Taking the romanticism aside - is Q3 43 the technically more capable camera with higher image quality?

[Alexander108]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 38 Minuten schrieb PhotoCruiser:

Thats the dilemma when having a camera with only one lens, the Q series or a model with changeable lenses and the wrong lens with me, so if i use the SL2 i usually carry two, them most used is the 28 and 14mm and then i crop later. 
A zoom lens would be helpful but dislike them and prefer primes and use my legs as zoom if i can walk from/towards the scenery if possible.
It's a kind of murphy's law to have the wrong/subpar lens attached and not shorter/wider to change if possible. This is particularly boring in underwater photography as there is no way to change lens and the reason that many switched to zoom lenses with macro function.
It happen to me countless times to dive with my D800 and either the 105mm macro and encountered unexpected big fish or the 15mm diagonal fisheye attached and found rare macro stuff. Over the years i learned to concentrate to shoot what i planned and mounted the lens for that and don't get mad about the unexpected stuff showing up. That makes it for me a bit easier to carry my Q2 only and don't get too much angry about missed or subpar shots due wrong focal length.

Chris


 

Indeed. When I used my Canon R5 I almost always had the 24-105 attached to it. But it was bulky and heavy. At that time I could not see myself working with fixed lenses. Now with the M10-M or the M11 my experience is very different. My zoom are my legs unless I run out of space (cramped alleys). I also find myself cropping less than I did with the Q3. That might be because I am more used to it now. My process has changed with fixed lenses. Even with my small Oberwehrt Q Bag that I still have I can easily carry one M body plus three lenses. Often 24-35-50. Or 15-24-35 depending on where I plan to go. Compared with the Q3 I get more shots I like as I have a selection of lenses. I also really love my 50y old Summicron 35mm that has a different touch to the pictures that I cannot even describe. The Q3 pictures were always perfectly clean. But this is certainly another discussion.

[jaapv]

I would hardly call that dictionary a photographic textbook. It completely ignores the existence of an aperture, the other component of exposure.
It is controlling the amount of light that falls on the film/sensor. 
In a digital camera setting  to a higher value ISO is simply the amplification of an underexposed photo to facilitate further processing. For example to get a readable LCD output.

If you want to keep this up, no problem but I will have to split the thread. 

[pgk]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Sorry. No. It is a strictly defined process.” Some people “ simply lack photographic knowledge. Go back to film. ISO varies with development . That is not even in the camera. Twiddling ISO is equivalent to loading another film. Again an action outside the operation of the camera. 

The problem with exposure is that it can be seen as a purely technical process, which of course it is. But there is a proviso; which is that in order to be a totally objective process you have to understand and be in control of all aspects of it. So reproducing a grey card and colour checker chart as precisely as is actually possible, will require a high degree of precision and understanding of all the factors affecting tonality and colour shifts in order to ensure as accurate an exposure as possible for this task.

However for general photography, the desired outputs are often rather less well defined and the photographer is able to vary exposure on a rather more subjective basis. This may allow for highlight clipping if acceptable or blocky shadows as desired. Add in a degree of latitude and variability of light sources and colour plus post processing adjusments, and exposure becomes a rather less precise and objective process than it might initially appear.

So whilst I am tempted to agree technically, in practice its somewhat variable depending on many factors which a photographer's decision making process may take into account, and which may not be the same as those considered by another photographer. Each though, may achieve a desired aimpoint and consequently differing exposures may be deemed 'correct'.

[pgk]

Duplicate post! Not sure why this happens but sometimes it just does!

Edited 4 hours ago by pgk

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Yes it does. Exposure is one of the most basic photographic principles   Understanding it is one of the essentials on the road to a good photo. ISO setting is just amplification. further on in the process, nothing more. And yes, it influences the EV setting. But so does motion, for example, and DOF. 

I have no problem understanding the difference between shutter speed, aperture, film sensitivity and digital sensor electronic signal processing, and where colour frequencies fit in. But that is not the same as how you set about choosing camera settings to take a photograph. You are welcome to call it what you like, but I will continue to balance shutter speed, aperture and ISO when taking photos. It works for me; you're arguing about problems I just don't have.

[DadDadDaddyo]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

ISO setting is just amplification.

This is both technically correct and important to results in a non-semantic way. It's precisely because of the impact of amplification on image outcome (signal to noise ratio) that blurring these factors together can be problematic. 

Let me try it this way....

"Exposure" deals with the measurement of light, the number of photons, if you like, that the photographer permits to enter the sealed light box. Changing the ISO doesn't change the amount of light permitted to enter, only aperture and shutter speed do. 

Changing the sensitivity of the medium to achieve a desired target aperture or shutter speed doesn't change the fact of what "exposure" is. It changes the exposure required but not what "exposure" is. 

Edited 1 hour ago by DadDadDaddyo