Reichmann vs. Rockwell: "It's the equipment, Stupid!"

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    Scott W, Dec 20, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    What Reichmann is saying is pretty much a subset of what Ken
    Rockwell said, although Reichmann manages to say his piece in a
    quite self-contradictory manner. You should be able to notice this
    too. Oh yeah, I forgot . . . you won't. :)
     
    ASAAR, Dec 20, 2006
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    Poor, poor M. Reichmann. Lamenting the fact that his expensive
    toys were no match for his Hasselblad ubercamera. Blowing a review
    because he wasn't bright enough to read the included manual wasn't
    enough, it seems. Now he's bought a G7 and probably didn't read the
    spec's before finding out to his horror that Canon withdrew RAW
    capability from the G line. No tears of compassion or sympathy go
    his way because the only one to blame for having nothing longer than
    a 50mm lens for his Leica M8 is Reichmann himself. What that
    article shows is a craftsman stupidly blaming his tools when the
    blame should go to the craftsman for making stupid choices in the
    toys . . . uh, tools that he selected to boost his ego. He could
    have spent far less money and ended up with far more capable
    cameras.

    But did he prove that the gear is more important than the
    photographer? Not at all, his ego prevented that, since he went out
    of his way to show all of the photographic knowledge that was needed
    to get the shot he was wanted. Put a better camera in the hands of
    the less knowledgeable and they wouldn't know how to best frame the
    shot, position the camera, or know how to take advantage of low
    angled, directional, late-Fall light, and get the right mix of dust
    and the sun's rays.

    Reichmann also made one stupidly false statement. He was correct
    in saying that "The right gear would likely have produced a better
    image". But instead of saying that a lesser camera would have
    likely produced a lesser image, he said "The wrong gear would not
    have allowed this shot to be taken". Wrong.

    I'll bet if Rockwell's $150 A530 was available, you, I or almost
    anybody else would have been able to take a picture. There's no
    Microsoft module in cheap cameras that disallow shots. It might
    have taken an inferior picture, but nothing mentioned by Reichmann
    can back up his claim that taking the picture would have been
    disallowed. If by "wrong gear" he was referring to his Leica, he's
    mistaken. He chose not to use it in a slightly risky situation
    where many other photographers would have had no qualms about using
    it. He might have found a way to use the Leica if the inferior G7
    wasn't so conveniently at hand.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 20, 2006
    #4
  5. Not in that case: (a) the photo in question needed a 210mm eqiv. lens, it
    only goes to 140mm. (b) The sensor size is 1/2.5" (5.76 x 4.29mm) with 2592
    x 1944, and the lens is f/5.5 at the long end. The MTF50 point for
    diffraction is (roughly) 800/(f number), so that's 145 lp/mm. But the
    Nyquist frequency for that sensor is 225 lp/mm. So that camera can't take a
    sharp picture _at all_ at the long end of the zoom; diffraction is already
    softening the image.

    Also, it's a US$250 camera, not a US$150 camera.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Dec 20, 2006
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    No, your point (a) is wrong. It did not need a 210mm equiv. lens.
    I discussed why it did not. The Leica's 50mm (70mm equiv.) could
    have been used, but Reichmann *claimed* that it would have left him
    standing in the middle of a major 4 lane highway. Most decent
    photographers could have easily gotten to the median to take a
    couple of shots. All self-respecting paparazzi (oxymoron?) would.
    Don't you think that if a 70mm lens would have been find from the
    middle of the 4 lane highway, that a 140mm lens would have been just
    fine on the far side of the highway? Of course it would. It's not
    that far off from the 210mm that Reichmann used with the G7.

    You're also resorting to the absurd arguments using MTF, Nyquist
    frequency, lp/mm, etc. Absurd because it was already admitted that
    the quality of the picture using a lesser camera would not be as
    high, but the point was that Reichmann didn't say that lesser
    quality would result, which he would find objectionable, but that
    "The wrong gear would not have allowed this shot to be taken".
    Nonsense. What he considers to be the wrong gear would be
    considered adequate or good by other photographers. Reichmann
    himself knew that for that particular shot image quality wasn't
    paramount, since he so easily chose the least of his available
    cameras. Perhaps Reichmann's use of "would not have allowed" was
    made in the manner that you often use, which might translate to
    "with my refinement and extremely high sensitivities, I could NOT
    have tolerated anything so plebeian". :) The point is that as I
    said, you or I could have used an A530 to take the picture. I and
    many others would have appreciated prints made from it. With your
    nose to the print, a sneer would probably be inevitable, but the
    picture would have been made. "would not have allowed"? Sorry, No.

    Really? Then why is B&H selling the A530 for $149.95, which is
    about the same price (if not the identical price) I saw it going for
    in Staples about a week ago? When Rockwell's $150 vs. $5000 article
    was discussed recently, why were there no objections pointing out
    that the A530 was really a $250 camera? Are you perhaps confusing
    the A530 with some other camera, quoting a list price, basing the
    price on what it may have sold for when it was introduced, or do you
    have a crystal ball that foretells such a great rise in popularity,
    that the A530's price will soon surge to $250?
     
    ASAAR, Dec 20, 2006
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    acl Guest

    Clearly, because of its INSANELY SMALL PIXELS! :)
     
    acl, Dec 20, 2006
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    ASAAR Guest

    If Crazy Eddie uses any camera at all, it would have to be that
    one!
     
    ASAAR, Dec 21, 2006
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    Yeah, yeah, Rockwell is a moron. Old news. But you couldn't resist, could
    you?
     
    Kinon O'Cann, Dec 21, 2006
    #9
    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.