The sensor or the lens? and does it matter?

In a recent poll in a photographic magazine photographers voted by a large majority that the most important element that determined the quality of their images was the lens. Its an often repeated argument, implying that there are significant differences between the optics we use on our cameras. Indeed lens prices seem to reflect this. Standard zooms, 28-75mm f3.5-5.6 on full-frame, 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 on APS-C, 14-45mm f3.5-5.6 on m4/3, if bought with a kit can cost as low as £30. Go to the top of the range standard zooms and prices rocket upwards. Examples such as the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 costs £1180, the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 costs £700. This is a substantial difference. 


In reality I've always found that the sensor is the most important element in determining the quality of the image. Just as the film was. Also from my experience, the better the sensor, the less the quality of the lens matters. This also seems to work in reverse. When I've used not so good sensors only top quality lenses have produced decent results.


When I was using a Nikon DX3, I tried it with my manual focus Nikon primes and also with a 28-200mm G f3.5-5.6 zoom. The zoom produced excellent results and though it was possible to see a difference using the primes, this difference was much less than you might imagine it to be.





The sensors in both the Leica M8 and M9 also seem to produce great results no matter what lens I use. Though again I can see a difference if I look hard enough, it is very small. 





I even tried some non m-mount lenses on my M9 and it produced great results. Even from the Samyang!!








On some of the cameras I have used where the sensor is not so good, I've found I need a really good lens to get acceptable results. On the Pentax K-7 I had, the results from the kit zooms were pretty soft.





Whereas the primes I used were better.





Again with the Canon DSLR's that I've used, I've always used the best lenses that I can and this has usually meant prime lenses, as I've found the zooms, with the exception of the excellent 24-105mm f/4, disappointing. I even took to using adapted Nikon primes on my Canons as I found they gave slightly better results.





Yesterday after writing about my Olympus E-P2 I tried it again with some different lenses. One of those I used was the Panasonic 14-42mm kit lens from the Panasonic GH2. When I looked at the results I thought I had done something wrong as the images were so soft. I had got some reasonable results on the GH2 with this lens at f8 & f11 and using a tripod. However the E-P2 results were pretty terrible. I took the pictures again & took some on the GH2 just to see if I had made some error, but the results were the same. 


In some previous posts I have mentioned that I have always been impressed with the Olympus 14-42mm kit zoom. However a substantial part of this opinion is formed by the fact that I have used it on Panasonic cameras! On the E-P2 for example its quite disappointing.





I will admit that much of this is me being hyper-critical and very picky. I am a confirmed "pixel-peeper" and will probably always be so. An example of this is I have recently been considering buying a Pentax K-5 and have been looking at my K-7 images again. I have always been quite disparaging about that camera. However looking at the images again I didn't think they looked that bad. At the time I was using it I had just bought a Leica M8 and was probably comparing it to that.


Another example was over Christmas I saw a print of a portrait I had made for a family member on their wall. I had taken the picture with my Olympus E-P2 and the 14-42mm kit lens. The print looked terrific. Beautifully sharp and detailed.


The differences that we see on our screens are indeed real and some lenses are better than others as indeed are sensors. I've only really had two cameras which I could say never produced a decent picture. One was a Canon 350D and the other was a Fuji S5 Pro. I've often wondered if they were faulty, or three anti-aliasing filters had been fitted by mistake! Both produced incredibly soft images. The rest of the cameras I've used, while certainly having differences, have all been useable. Maybe its the 27" iMac screen I stare at all day, that exaggerates these differences. The printed image, either self printed or in magazines or books certainly levels out the results. I see no problem in trying to get the best results that I can, and while the differences between sensor / lens combinations may be smaller than I sometimes imply, they do matter to me. However that may not be the case for everyone. Many wedding photographers use Fuji S5's and I can see that its combination of low contrast and soft images could be very useful in that context. For the majority of my own wedding photography I used Canon jpgs. These produced less noise and a softer result than shooting raw. I've done lots of portrait work in the past and razor-sharp is definitely not required here. If you are shooting portraits for clients, I doubt there are many of them that will thank you for producing high resolution ultra-defined images of all their blemishes! Seeing your headshot on a huge monitor screen can be very disconcerting for those of us who are not perfect. (i.e. everybody!)


So while I shall continue in my search for the ultimate camera / lens combination, its undertaken with an understanding that this is about the margins. This is about squeezing that extra bit of sharpness, getting 95% instead of 90%, getting that fractional improvement. My best-selling picture was taken on a Pentax K-10 with a 12-24mm zoom. Its of a bathroom! That probably puts a lot of this into perspective. Though we may fret and worry over our gear, ultimately its still the picture that counts. Now if only I could convince myself of that!


Words - David
Images - David and Ann

Photographers and smaller cameras.

An article by David Muench - Landscape Photographer.
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/columns/natural-connections/stormlight.html


A quote from National Geographic and Magnum Photographer Steve McCurry
"I continually see photographers walking around with huge camera bags on their shoulders and I just wonder how can you stop and smell the roses and observe life when you have a 20-pound bag hanging off your shoulder. It just mystifies me."


A quote from another photographer:- 
"don't try and tell me that a smaller sensor is superior to a larger format! Because that isn't, and never will be, true."


We're into another of those photographic controversies about new v old, small v large. The 35mm versus medium format and digital versus film debates of the past have been replaced by a small camera versus large camera debate. In all of these there is one theme. Can something that makes our life easier as photographers give us comparable quality to something that is more difficult to use? As ever there are people who embrace the new technology, and those who resist it.





It goes without saying that when two cameras give the same performance the smaller, lighter and cheaper alternative becomes very attractive. But what about when thats not the case? A Nikon D3X has incredible resolution, will do virtually anything that a camera can, is built like a tank and produces image after image that will satisfy the most demanding of users. So why when I had one, did it sit on the shelf most of the time? If I am serious about my photography, and I am, then why didn't I use it all the time? As has been written here many times, the answer is that it was way too big, and way too heavy for me to use for any length of time. 



Mercantour National Park, Provence, France. 35mm film.


Its interesting, but no surprise, that landscape photographers are in the forefront of this move towards smaller, lighter cameras. Those of us that make our living doing it have been carting huge amounts of equipment around for many years, and in my case are starting to to suffer the consequences. In my own case I have a body that has to be "managed" rather more than it used to be. Hauling a medium format camera, lenses and a tripod up hills is no longer an option I can consider, and my enthusiastic embracing of camera systems such as micro four thirds is a matter of self preservation above all.



View from the Quiraing, Isle of Skye, Scotland. 6x4.5 film


The photographer quoted above is correct when he indicates that a larger sensor is superior to a smaller one. There is no doubt that my D3X produced images that were of a higher quality than my m4/3 cameras in almost every way. But the fact is that I would never have carried the D3X the distances that I can carry my m4/3 cameras, or indeed my Leica M9, which certainly can stand comparison with the Nikon.


We all make our decisions based on what works for us at any given time. I'm no longer prepared to have my photography become an endurance test. It seems more and more photographers are coming to the same conclusion.


D



Chartreuse, Alps, France. 6x4.5 film

Light after rain

One of the few advantages of heavy rain is the intense light that can often follow it. Yesterday we were subjected to a severe pounding from a storm followed by a burst of bright sunshine. 


Throughout this second half of the summer the Jet Stream seems to have twisted into an extraordinary shape that is causing severe weather problems over the Northern Hemisphere. The heat wave in Russia and the floods in Pakistan are catastrophic events causing death and destruction. By comparison our less than wonderful summer is trivial by comparison.


As a landscape photographer I've always been a keen student of the weather and there's not a day goes by without me studying the forecast. I try to get as much information on future trends as possible in order to plan ahead for shoots. 


Clear blue skies and settled conditions are great for travel photography as they present places in the best possible way. Who would want to go on holiday to a place that was depicted with stormy skies and shafts of intense sunlight? Probably only landscape photographers!


I've created some of my favourite photographs in less than ideal conditions.















Getting the above shots required running for cover at some point to avoid getting soaked and they are undeniably very dramatic pictures. Its usually more of a pleasure to look at pictures like this than to take them but extreme weather and theatrical lighting are elements that contribute to special and rare images. 


The world is experiencing some spells of cataclysmic weather. The causes of this are the subject of intense and controversial debate. In global terms the UK is a pretty benign country, even though our preoccupation with the weather is well known. We are probably the greatest complainers about the climate anywhere. Its always too cold, too hot, too wet, too dry. Considering what the rest of the world has to put up with, I've always thought that we're pretty lucky with what we get. 


To conclude a couple more shots from yesterday - taken from the comfort of my loft. One showing the intense light that often appears after a storm and the other showing my steaming roof as the warm sun burnt off the moisture.








Words - D
Images - D & A

Film Pixels Sensors Cameras...........

Sometimes I long for the simplicity of film cameras. You'd make a choice of camera, buy the lenses that suited your way of working and pop a few rolls of your favourite film in the fridge. (For those of you too young to remember this - it kept it fresh. Film did deteriorate with age - unlike photographers who just get better and better!)

That would probably be it for a few years. The occasional new lens appeared that you might be interested in, and companies upgraded their cameras from time to time. You could choose to stick with what you had or get the new model. Ultimately your pictures probably wouldn't look any different. Every now and then a new film was released, and if it suited you then you might switch. The whole process was very slow paced. Consequently I used the same medium format camera (A Pentax 645) for 13 years. I've had some recent cameras for less than 13 weeks!

l always worked on this order of priority to determine the quality of my images. (For the vast majority - transparency film) Film > Lens> Camera. Since with digital the "film" is the camera sensor, the order of priority has changed. Its now Sensor > Camera > Lens. With film there was a fairly slow progression in terms of film improvement. This is not the case with sensor improvement. It moves at a much quicker pace and to take advantage of it you have to buy the whole camera, instead of just buying a new roll of film.

The first "serious" digital camera I bought was a Fuji S2 pro back in 2003. I've often wondered if I should have kept it longer. Would it really have made that much difference to my work? Well thinking back it was difficult to use, it had two sets of batteries, which would run out at different times, so you had to carry two sets of spares. It also pretended to be a 12MP camera, when it was in fact a 6MP camera with a bit of fancy footwork from Fuji. I've certainly bought and sold a lot of cameras since the Fuji. It all seems so complicated, has it all been worth it?

Well for me the answer is a resounding yes. Things move on, and the images I can now create are superior to those I took with those early digital cameras. They are also a good deal easier to use. I've been posting some images I shot on 35mm film recently and people have posted nice comments about them. Unfortunately its difficult to do them justice, since getting a scan that matches the quality of the most basic of my digital cameras has so far eluded me. They look great at small sizes on the web, but reproduction size is restricted to about the equivalent of a 6MP camera for many of them, due to the characteristics of the film I used.

All other things being equal, more pixels = better resolution. The images I'm currently creating are superior for sharpness, noise and colour than the images I was creating a few years ago. Ultimately thats what matters.

I just wish sometimes, that the pace of development would slow down a bit!

Words - D

Images - D & A

NIKON D3X > LEICA M9

nikon D3X
Originally uploaded by soundimageplus

After a while using the Leica M9, my decision to replace the D3X with it is looking better and better. Over the past few days I have been editing a lot of D3X pictures from the summer. While the camera undoubtedly produces excellent images, the M9 files are sharper, and much "punchier" out of the camera. I used the D3X for my high-end picture library work & never made use of its higher ISO capabilities, so the Leica
gives me what I need. All in a lighter smaller package.

D & A

Snow Fatigue

leica m8 cosina super wide heliar voigtlander 15mm lens
Originally uploaded by soundimageplus

Too much snow!

Its now gone dull and miserable with the snow turning to slush.

Felt the urge to edit some images from last summer and autumn. Reminded us that warm weather does exist.

Not long to Spring!

Panasonic Lumix G1 14-45 zoom lens panoramic stitch

Nikon D3X

Panasonic Lumix G1 14-45 zoom lens panoramic stitch

Panasonic Lumix G1 14-45 zoom lens panoramic stitch

Leica M8 Zeiss 28mm f2.8 Biogon lens

Leica M8 Cosina Super Wide Heliar Voigtlander 15mm lens

Leica M8 Cosina Super Wide Heliar Voigtlander 15mm lens

Nikon D3X Panoramic stitch 28-200mm zoom lens

Nikon D3X Panoramic stitch 55-200mm zoom lens

D & A

Why all the fuss about micro four thirds?

What is it about micro four thirds that seems to attract all the discussion and debate that is currently going on? Why do some writers and photographic commentaters think that this is a camera revolution or something close to that?


Digital photography changed a lot of the "rules" of photography & the way photographers went about doing what they do. One of the consequences of this has been the sheer number of images that have been produced worldwide. Parallel to this the internet has opened up endless possibilities for showing, sharing & selling your work.
Pretty revolutionary stuff. While all this has been going on, whats been happening to cameras? Well, after a small burst of innovation at the start - Sony Mavica, Nikon Coolpix etc. they pretty much look the same as they have for years. A Photographer fast-forwarded from the 1970's, while acknowledging style differences would recognise the DSLR & compact camera types around today.

So what do we have currently? We have the digital SLR, based on the 35mm SLR. Most are very conservative designs. 50 years ago (yes 50!) the Nikon F appeared. Most modern DSLR's are not that different in design or function, once you substitute the sensor for film. We have Medium & Large Format systems with digital backs, which I'll pass over quickly as they are a minority, very expensive option, and we have compact, "point and shoot" cameras.

Every "serious" photographer knows that DSLR's are for "art", compacts are for "snapshots". DSLR's are aimed at professionals and "enthusiast" photographers. (Interesting word, implies professionals aren't enthusiasts?) The "serious" photographer might have a compact in his/her pocket on occasions but basically its that divide & has been for years. Everyday "non-serious" photographers are believed to not want to think about their cameras. They just want to "point" it & "shoot" it. I've always found this an incredibly patronising view. Considering the complexity of current mobile phones the idea that the majority of people can't be bothered to learn how to use a DSLR is photographic arrogance. "Ahh - but its understanding the relationship between aperture & depth of field etc. etc" I hear them say - well it took me half an hour to explain this to my 15-year old nephew, who then proved he understood it by working as a stills & video cameraman at two recent weddings my company shot, and using lenses such as Nikkor MF F/1.2 lens with ease.

Isn't what we all want, kit that lets us concentrate on doing the most important thing, taking pictures? Most people, and that includes myself, aren't particularly concerned about what equipment they use, but ARE concerned about the pictures that come away with.

So what have the Camera companies provided us with to accomplish this goal? DSLR's have become ever more sophisticated. Until recently I owned & used a Nikon D3X. An astonishing camera in terms of the images it produces, & the speed with which it produces & processes them. I have a Canon 5D MkII, which allows me to shoot hand held, in low light, without flash or a tripod & produces sharp, low noise 60MB files. It also shoots full 1080 HD video footage at broadcast quality! Truly amazing. Back in 2000 I was pretty impressed by my Olympus E-10, which shows how far things have come.
However there has been a trade-off in terms of weight, size and complexity. While I could happily carry my E-10 around all day, the same is not true, for me, of cameras such as the D3X. Some people manage it - the photographer who bought my D3X was a wedding photographer who was going to work with a D3X & a D3 fitted with 14-24 F/2.8 , 24-70 F/2.8 & 70-200 F/2.8 zooms! Tot the weight of that lot up on your calculator! He was also using a whole series of custom functions in the camera that I never realised existed. I'm no technical slouch but freely admit that I used a fraction of the D3X's capabilities. Some I didn't actually understand but most I just didn't need.

So whats happened to the "compact" "point and shoot" cameras? Well, not a lot that that I can see, apart from cramming more and more pixels onto their tiny sensors. Some of the output from these things is truly awful. I had a D-lux 3 for a while, which was generally regarded as one of the better "compacts" & was appalled by the softness & poor dynamic range of the images. I wasn't expecting great things but I was expecting more than I got.
However it did impress me in terms of lightness, portability & discretion.

Then along comes micro four thirds. When I first saw the initial announcements about this, my first thoughts were - "Why did nobody come up with this before?" When you think about it, it seems obvious. As photographers we all want the best quality we can get. We also (apart from the "Photography as Jewelery" people) presumably want equipment that isn't going to cripple us in later life. The process that enabled this "holy grail" was the removal of the SLR mirror & the substitution of an electronic viewfinder. Having used these on some early digital cameras I had, I wasn't that worried. It was certainly better that having to use a rear screen exclusively for composition. While I think screens are wonderful for tripod use, I've always liked the "shut out the rest of the world & concentrate on the image" aspect of viewfinders.

I eventually bought a G1 + 14-45 lens around a year ago. I immediately appreciated the size & weight. On taking a few shots & looking at them on the screen I was stunned. Like many others the equation of "Compact camera = rubbish pictures" was firmly implanted in my brain. My experience with the compacts that I had owned hadn't done much to get rid of that view.
However this wasn't a defining "road to damascus" moment. I still had it in my head that somehow this wasn't a "proper" camera. Despite all evidence to the contrary I somehow couldn't get my head around the fact that it was so small and so light. I come from an era when "real" photographers used Medium Format so it was still difficult for me to accept this as a viable alternative.
When the GH1 appeared I was firmly sold on that as a video option. While the 5D MkII produces incredible video footage, it can be difficult to use. The GH1 is much better designed for shooting video & is a joy to use. However that still didn't convert me.

I imagine that I wasn't alone in appreciating the m4/3 system but not prepared to fully embrace it. Then two things happened that did fundamentally change my mind.

The first was the discovery that m4/3 was able to accept, via adapters, many different lenses. I had initially seen that Leica M fit lenses could be used but the real revelation was a post on a forum about using Nikon lenses. I've had a collection of Nikon primes for some time including Manual Focus lenses & was excited about being able to use them on my G1. A few gracious replies from photographers on various forums told me how to do this & I bought an adapter & started to take pictures. This was a true turning point. However misinformed and short-sighted it now appears, I couldn't get it into my head that the G1 was a "proper" camera. The simple act of fitting a Nikkor 50mm MF F/1.2 lens changed this perception almost immediately.
Things accelerated from here. More adapters followed, I bought some Olympus 4/3 lenses, some S/H Voigtlander M-fit lenses, & I started using the G1 all the time. I was getting (35mm equivalent) 100mm F/1.2, 170mm F/1.8, 270mm F/2.8 options in a lightweight, user friendly package. Lens options I'd either only dreamed about or ruled out because of size and weight.
With the zeal of the converted I even started a group on flickr which was dedicated to using these alternative and legacy lenses on the G1. http://www.flickr.com/groups/1084614@N23/ This led me eventually buy a Leica M8 - but thats another story. http://davidmartynhughes.blogspot.com/search/label/Leica%20M8

The second defining moment was being taken to hospital in an ambulance with a back spasm so bad that I was literally screaming in agony. I've been abusing this part of my body for a long time, but it took this to finally convince me that a change was needed.

Both of these factors led me to where I am now. A collection of G-Series cameras, Lumix lenses & adapters for a collection of Nikon & M Mount lenses.
I'm also not alone. Many photographers, including professionals, are selling DSLR's to invest in this system. Other camera manufacturers are working on new products & the future looks exciting.

Finally - a list. (Who doesn't love a list?)

Why all the fuss about micro four thirds?

1. Its a small light, yet technologically advanced, system.
2. Its every bit the equal of many DSLR's in terms of image quality. Indeed tests (Amateur Photographer) on the G1 showed it out resolving a Nikon D3 & D300 at low ISO's.
3. The two companies involved so far, Panasonic & Olympus have gone for quality systems, designed for photographers & aspiring photographers.
4. Some of the lenses being produced are truly special. e.g. Lumix 20mm F/1.7 & Lumix 7-14mm F/4.
5. Access to some of the best lenses ever made - Leica, Nikon, Zeiss, Canon FD, Olympus
6. Simplicity or Complexity available in the same camera.
7. A choice of colours! What is it with camera manufacturers and black cameras!!!
8. Its only in its infancy - theres a lot more potential here.
9. Breaks down the barriers between heavy, big DSLR's and small compact point & shoots.
10. Shows real quality is possible in a small camera.

Apparently getting your hands on some of this kit is difficult, so it seems that supply is having trouble keeping up with demand. It does seem that many others also believe that this may be the best thing to happen in the camera market for some time.