What is your "balance"? Focusing on gear-performance or image-results?

[Strmbrg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So, well - some may answer that both those aspects are of equal importance. Or at least they are both of large importance.
For me? Well, I at least try to see performance demands like this:

• If the performance is so low that it distracts me when I look at my images - it is too low.
• If the performance is so high that it doesn't distract me when I look at my images - it is high enough.
• If I have to compare performance between - for example - lenses, to decide what is good, then it is kind of a signal to consider what I am doing.
• Do I (think that I) take pictures that are boring in an "artistic or creative way"? Does that "dilemma" lead me towards a gear-performance-focus, as kind of a substitute?

I think that we in general are focused on ranking rather than on what is good. That mentality is applicable om many things, not at all just regarding photo-gear.
It is easier to rank than to really think and value things by oneself.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hepcat]

For me, it's the image.  I use 1950s Canon lenses on my M10-P because 1) I have them already, and 2) the image quality and rendering are still competent.   I have two Lumix cameras; an S1 and S5 because I am too frugal to buy Leica SL bodies, and once again the image quality is sufficient.   That said, this IS a gear-centric forum and comparing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin IS de rigueur. 

[Marc B-C]

I like to start off with something I enjoy using (that is purely the reason I bought a Q2) as that encourages me to use the camera. It is, however, the image results that interest me. The kit, to me, is almost irrelevant.

I do smile when a good picture is taken and people say "you must have a great camera" When my wife cooks a good meal, no-one ever says "what great saucepans you must have"

[holgerf]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Marc B-C:

I like to start off with something I enjoy using (that is purely the reason I bought a Q2) as that encourages me to use the camera. It is, however, the image results that interest me. The kit, to me, is almost irrelevant.

I do smile when a good picture is taken and people say "you must have a great camera" When my wife cooks a good meal, no-one ever says "what great saucepans you must have"

1. Enjoying the use of gear is a very important criteria for me: it let‘s me pick up und use the gear more often. This is much more important than a long list of features. 

2. I like the use of well made stuff and may enjoy the quality of lenses. But as impact for the reception of the potential viewer it will mostly be irrelevant, look at the images of Ara Güler as an example. Most images are not sharp, lot of grain …

3. Good UI is a seldom discussed feature. The cameras are loaded with features which may be great. However, many features = many decisions to make which hinders me to be connected to my motif. Simplicity is a value in itself. 
 

As a result of these arguments I like to use my Q2 and M11 more than my Fuji X-Pro3.

 

 

 

 

[Strmbrg]

What is "Good UI"?

[rogxwhit]

User interface!

[Strmbrg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Okay! Yes, modern things are often packed with distracting things. You can do this, or this... or maybe that... Please decide!
Some people say they don't get disturbed by that, but at least I do.
I have really more than enough mental work in thinking of what to photograph, what perspective, what to be in the background, how different objects in the picture relate to each other...
Twiddling with WB, different exposure-measuring methods, bracketing, ISO and such things when I try to compose, or even search for motifs, is more than my slow and limited brain can manage.
😆

[rogxwhit]

Yes, there's usually a plethora of buttons, wheels & menus these days!  But although many of the options might be never used, having the choices means that different users can set the camera up to suit their chosen modes of use, then forget about most of it.  I like the relative simplicity of my M10, though.

 

With other, more over-featured cameras, & my type of photography, I use aperture priority auto exposure, auto WB & auto ISO, having set some limits for the last.  Once set up like that, I just pay attention to what I'm actually metering and employ exposure compensation via the assigned dial accordingly.  I rarely review images on the rear screen.  I'm really an old stick in the mud who grew up with film, but it's handy to have choices - maybe particularly to be able the vary the ISO in camera.

 

Considering camera bodies, later sensors and firmware are generally better in shadow noise control. 

 

Every lens is different.  One can explore endlessly (which can be fun), or just have two or three and get on with the job!

 

The image is the thing!  And it can be assessed both technically and culturally / emotionally.  Hopefully, everything about it hangs together, has some meaning (especially to its author, but maybe others too) and can be seen to be well done for what it is. 

 

There are many modes of photography, all of them built out of hybrid influences.  And amongst it all there are gear heads who are obsessed with buying stuff (at any budget level) but can't take a decent snap to save their lives (but probably fewer of those on a Leica forum!).

 

The production of images is a cultural pursuit, and that's the main hinge.

 

 

 

Edited March 17, 2024 by rogxwhit

[Chris W]

I like a simple camera that doesn't get in my way.

I like good performance up to a point, but I don't need the latest and greatest.

Image quality IS important to me. So it's a bit of both, but mostly weighted towards image quality, as long as the camera doesn't keep getting in my way.

Edited March 22, 2024 by Chris W

[hansvons]

On 3/17/2024 at 11:32 AM, Strmbrg said:

If I have to compare performance between - for example - lenses, to decide what is good, then it is kind of a signal to consider what I am doing.

Agreed. That's why Spielberg, Nolan, Tarantino and many others prefer to shoot the film and not digitally. The same can be said about lenses. In cinematography, a set of 5 Canon K35 primes sells way above 100k. These lenses are from the 70ies. A tad less expensive is Zeiss Super Speeds primes. They are the same age, have a different look, are cooler, and are less flary. Performance is in the eye of the beholder, the client, yourself, or anyone with stakes in a project. However, it varies vastly and cannot be measured by DXO ratings. 

[Strmbrg]

Hm, I have suspected that my Summicron 50 from 1984 is somewhat out of focus.
Yesterday I gave it a ruler-test and found that focus is slightly beyond what the rangefinder "says". I have earlier noticed that someone must have been grounding the cam over the part which has contact with the roller-wheel for the rangefinder-mechanism. Thou I never suspected any trouble with it.
After checking with my other lenses, the cam is the problem.

Back to the dealer today, to get another - maybe brand new - Summicron, I went home with the new Summilux-version instead...

Focusing on gear? Who? Me?..
😆

Well, the extra stop for soft background and the 0,45m close-focus ability is obviously worth some money. Maybe not so much money...

[JoshuaR]

On 3/17/2024 at 6:32 AM, Strmbrg said:

• If the performance is so low that it distracts me when I look at my images - it is too low.
• If the performance is so high that it doesn't distract me when I look at my images - it is high enough.
• If I have to compare performance between - for example - lenses, to decide what is good, then it is kind of a signal to consider what I am doing.

I really like these three principles as a way of thinking about gear.

I’ve been reevaluating my lens kit and have been pursuing a similar line of thinking, asking what is good enough for me to be satisfied with the quality, without going down a rabbit hole of comparison.

Much to my surprise, I’ve been finding that the 28 Elmarit ASPH and 50 Summarit f/2.5 are good enough. And they’re really small and fun to use. So I really need bigger, higher-performing lenses, like the 50 Lux??? I’m not sure. 

It helps that my photography is mostly simple documentary stuff. So it’s easy for me to prioritize size over IQ, once the IQ is good enough. 

[PetPhoto]

If the pursuit of everything is image quality,, nothing on the market beats the image quality of an image taken with 

 

Kodak 8 x 10" Portra 400 Color Film (10 Sheets) 1708205 B&H

[algrove]

On 3/17/2024 at 6:32 AM, Strmbrg said:

So, well - some may answer that both those aspects are of equal importance. Or at least they are both of large importance.
For me? Well, I at least try to see performance demands like this:

• If the performance is so low that it distracts me when I look at my images - it is too low.
• If the performance is so high that it doesn't distract me when I look at my images - it is high enough.
• If I have to compare performance between - for example - lenses, to decide what is good, then it is kind of a signal to consider what I am doing.
• Do I (think that I) take pictures that are boring in an "artistic or creative way"? Does that "dilemma" lead me towards a gear-performance-focus, as kind of a substitute?

I think that we in general are focused on ranking rather than on what is good. That mentality is applicable om many things, not at all just regarding photo-gear.
It is easier to rank than to really think and value things by oneself.

For me I select my gear for ease of use and then concentrate on image making where I keep my gear to a minimum in order to keep my creative juices flowing.

[rogxwhit]

It's a nonsense question.  The term 'ranking' is meaningless.  Imposed by whom?  Show me an expert & I'll show you a dunce.

Let's proceed by gut instinct & experience. 

 

[IkarusJohn]

I can understand the reason for the question, and without intending to cause offence, it has no purpose.  Some people like buying the latest, others love the rabbit hole of the detail and some just love holding something well made.  Nothing wrong with any of that.

But, when it comes to photography, oddly in order it’s (1) the image taking process; (2) the image quality (ie, whether I was able to capture what I saw); and (3) pleasure in well made equipment.  When I look back at my photography (starting in the 1960s), I have tended to replace my gear when it was worn out (or stolen) - almost never because of performance or funcationality.

I’ve always looked at what was available, researched it, made my decisions then got on with understanding how they worked and just using them.  My FM2 cameras (I had three, from memory) did what I wanted them to do from the start and died natural deaths.  THey didn’t stop because the F3, F4 & F5 did so much more … Similary my M9 based Monochrom, my M10-D and my M-A.  I have too many 50mm lenses, that said …

[costa43]

Surely everything we do is for the feeling it gives us. We are all built differently in this respect. My brain needs more stimulation than other people’s I guess as I like variety and trying out different lenses and cameras. It’s a big part of what I enjoy in this hobby. No such thing as bad lenses in my opinion, I think they all have their own personalities. My keeper lenses always tend to be on the smaller side though. (M user)

Edited April 30 by costa43

[Strmbrg]

For quite a while now, I have not changed anything in my bag. Since I reduced it to just M10R with two lenses (35/1,4 and Macro 90/4) and very few accessories, I hopefully can stay with that.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear