Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic, Olympus…or?

[Benjamin Kanarek]

Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic, Olympus…or?

Does the Gear You have Really Matter? Or How I learned to just take a “Pitcher…”

Well, I will commence with a simple answer "NO"...Whether it is a Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung or any Medium format camera and digital back out there, it really is of no great consequence which brand you own! You want to know why? Based on a recent survey, 90 percent of all DSLR camera's rarely print their images larger than A4 (8x10") format. In other words and in most cases, a good 5 mega pixel camera with good noise specifications would be more than sufficient to do the job and do it very well.

Now, if what you spend most of your time doing is pixel peeping your images at 100 percent on your screen to see if you can notice any anomaly of any sort, than yes, do go out and purchase a $40,000.00, 50 mega pixel back for your Hasselblad. However, if you do so, you will find that you might notice some interesting phenomena, like high chroma noise issues at anything above 400 iso.

Another interesting problem is that when you go to press, the tram noise or pattern will destroy most of those fine pixels that you observed on the screen, a kind of natural grain producer of sorts.

Of course the quality of the sensor is very important, but I believe that any of the 10 mega pixel plus camera's out there could do an admirable job.

I have watched with bemusement the wars that are ongoing on the forums between this and that brand and usually come away thinking that unless you know why you have purchased a brand and to what purpose, than you might as well close your eyes and do a "eenee, meenee, mynee, mo" exercise to determine your choice.

So, if you have no plans to produce an image larger than 12 x19" and have a limited budget, feel confident that no matter what you buy, it will be overkill for that format.

Just be happy that the technology provided for the photographer today has easily out specified the top end camera that existed just 3 years ago.

Enjoy your toy and go out and play...

http://www.benjaminkanarekblog.com/?p=921

 

[Daniel Buck]

I'll shoot with what ever I just happen to own a Canon digital, so that's what I stick with for digital. For film, it don't matter to me, I can stick any lens on the front of my LF cameras

Coming up from shooting with a 4mp Canon 1D several years ago, I enjoy the freedom knowing that I don't have to take super special care of my images to get a nice looking 8x10 prints, now that I have more megapixels it's much easier to get 8x10 and 11x14 prints without really thinking about it.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Nikon, Canon, Sony, Pentax, Leica, Panasonic, Olympus…or?

Does the Gear You have Really Matter? Or How I learned to just take a “Pitcher…”

Well, I will commence with a simple answer "NO"...Whether it is a Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Canon, Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung or any Medium format camera and digital back out there, it really is of no great consequence which brand you own! You want to know why? Based on a recent survey, 90 percent of all DSLR camera's rarely print their images larger than A4 (8x10") format. In other words and in most cases, a good 5 mega pixel camera with good noise specifications would be more than sufficient to do the job and do it very well.

Hi Ben,

For me, most pictures have been fine with 3 MP. I saw a billboard picture taken with a 3MP Nikon Digicam and it was fine from the viewing position of the side of the road. When the Canon 30D came out, at a whopping 3 MP, it changed the world of photography literally overnight! Neil Turner, a very competent a respected editorial Photographer, (yes Will, the do exist), switched to that camera and his portraits with it have yet to be surpassed, IMHO, even with more pixels!

© Neil Turner 2000 DG28.com Ballet Teacher source under "fair use" doctrine for editorial comment only​

Having said that, detailrich pictures may require more pixels. This morning my shoot was of 96 kids and that required 5 rows of ~ 20 kids! In an 8x10 then each child's head is about 1 cm, just enough. Using an original 30D at 3 MP, we have 210 great pixels/inch enough for a good print at 8x10 to make up the width of each person of 1/2". With a 5D Mark II it's now 550 diffraction-limited pixels/inch! So the head is going to be now about 80 pixels wide, (but we can't use an aperture tinier than 5.6 to 8.0 before some getting degradation). Still, with the right aperture, do for this many bunched-in kids, the pixel-packing pays off as a sharper picture. Printing native at >400 pixels/inch for an 8x10 is not a often discernible improvement but, for such packed heads, it is perhaps worth it! Anyway, that's what I have found.

So really, we shouldn't get hung up on pixel packing. 6-8MP is all that is generally really needed! The limitations, are composition, lighting, chance, talent and post production. Oh yes, did I say talent?

Asher

 

[Wendy Thurman]

When I first became seriously interested in photography, that interest revolved around underwater work. I bought a used Nikonos III. As my interests became more and more involved, I moved to the Caribbean, got a resort job, and started shooting with housed SLR's- a Nikon FM2 then an F4. At that time, Nikon cameras were just about the only brand one would find on a boat, whether housed or dedicated u/w bodies. Velvia 50 was the film of choice.

The best image I ever shot was done with the FM2 in an Ikelite housing- a rig that cost a fraction of what the F4 and the Aquatica housing cost. Equipment doesn't make a photograph- the photographer does. That is not to say that good equipment isn't necessary but no gear made can supplant the mind behind the camera.

I could purchase a D3x but I won't- I don't need it in my "toolbox". Were I to spend that kind of money, a Leica M8.2 would be much more useful to the kind of images I find myself interested in making. I guess it's a "what works for me" sort of question.

Wendy

 

[Daniel Buck]

to play the devils advocate (and because I've got some bourbon in me!) having nice tools/equipment can bolster up some confidence. It feels good. Someone who doesn't already have the confidence to go out and shoot whatever the heck it is they want to shoot, having a decent piece of hardware to shoot with can give them the confidence they need to actually get out there and shoot. Even though the camera may not make a whole lot of difference in their final output, having the knowledge that they own a nice piece of hardware to shoot with may give them the confidence they need to actually go out there and get it done Possibly something to think about.

For me personally, I have a hard time shooting people. I shoot trees, cars, rocks, landscapes and things like that, things that don't have feelings or expressions. When I shoot people, I feel like I'm invading their space (because I know me, I don't like it when people take a picture of me). Shooting portraits is something I've wanted to do for a long time, but something I've only now built up the nerve to do. Not because I don't think I can do it, but because I don't think people want their photos taken! (which is probably 100% false!) However, when I show up there with an old camera (1940's press camera) I get a strange reaction from people, which kind of gives me a bit more confidence when they say "Hey, that's a neat old camera, take my photo!". It's not new hardware, or high tech in any way. But the reaction I get is different than the reaction I get when I'm shooting with a common digital SLR or point and shoot, and that gives me a bit of confidence to go ahead, get in there and click the shutter

Just something to think about

 

[Asher Kelman]

For those who have never heard of the Nikon FM2, it's a remarkable classic, classy and reliable film camera, that will work without a battery, made from 1982 to 2001 when it was retired. This camera was built so well, that if you find one today, likely all you need to so is blow out the dust and get a battery for the meter. If you can find one, and you don't have a film camera as yet, choosing this would be no mistake.

The camera is described well here in Wikipedia.

Asher

 

[Wendy Thurman]

For those who have never heard of the Nikon FM2, it's a remarkable classic, classy and reliable film camera, that will work without a battery, made from 1982 to 2001 when it was retired. This camera was built so well, that if you find one today, likely all you need to so is blow out the dust and get a battery for the meter. If you can find one, and you don't have a film camera as yet, choosing this would be no mistake.

The camera is described well here in Wikipedia.

Asher

I loved that camera and I have noticed that B&H has a couple of 9+ used ones for sale. I've considered buying one- in an extreme environment forget the battery and just shoot everything at f8 or bracket. The camera will absolutely work.

Wendy

 

[fahim mohammed]

Of course it matters. depends on the ultimate purpose of the shoot. Can a person take a bad picture
with a super duper x megapixel nitrogen cooled sensor with multiple core processing arrayed sensor..
sure they can. they must be focussed at the intended place to start with!

Try to take a time elapsed photo of the sky with your iphone for a discussion of the supposed black hole in the constellation of cygnus.

A hit and miss affair at the best.

Can excellent pictures be made with less than the best..of course they can and have been used for the most iconic images of our time.