Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Roger Hicks -- Author of The Rangefinder Book

Roger Hicks -- Author of The Rangefinder Book

Roger Hicks is a well known photographic writer, author of The Rangefinder Book, over three dozen other photographic books, and a frequent contributor to Shutterbug and Amateur Photographer. Unusually in today's photographic world, most of his camera reviews are film cameras, especially rangefinders. See www.rogerandfrances.com for further background (Frances is his wife Frances Schultz, acknowledged darkroom addict and fellow Shutterbug contributor) .


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

How important is image quality?
Old 09-05-2011   #1
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,628
How important is image quality?

A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". Only very, very rarely do I need the kind of quality I can get from (say) my 75 Summicron on my M9.

To me, it's a lot more important that my Leicas are (relatively) small and light and (for me) extremely easy and pleasant to use. Conversely, I get no pleasure at all from trying to use a camera the size of a cigarette packet with a screen on the back.

It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.

Who else feels the same way?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #2
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Well, in general I agree. There have been a few instances where afterwards I was happy that I could print something very large or make a good-quality crop from a small section, though.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #3
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 7,682
Getting back to defining IQ...where the hell did that come in, with the advent of digital or before? I don't know. But it does seem that image quality is defined differently now with the common usage of digital cameras than it has ever been defined.

With millions of fine photographs in the past, including many Pulitzer prize winners, it is incomprehensible that only sharpness, contrast, etc. define the quality of an image, IMO.

Thought-provoking threads are good to keep us thinking but our thinking needs to be not completely free-thinking. It should have parameters defining what we are discussing and so far, I don't think the IQ definition has been agreed upon or, if it has, then I missed it. And then, there are the subjective opinions as to IQ...I may like (and I do) macro images with 2mm DOF and other may not... I happen to like impressionistic images.

http://billynewmanphotography.com/
__________________
Peace, Love and Happiness...



Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #4
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
With millions of fine photographs in the past, including many Pulitzer prize winners, it is incomprehensible that only sharpness, contrast, etc. define the quality of an image, IMO.
Does that even make sense? You're the first to suggest, even in the negative, that only these might be defining qualities. This thread seems not to be about whether they're the only defining qualities, rather about how important they are at all. You're making up a straw man.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #5
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 7,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
Does that even make sense? You're the first to suggest, even in the negative, that only these might be defining qualities. This thread seems not to be about whether they're the only defining qualities, rather about how important they are at all. You're making up a straw man.
I have no idea what you are saying about a straw man. My statement is perfectly reasonable in that IQ as defined in a previous post would exclude millions of photographs prior to the current definition.
__________________
Peace, Love and Happiness...



Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #6
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave lackey View Post
I have no idea what you are saying about a straw man. My statement is perfectly reasonable in that IQ as defined in a previous post would exclude millions of photographs prior to the current definition.
It's a straw man because the only one in this thread who proposed that IQ defined this way might be used to exclude these pictures in the first place. You are saying that something should be incomprehensible where you yourself are the person who brought it up. Hence the straw man.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #7
ssmc
Registered User
 
ssmc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 592
As you say, once it is "good enough"... but good enough for one purpose may not be good enough for another; for example the difference between candid street shooting, portraiture and stitching shots for a huge panoramic landscape. But there is quite a (huge) gulf between a low-ISO shot from an M9 with the 75 Summicron and, say... a great many other cameras!

Lighting, composition, timing, all the technical parameters must be in place for a harmonious image, but what if you stumble across a scene that deserves your best camera, but you only have your P&S backup on hand, and there is no question of coming back later with your heavy-hitting gear? Then image quality may suddenly be the one thing you no longer have "up your sleeve", as you might with the M9/75mm. And so you have to take your best shot (so to speak) and hope it's going to capture what you see. So people should decide what their own "quality threshold" (I like that!) is for the sort of photography they intend to do at that time and place, and select the gear accordingly.

The photographer is always more important than the camera/lens but inadequate or poorly selected gear can make the difference between getting the shot, getting a really good shot, or leaving the camera in the bag!

Regards,
Scott
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #8
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,628
There have been a few instances where afterwards I was happy that I could print something very large or make a good-quality crop from a small section, though.

Sure. But, as you say, "a few instances". Which is the mirror image of my "most of the time."

inadequate or poorly selected gear can make the difference between getting the shot, getting a really good shot,

Absolutely, which is why it makes sense to go for the best image quality you can get, even though it very rarely matters. But most of the time, unless we have a very specific shot in mind, we have to guess at what we're going to shoot and where it will end up. This is why I don't see the point of a P&S except as a backup in the event of loss or failure of the 'good' camera. Yesterday II went to a vide-grenier (a sort of village-wide swap meet). Why wouldn't I take the M9 (or an MP if I was planning on shooting film)?

Define "image quality" first, then the answer will follow

Only 'sort of'. Most people have no difficulty in defining image quality for most purposes -- sharpness, contrast, distortion, etc -- and there are times when you want other qualities (or I wouldn't own a Thambar, or have a weakness or 85/2 Jupiters), but otherwise, see my response above: "most of the time . . . we have to guess at what we're going to shoot and where it will end up."

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #9
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
 
LeicaFoReVer's Avatar
 
LeicaFoReVer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,158
Yes mostly I feel the same but it really depends on the purpose. I am amateur to semi-professional. What kind of photography are we talking about?
__________________
Leica M6 TTL x.72
Leica Elmar-M 5cm f2.8 (rare early version)
Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM
Voightlander Color Skopar PII 35mm f2.5
Contax G2 + 45mm & 90mm & 28mm
Fed 3 + jupiter-12
Sony NEX 7
Yashica Electro 35


websites:
http://flickriver.com/photos/2851236...r-interesting/
http://sites.google.com/site/aykutphoto/Home
http://aykutkaraca.webs.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #10
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
 
Michiel Fokkema's Avatar
 
Michiel Fokkema is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the Netherlands
Age: 50
Posts: 966
For me IQ is important, even if I don' t really need it.
I can just not enjoy a photo with mediocre IQ.
I use Leica;s because they give me this IQ not because they're small. The LTM's are okay but the M's, and especially the M7 are too big for my liking.
I just bought an Olympus XA and XA4. i hope their IQ is very good. If so I can ditch my Leica's. Well , I probably won't but you get the dea.

Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
__________________
Some Pictures
The BLOG
The website
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #11
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,236
I very often wonder about this issue, the threshold being the jump to medium format.
Even if I enjoy the negatives, I find 35mm to be so easier to use in comparison, that I really think I could do with a good 35mm camera loaded with Delta 100.
The thing making me think so is these two landscapes from HCB that I simply love and that were probably taken with lesser means than today's film and lenses.
As Keith would say, long live 35mm!
Maybe I'll change my mind when as I plan I come back to wet printing again..

Now I have the hardest time to decide myself to sell that nice MF kit it took so long to put together
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site

Last edited by sanmich : 09-05-2011 at 04:31.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #12
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,275
My only 35mm RF with interchangeable lenses is a Kiev. Quite often it is indeed good enough. But the camera isn't as easy for me to use as my Fujica. And the Fujinon lenses are absolutely "good enough." Assuming we are only discussing lenses and the camera they are attached too, there are indeed a lot of combinations that most would consider good enough. I think you are correct it must be a combination of both the lens and camera where usage is concerned, but not always camera dependent on results.

I think you have mentioned this before, and I don't think anyone could disagree unless their photography is narrowly defined. Of course, the definition of good enough is going to be somewhat subjective and personal.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=50'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #13
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Posts: 646
Surely it's hugely important, otherwise why would you spend so much of your hard earned on cameras and lenses such as your M9 and 75, it's not a point that can be argued by the owners of such expensive cameras and lenses, anymore than cars being a seat in a box that takes you form A to B by Ferrari owners. I fully accept that great photographs can be taken with crap gear, and a great meal can be had with good bread, butter and olives, but ideally you want your chef to have access to a few more ingredients. Although I'm not a big fan of landscape photography, it is usually is very reliant on the IQ to be worthwhile, street photography it's not such a big issue, still life it probably is. Perhaps a better question would be to ask for nominations of well known photographs that would be improved by lowering the quality.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #14
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyrab View Post
Perhaps a better question would be to ask for nominations of well known photographs that would be improved by lowering the quality.
All reportage/documentary/street pictures that have NOT been taken because the photog was using a 4x5 camera to get the ultimate sharpness.

[edit] well obviously these can't be famous, right?
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #15
theno23
Registered User
 
theno23 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London, UK
Posts: 78
With regards to sharpness, resolution and so on, yes, absolutely. The M9 has way more of that than I need 99% of the time.

But, when it comes to dynamic range, sensitivity, flare resistance and so on it's a different matter. They can ruin otherwise good photos, even when printed at small sizes.

Of course they can also be used to artistic effect, and many times those issues aren't visible in real photos, but when they are it can make a big difference.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #16
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
... to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.
I agree.
In my eyes the Leica M is a reportage-camera.
And for reportage I would set content over IQ.

If IQ is the need, I would choose MF for people or LF for land- or cityscapes.

And... to get the IQ of high end glass to the picture, there is always also needed high end processing or (for digital) high end PP. There is lack often...
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #17
Pickett Wilson
Registered User
 
Pickett Wilson's Avatar
 
Pickett Wilson is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,853
As for IQ, for my purposes M4/3 is good enough for anything I shoot for the newspaper. So, that's my "good enough" standard. I carry a 1DMkIV, though, for reasons that have nothing to do with IQ (like durability, killer fast AF, 10 FPS, 12,000 ISO, 300mm 2.8 lenses...blah, blah, blah).

So, for me professionally, ultimate image quality is less a factor than versatility. Personally, I love extremely sharp, noiseless (grainless) photos. You take your choice and you pay your price.
__________________
______________________________________________
"There is something rather sad about a truckload of caviar"

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...0&ppuser=28005
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #18
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 72
Posts: 3,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". ............................................. Who else feels the same way?
Cheers,
R.
Roger: I feel as you. BUT, I also recognize that IQ or the "look" of a photo rather than the content is primary to many here. There are RFF'ers who have multiple lenses of identical focal lengths simply because they look different.

While you and I say "not very", I still have 35mm and 6x7 cameras. You have 35mm, MF, 5x4, and 8x10 (do you say 10x8 over there?)

To each his own.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #19
Moriturii
Unsui
 
Moriturii is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 658
Couldn't give a rats ass about IQ Roger. I started photography about... a year and a half ago? Took me about a year I'd say to complete get over "sharpness" in photos, that is past me. One look at HCB, W Eugene Smith and it hit me that sharpness in pictures is last of my concerns.

I think most, if not all people who obsess over sharpness is mentally and psychologically making up for lack of content and emotional punch, i.e "the thing that matters". Probably because they can physically buy and acquire sharpness, but not "the decisive moment", and that gives them a mental relief.

Borin but sharp pictures... yea thats good. Like trying to perfume a turd :-)

Unless you're thing is still life and landscape of course, then sharpness is very important, but then you'd use a 8x10 wouldn't you?

Enchanté.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #20
Lumix
Registered User
 
Lumix is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 18
As I get older I feel the need to have a camera that I can carry comfortably.
As I get older I feel the need for a camera that I am as one with.
As I get older I am happy to have 'seen' the photogaph and taken it!
But then I think of myself as a picture taker not as a photographer, I would rather make a picture than take a photograph.

Lumix
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #21
Sparrow
Registered User
 
Sparrow's Avatar
 
Sparrow is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Perfidious Albion
Age: 64
Posts: 12,550
At one time I would have argued "good enough" was just that, good enough ... but then I started to put a book together and found that photos that had been OK previously were now not quite good enough, so I suspect it's a bit of a moveable feast
__________________
Regards Stewart

Stewart McBride

RIP 2015



You’re only young once, but one can always be immature.

flickr stuff
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #22
pvdhaar
Zoom with your feet!
 
pvdhaar's Avatar
 
pvdhaar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 3,086
I think it's very simple..

A picture doesn't have to be sharp, but it needs to be properly focused..
__________________
Kind regards,

Peter

My Hexländer Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #23
dave lackey
Registered User
 
dave lackey's Avatar
 
dave lackey is online now
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 7,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
A lot of the time, I suggest, the answer is "Not very". Only very, very rarely do I need the kind of quality I can get from (say) my 75 Summicron on my M9.

To me, it's a lot more important that my Leicas are (relatively) small and light and (for me) extremely easy and pleasant to use. Conversely, I get no pleasure at all from trying to use a camera the size of a cigarette packet with a screen on the back.

It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.

Who else feels the same way?

Cheers,

R.
Can't argue with that except for adding a bit.

One's end product may or may not need high resolution, if that is what is meant by image quality in this thread. Indeed, IQ is thrown about by most without actually defining it. I see a lot of great soft photography and to me, that is quality...not high resolution. If the picture is good enough, that to me is quality.

Conversely, if one is after super high resolution, then, I suppose picking up a pimple on someone's arse at 300 yards would be IQ. But, then, I don't know of a person within my life that wants all of their blemishes to be shown on a portrait.

For me, it is necessary to strike a fine balance between the photographer, the equipment and the final image. If, I, the photographer does not enjoy the equipment, then, I am not going to enjoy working hard to produce the final image. So, is an M3 good enough? Yes. Was any one of my Nikon DSLR's gooe enough? Yes and no. Yes, they could produce the sports images but at the end of a game/match, I couldn't wait to put that bloody thing back in the bag, go home and have a drink with some ibuprofen for my sore arms and hands.

In my possession now, since having sold all of my digital gear and studio gear, are a Leica M3/Leica R4/Nikkormat Ftn/Olympus XA2 and a Nikon 4004s. All film cameras of course. The M3 and R4 do all the work. The 4004s does all of the slides. The Ftn and XA2 are being retired as the image quality of both is not up to par so I am not going to waste any more time or energy with those.

Would I like to have an M9? Sure! Even an M8. But my equipment is good enough. So is my life, and I am not complaining.
__________________
Peace, Love and Happiness...



Dave
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #24
telemetre
Registered User
 
telemetre is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 51
For my own photographs I agree with you completely Roger. Rarely has image quality been a limiting factor for me. I have equally (un)satisfying photographs taken with a cosina 50mm, olympus zoom, various canon fd lenses, and my current lenses (sonnar ZM and 35mm biogon c). Using "objective" criteria, the image quality maybe vastly different, but I couldn't care less. I really enjoy using my current camera and lenses, and this really my photographs. This is something I believe no quality enhancement could achieve.

As for photographs taken by others, image quality is a non-issue for me. Either I am drawn to the photograph or I am indifferent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #25
literiter
Registered User
 
literiter's Avatar
 
literiter is offline
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canadian Rockies
Posts: 1,209
Back in the old days, I lived in a very rural area of Canada. People would shoot the occasional moose for dinner.

Some hunters would preface every hunt by rhapsodizing over the accuracy and efficiency of their guns and ammunition then spend days sighting the things in. Occasionally they would get a moose.

Some hunters would simply take a gun, go to where they knew they would find a moose and shoot it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #26
SciAggie
Registered User
 
SciAggie's Avatar
 
SciAggie is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Age: 54
Posts: 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by literiter View Post
Back in the old days, I lived in a very rural area of Canada. People would shoot the occasional moose for dinner.

Some hunters would preface every hunt by rhapsodizing over the accuracy and efficiency of their guns and ammunition then spend days sighting the things in. Occasionally they would get a moose.

Some hunters would simply take a gun, go to where they knew they would find a moose and shoot it.
I love this! That is an outstanding analogy.

It implies that some people stress over capabilities in their equipment that they will probably never need. Also the other group just makes things work within the limitations of what they have.
__________________
Gary
Amateur Image Architect

http://strickspics.zenfolio.com
RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-06-2011   #27
Teuthida
-
 
Teuthida is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 635
Quote:
Originally Posted by literiter View Post
Back in the old days, I lived in a very rural area of Canada. People would shoot the occasional moose for dinner.

Some hunters would preface every hunt by rhapsodizing over the accuracy and efficiency of their guns and ammunition then spend days sighting the things in. Occasionally they would get a moose.

Some hunters would simply take a gun, go to where they knew they would find a moose and shoot it.
Brilliant. Thanks for making my day.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #28
keepright
matthew robertson
 
keepright's Avatar
 
keepright is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Age: 41
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
It comes back yet again to the 'quality threshold'. Once a camera delivers results that are 'good enough', then they're, well, good enough. My old Pentax SV with its 50/1.4 is 'good enough'. After that, for me, it's usually down to how happy I am using the camera: to how easily I can use it to get the pictures I want. If I want the ultimate in quality, after all, I can always switch to a bigger format. All the stuff about 'Leica glass' is usually irrelevant.
I agree within a format to an extent. It's true that if I took a generic image from my ZM Ikon and Nikon F100 and put them (negative/scan/print) side-by-side, I wouldn't be able to point to a superiority between one or the other. Or, for that matter, my $20 Yashica GSN.

But the exception is in the details. I can absolutely tell the difference between images from my Nikon 35mm f/2 and my Zeiss 35mm f/2. For the kind of photos that I like to take, one has characteristics that make it essentially unusable, while the other is near-permanently attached to its camera. For another focal length, my Nikon/Ikon preference is reversed. I'm not concerned with LP/mm, but there is absolutely a quality difference that guides my equipment choices over and above how much I like using each individual machine.

But yes, if image quality really matters, then I'll use my Fujifilm GX680III. There are very few IQ problems that ten pounds of SLR can't solve.
__________________
thews'reviews & robertsonphoto
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #29
bobbyrab
Registered User
 
bobbyrab is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Posts: 646
In discussions such as this you can only make generalisations, by my saying IQ was important I was not saying that photographs had to be sharp and detailed to be good, there are a great many photographs I love that are neither sharp or detailed, but if IQ wasn't important to you why would you by an expensive camera, what makes you buy a Leica rather than a Holga. It's one of those subjects that allows serious photographers to run to the high ground with the frankly patronising assertion it's all about the photographer not the gear, you don't say, you mean I can't buy talent! Who'd a thunk it.
With one or two exceptions, one being one of the current Magnum guys that uses P&S, who of the greats past and present have not used the best equipment available to them in their format of choice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #30
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyrab View Post
In discussions such as this you can only make generalisations, by my saying IQ was important I was not saying that photographs had to be sharp and detailed to be good, there are a great many photographs I love that are neither sharp or detailed, but if IQ wasn't important to you why would you by an expensive camera, what makes you buy a Leica rather than a Holga. It's one of those subjects that allows serious photographers to run to the high ground with the frankly patronising assertion it's all about the photographer not the gear, you don't say, you mean I can't buy talent! Who'd a thunk it.
With one or two exceptions, one being one of the current Magnum guys that uses P&S, who of the greats past and present have not used the best equipment available to them in their format of choice.
That's my point, really. Once you're above your personal interpretation of a quality threshold (and a Holga is way below it for the sort of pictures I want to take), you don't base your choice on image quality: you base it on how much you like using the camera.

The main reasons my Leica MP may give me 'better' pictures than my Pentax SV (free), both with 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.5 lenses, are that I'm happier using the Leica because it's smaller, lighter and easier to focus, and I've had more practice.

Yes, I really like the 50/1.5 C-Sonnar but I seriously doubt that many people would see much of a difference between that and the Super-Takumar: certainly, less difference than composition and tonality would make, and they're independent of the lens.

When it comes to 35/1.4 lenses, the Leica choices are so much smaller than any lens for a reflex, even though the 35/1.4 I had (on loan) for Contax reflexes may in some ways have been a 'better' lens than my pre-aspheric Summilux. And I prefer the Summilux to the 35/1.7 Ultron because it has a focusing tab instead of a focusing collar, though the extra half stop is nice too.

In other words, once IQ is adequate (and 'adequacy' is a personal judgement), an awful lot of other factors come into play. Factors, I suggest, that are seldom acknowledged.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website

Last edited by Roger Hicks : 09-05-2011 at 08:35. Reason: Added: Factors, I suggest, that are seldom acknowledged.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #31
Nikon Bob
camera hunter & gatherer
 
Nikon Bob's Avatar
 
Nikon Bob is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,635
When talking about the technical IQ a lens is capable of in a lab bench test then most are good enough in everyday handheld use. In everyday use I see little difference between my Nikon and Leica glass. At lest not enough for me to get excited about but ymmv. If you are talking about the IQ of the final image then there are far more things to consider and explains why I can produce equally crappy images with expensive or cheap glass. The two should not be confused.

Bob
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=557'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #32
pgk
Registered User
 
pgk is offline
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 150
I would say that the term 'image quality' is oft used and rarely understood. Of course an image has to be fit for purpose, and a camera/lens system has to be usable, but for me one of the attractions of the Leica dRF is its reliability in terms of the predictability of the images produced. I use just a few lenses, some of which are fairly old, and to me the predictability of knowing what the image is going to look like from a particular lens is something which I really appreciate. Whether you can describe this in 'image quality' terms I don't know, but when I shoot on my M8 with my 1964 21mm f/3.4 S/A for B&W, I can usually foretell to a great extent, just how the image will appear (certainly not like an image from a modern 28mm).

Last edited by pgk : 09-05-2011 at 08:01.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #33
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,968
Tools that make it easy to record high-quality photographs offer the photographer a tremendous advantage because they increase the likelihood of recording a technically competent image. But making excellent photographs that say nothing to one's intended audience is as pointless as making photographs that can't impact the audience at all due to profound technical flaws.

People who view/enjoy your photographs don't care about IQ. They care about content. If the IQ does not interfere with what the photograph communicates to the viewer, the IQ is satisfactory. In other words, there is a minimum technical threshold required for a given photograph and once that threshold is exceeded, the technical aspects of photography can be ignored. Great light is much more important than resolution. A photograph's emotional impact is the only thing that trumps great light.

Think of a person who's word made a profound impact on your life. If you heard those words from a decent 1960's tape recorder, would their impact be diminished compared to a state-of-the art audio system?

Photographers who make photographers solely for themselves are different. Some would spend $10,000 on travel to make photographs with a $500 kit. Others prefer to spend $10,000 on equipment and never travel. Either way, they are responsible only to themselves because how their work impacts other is of no importance whatsoever.
__________________
"Perspective is governed by where you stand – object size and the angle of view included in the picture is determined by focal length." H.S. Newcombe

williamchuttonjr.com, FLICKR,
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #34
Frank Petronio
Upwind of Rochester
 
Frank Petronio's Avatar
 
Frank Petronio is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Posts: 1,890
I like to use whatever I am using "proficiently", whether it's a cell phone or 8x10. The end results can be equally valuable to me, but when it's a choice between equally interesting pictures I'll side with craftsmanship over auto-sloth.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #35
Turtle
Registered User
 
Turtle is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,635
I agree.

The better a photographer the less technical quality matters unless working in a field where technical quality is an absolute requirement (in the minority).

Some people use technical quality as a crutch for poor images... seeking a technical 'wow' of 'look how much detail there is in this huge image.' Its so much more easily achieved than good vision or concept. You can buy it.

A lot of my strongest images lack the best technical quality and the reason is that they were shot under very challenging circumstances, hence their interest in the first place!

With a lot of images that I love, technical quality does not matter too much, especially if one is happy with smaller images. I guess the other aspects to quality matter a lot more, like tonality, print quality and balance etc. Those I consider orgnanic to the image shown, perhaps more so that absolute resolution which might only impact display size.

Last edited by Turtle : 09-05-2011 at 08:00.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #36
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 44
Posts: 4,255
For street photography, image quality is at the bottom of the list.

For product photography, 35mm Leica lenses give less image quality than I have on my LF product slides. I mean, it's not possible to say such brand has great IQ, but we can say such brand has great IQ for this kind of photography compared to that brand... The truth is, when you shoot handheld, most lenses from most brands won't stop your marvelous photograph from being marvelous, and your marvelous gear won't help you a bit in that...

So, image quality is a too ethereal concept... I've seen great images -for fashion- done without tripod on a 35mm camera, being preferred as final pick to other MF & tripod shots just because the photograph on 35mm was better, even though it was not only less sharp, but even a bit blurry... People don't say "hey, what a sharp image", but "beautiful photograph"...

The answer IMO is image quality doesn't matter 99% of the times. In the other 1% is Ansel Adams and other people who prefer to make technical aspects of photography and even printing the vital part of their photography. And even of the word photography!

Cheers,

Juan
__________________
F i l m means fun!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #37
The Meaness
Registered User
 
The Meaness's Avatar
 
The Meaness is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: MD, USA
Age: 31
Posts: 247
I love pulling up images in lightroom from my M8 on a fairly large monitor and going "wow"

I think that feeling is worth the time/money invested in investigating cameras and lenses.

As you state, there are dozens of other cameras that can produce images that would wow me IQwise. I don't think any of those could beg to be used as much as the M8 does, though
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #38
Juan Valdenebro
Truth is beauty
 
Juan Valdenebro's Avatar
 
Juan Valdenebro is offline
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Barcelona and Colombia
Age: 44
Posts: 4,255
There's a huge difference between seeing our own images on a PC and saying wow I love my gear, and making great photographs. This thread is about the latter concept, and about how important very high IQ is for that. It isn't at all. We can check which great photographs in photography history have more IQ than that of any M8 or M9...

Cheers,

Juan
__________________
F i l m means fun!
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #39
JohnTF
Registered User
 
JohnTF's Avatar
 
JohnTF is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Home is Cleveland, Summers often Europe, Winters often Mexico.
Posts: 2,043
Cameras are like guns, most of them shoot better than I.

However, some do not. If the camera/lens at hand produces a handsome decent size print, it may well be good enough.

As having been caught with the wrong or no equipment, by all means carry what you will.

As to P&S, there are some that will catch an image I would not otherwise catch as I just cannot, or will not, carry my proper camera kit everywhere at all times. At one time, that meant MF, several bodies loaded with color and B&W.

Question has been, how many do I have to buy to find one that produces images, "good enough".

Some seem to have some awful sensors/lenses.


I find the Canon G9 or 10 good enough often, with the result of some good prints.

I also try to have a newer Sony with a decent hunk of glass, as total pocket camera, I really like a viewfinder though, but at this point it is what it is.

In a few years, the P&S's will all be in cell phones, are there any with Leitz or Zeiss glass? Must be by now. ;-)

Regards, John
__________________
To capture some of this -- I suppose that's lyricism.

Josef Sudek

Last edited by JohnTF : 09-05-2011 at 09:00.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-05-2011   #40
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTF View Post
Cameras are like guns, most of them shoot better than I.
Dear John,

An intriguing analogy, as I have a 1930s Colt National Match. I can shoot a lot straighter with that than I can with a 'cooking' Colt .45, but how much is that (a) expectation/'comfort'/sentimental value (we inherited it from my late father-in-law) and (b) the fact that it's factory blueprinted?

Perhaps still more relevantly, how close is the analogy between 'shooting straight' (which is pretty much all there is with a gun) and technical/ aesthetic qualities in photography?

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:02.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.