyway.

    You'll note that about everything that directly impacts the image
    wants a good or excellent (and expensive) lens to be worth the
    body, but you'll still make almost the same quality (a few less
    MPix and not at ISO 6.400) with lesser bodies. Which was my point.


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 19, 2012
    #6
  7. R. Mark Clayton <> wrote:
    > "Wolfgang Weisselberg" <> wrote in message
    >> Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Wolfgang


    >>>> The real point is: With a good lens (low aberations, good contrast,
    >>>> good microcontrast) you can get a good result even with a weak
    >>>> sensor.


    >>> The problem is that it is easy to replace the lens (with a DSLR), but
    >>> you can't replace the sensor. You are stuck with the one in the camera.


    >> It's as easy to replace the sensor as to replace the lens.
    >> Buy a new body. They're becoming cheaper every hour. Look at
    >> the prices of bodies first made 5 years ago if you don't belive me.


    >> Now, good lenses keep their value for a long time, if you don't
    >> damage them. And often are many times the price of a small
    >> up-to-date body with a good sensor.


    > Agree.


    > Would you buy this one second hand from Felix?


    > http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/10/w...mash-a-2000-camera-lens-is-surprisingly-cute/


    No.
    1. I got one. (Mine needs quite a bit of microfocus adjust
    for f/2.8.)
    2. It's probably misaligned by now. It'd need a full factory
    service first.
    3. I fear the front lens and back lens is badly dinged by now
    and would need to be replaced.


    > looks like a rather nice 200mm f2.8 although the article says it is a zoom.


    It is. See the 2 black broad rings? Focus ring and zoom ring.


    >> You seem to advocate the strategy of using low quality lenses on
    >> high-end bodies and replace the lenses after some years (when
    >> the body's worth little). That's rubbish. If you want to go
    >> cheap to test the waters, buy a used, older body and kit lenses
    >> (say 18-55 + 55-200). See what you like. See what you miss.
    >> Then make an informed decision which lenses to buy (if any)
    >> and of what quality and speed they are needed to be. If your
    >> body works for you, no need to upgrade it.


    > Anyway my current problem is that I have quite a lot of rather nice glass,
    > but a FF digital body is ££££, as opposed to £££ for an APS size one. If I
    > had wanted APS, I would have bought the Minolta Vectis SLR!


    Sell your glass, buy a FF body. As Alfred found, "it is easy
    to replace the lens". :)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 20, 2012
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. gilmore

    Return on Investment

    gilmore, Apr 15, 2004, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    494
    Brad Williams
    Apr 16, 2004
  2. Monica Krowley

    Canon S400 vs Sony P10 vs Sony P92 vs Oly C50

    Monica Krowley, Sep 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    428
    Monica Krowley
    Sep 6, 2003
  3. RichA

    Re: Sony's Oly investment

    RichA, Sep 28, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    236
    RichA
    Sep 28, 2012
  4. Me

    Re: Sony's Oly investment

    Me, Oct 1, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    235
  5. RichA

    Re: Sony's Oly investment

    RichA, Oct 6, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    249
    RichA
    Oct 6, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page