lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by aniramca, Dec 9, 2006.

  1. aniramca

    Bill Funk Guest

    Not at all. I don't see how you can get that from what I wrote.
    To be more clear:
    The camera makes a difference. If the photographer sticks to what the
    camera will do, the photographer can make photographs that reflect the
    photographer's vision as well as it can, which can be pretty good,
    even for a $150 camera.
    But once the photographer strays outside the capabilities of the
    camera, the photograph suffers, despite the ability of the
    photographer.
    This is not remotely close to, "You take great pictures. You must
    have a really good camera."
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 12, 2006
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. aniramca

    Bill Funk Guest

    Who's saying the humbler camera makes the photographer better?
    Not I, for sure. I didn't see David say that either.
    In fact, I don't see anyone saying the $5000 camera makes the
    photographer better.
    What I'm saying, specifically, is that the camera makes a difference
    in how the photographer's vision is accomplished. If the photographer
    stays within the capabilities of a $150 camera, there's no problem.
    The problem occurs if the photographer tries to exceed the
    capabilities of the camera; in that case, a better camera will give
    better results.
    This in no way attempts to take the photographer out of the equation.
    In fact, it specifically credits the photographer with recognizing the
    limitations of his tools.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 12, 2006
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. aniramca

    Bill Funk Guest

    Who says they aren't?
    You say, above, that the P&S won't do as well as a DSLR in low light;
    that's what those of us who say the camera matters are saying.
    Exactly; I have a Lumix FX-01 for that reason. :)
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 12, 2006
    #83
  4. aniramca

    Bill Funk Guest

    Exactly.
    But wait; Jeff seems to be saying different things. He cries "Phooey!"
    to the idea that the tool matters, then says both the tool and the
    user matter.
    He need to reconsider his position, I think.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 12, 2006
    #84
  5. aniramca

    Bill Funk Guest

    Yes. Did I say anything to contradict that?
    Again, where did I contradict that?
    No where did I say the camera is all; what I am specifically saying is
    that when the photographer attempts to capture an image the camera
    isn't capable of capturing, a better camera will get that image.
    I am in no way minimizing the photographer.
    Do not confuse understanding the limitations of the tool with limiting
    the input of the user.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 12, 2006
    #85
  6. aniramca

    Bill Funk Guest

    Then you freely admit the tool does matter.
    Strawman; no one said that, so you say no one said that. Brilliant.
    And you address this to me; why? Did I say something that makes you
    think I'm in that subset?
    Exactly. Which is what I'm saying.
    Of course, I'm also specifically saying the tool does matter, which
    you agree with.
    Of course. The photographer stayed within the limits of the camera.
     
    Bill Funk, Dec 12, 2006
    #86
  7. aniramca

    smb Guest

    No, you miss the point. You can show all the graphs and example
    photos you want. They may prove the better camera gives you a sharper
    picture, but that is not the same thing as a better photograph. Far
    from it. As AA said, a sharp photograph of a fuzzy concept is
    worthless.

    I wanted to be clear that I wasn't criticizing your photographs, as I
    haven't seen them. I'm sure your data shows camera A is sharper
    than camera B. That really isn't the point.
     
    smb, Dec 12, 2006
    #87
  8. aniramca

    smb Guest

    Of if they are into woodworking, admire their work and ask, "What
    hammer did you use?"
     
    smb, Dec 12, 2006
    #88
  9. I know of one company which makes police speed cameras which are used
    from bridges over freeways etc. The conventional ones use flash to
    freeze the image, which means they can only operate from behind, which
    prevents identification of the speeding driver, only the vehicle. These
    guys use frame transfer devices and clock the vertical transfer register
    between short exposures which depend on the speed of the vehicle being
    photographed. The effect is to change the CCD mode to TDI, time delay
    and integrate (the image moves across the sensor at the same rate as the
    charge packet that each exposure is generating, thus eliminating motion
    smear) and the resolution of the image is maintained irrespective of the
    speed of the vehicle. It also means that they can operate outside of
    the range of the flash, at night and can photograph the vehicle head on
    through the windshield to establish the identity of the offender without
    their knowledge that they have even been caught committing the offence.
    Speed is established by normal radar or laser sensors.

    There is a similar near IR system in use, but despite the claims, the
    identification achieved is difficult to achieve in court - if you have
    seen NIR images you will know how people look completely different.

    Personally, I don't agree with such "Big Brother" ethics, but this sort
    of kit is available although I don't know who or where it is used.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 12, 2006
    #89
  10. And we all know why they make long screwdrivers, don't we?
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    They're easier to open cans of paint with! ;-)
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Dec 12, 2006
    #90
  11. Reminds me. I was trying to open a can with a Swiss Army knife and not doing
    very well. But, right next to me was someone I knew to have actually been in
    the Swiss army. "Hey, how do you open cans with this thing?" "They taught us
    how to kill people with them, but we used our bayonets to open cans."

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 12, 2006
    #91
  12. No, you miss the point. The illustration has little to do
    with sharpness. The main difference is noise. The noise reduces
    dynamic range, tonality, shadow detail, and the noise
    contributes to a loss in sharpness. All that combines to
    reduce the quality and impact of the image.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 12, 2006
    #92
  13. aniramca

    ASAAR Guest

    Yes, funky Bill, it has been said repeatedly but indirectly, in
    this thread as well as others. Ken Rockwell didn't say it, but that
    hasn't stopped people from insisting that he did say it, and they've
    gone to great lengths to try to knock down their own Straw Man. If
    you've somehow managed to miss all of these bogus arguments, you're
    a lucky man indeed. The key point is that on both sides, nobody is
    arguing that cameras are always important or that they're never
    important. For some, many times an expensive DSLR is a necessity.
    But it's just as true that for many millions of photographers, even
    if they could easily afford to buy several DSLR bodies and expensive
    lenses, they neither need nor have any interest in getting anything
    better than a decent, inexpensive P&S. Unbelievable as it may seem,
    many people have no interest in getting any type of camera at all.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 12, 2006
    #93
  14. aniramca

    ASAAR Guest

    Yes, funky Bill, it has been said repeatedly but indirectly, in
    this thread as well as others. Ken Rockwell didn't say it, but that
    hasn't stopped people from insisting that he did say it, and they've
    gone to great lengths to try to knock down their own Straw Man. If
    you've somehow managed to miss all of these bogus arguments, you're
    a lucky man indeed. The key point is that on both sides, nobody is
    arguing that cameras are always important or that they're never
    important. For some, many times an expensive DSLR is a necessity.
    But it's just as true that for many millions of photographers, even
    if they could easily afford to buy several DSLR bodies and expensive
    lenses, they neither need nor have any interest in getting anything
    better than a decent, inexpensive P&S. Unbelievable as it may seem,
    many people have no interest in getting any type of camera at all.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 12, 2006
    #94
  15. aniramca

    ASAAR Guest

    Yaesu? (<sneer>) It can't touch the Collins R-390 with their
    mechanical filters. Unless they want to move it to a different
    corner of the room or need to have it recalibrated. Or need to buy
    a bigger air conditioner when using it in the summertime. :)
     
    ASAAR, Dec 12, 2006
    #95
  16. aniramca

    Surfer! Guest

    Nope! The short ones are easier to open the cans of paint in my
    experience, but the long ones are better for stirring said paint....
     
    Surfer!, Dec 12, 2006
    #96
  17. aniramca

    smb Guest


    Switzerland has an army? :)
     
    smb, Dec 12, 2006
    #97
  18. aniramca

    smb Guest

    That's a nice job of painting that room. You must have used a really
    nice screwdriver to open the can of paint!
     
    smb, Dec 12, 2006
    #98
  19. aniramca

    smb Guest


    Ok, no problem. Just substitute the word 'noise' for sharpness. It's
    still a matter of looking at the technical aspects of the image. It's
    the same point. I'll rephrase: "They may prove the better camera
    gives you pictures with less noise, but that is not the same thing as
    a better photograph."

    Actually, it doesn’t matter what camera you use, the results are still
    90% from the photographer and 10% from the camera. If you use a more
    capable camera, it just expands the field the photographer can play
    in.

    All the comments here about how a less expensive camera can’t take
    such and such a shot prove that point: Any photographer who knows
    what he is doing won’t use a camera that isn’t designed for the kind
    of image he wants to create.

    One could very successfully argue that a 4x5” sheet film camera is
    superior to the most expensive dslr in terms of image quality; but it
    would be a foolish photographer indeed who tried to use that “better”
    camera to photograph action at a football game. Knowing what tools to
    use and how to apply them is part of the 90% that the photographer
    contributes.

    Steve
     
    smb, Dec 12, 2006
    #99
  20. aniramca

    ink Guest

    Not so many years ago, Switzerland had one of the biggest armies in the
    world... In case of a conflict it would've been possible to put more than 1
    million men under arms.

    And, to open a can with a Swiss army knife, you need to have the correct
    variety, not the one sold to tourists...

    Cheers,
    ink
     
    ink, Dec 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.