4 ms·

"The lens was a Voigtländer 90/3.5..." I'd like a photo guide that shows the relative importance of exotic gear, perhaps by showing photos of the same subject

by tlb 8y ago

"The lens was a Voigtländer 90/3.5..." I'd like a photo guide that shows the relative importance of exotic gear, perhaps by showing photos of the same subject with whatever fancy equipment next to photos on a popular SLR and a smartphone. In the first photo, it's hard to imagine that any other lens would look much different. The fancy APO optics in the Voigtländer lens aren't going to affect a low-res B&W photo much.

frostburg 8y ago
The APO part doesn't matter, but the flat field of focus of a macro lens might have relevant there given the subject. Exotic gear only matters if your're trying to do something hard (for example big prints from 35mm film or extreme macro or high speed photography...) and I say this as a Contax/Leica/Hasselblad shooter/gear snob. Merely decent gear is important - smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  > ...smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look. Which is another way of saying: smartphones tend to take pictures which are acceptable or good under a smaller set of viewing conditions than pictures taken by a skilled photographer operating an optically/electronically advantaged camera in equivalent circumstances.
  - frostburg 8y ago
    No, you don't need something very advanced. You can take better pictures with consumer film cameras from the forties. The issue with smartphone pictures is that digital sensors cannot be made that small with good results yet; dynamic range is garbage especially if you move from base iso (which is often 32 or so) and even in optimal circumstances forcing your phone to take a correct exposure is generally very frustrating even with "manual" modes.
    - microcolonel 8y ago
      > You can take better pictures with consumer film cameras from the forties. That's not exactly a fair comparison. In a film camera, you're essentially replacing the "sensor" every time you add a new roll. '40s film (largely) has terrible dynamic range (far worse than an upmarket smartphone camera), is incredibly noisy under conditions smartphones can handle gracefully. Color film compatible with common cameras had only existed since 1930, and it remained disappointing well into the '70s.
      - jacobush 8y ago
        People tend to forget that say, Kodak Portra 400 is a technological marvel and pretty recent too. (2010)
- jdietrich 8y ago
  >smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. The latest generation of flagship phone cameras (iPhone 8, Pixel 2, Galaxy S9) are comparable in quality to a good compact camera. I really can't see much difference between a modern smartphone and an old favourite like the Powershot S120. You wouldn't want to make big prints, but you can get genuinely good images from a flagship smartphone, especially with a third-party app like Camera+ or ProCamera.
  - lmilcin 8y ago
    Smartphone cameras are excellent quality. The pictures are bad because statistical user is a person who never tried to become better photographer. There is A LOT of excellent smartphone photos, they are just being drowned in deluge of random photos.
    - frostburg 8y ago
      I'm not in any way implying bad faith here, but have you ever used a good camera?
      - lmilcin 8y ago
        Depends what you call good camera. For the past couple of years I have been using Nikon D600 with Nikkor 17-35 f2.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRII and Nikkor 50 f1.4 as my workhorse. Camera doesn't mean much. I give my camera to random people and guess what, I get random photos exactly as if they were done with a smartphone. It is not the camera, it is the photographer that takes the picture. The picture is the light field that was present at the moment of taking it -- your job as a photographer is to create or find an interesting light field and the camera is just technical means of preserving it. CAMERA WILL NOT MAKE YOUR PHOTO INTERESTING. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY
        frostburg 8y ago
        That's some very good practical gear. My inner snob would say that the 50/1.4 is no Summicron, that I would rather use a 135/2 Apo-Sonnar than the (actually not cheaper) 70-200 and that retrofocus wide angles meant to work well with digital sensors are inferior in the more rarefied markers of image quality to non-telecentric designs like the biogons, hologons and super-angulons of old. This doesn't matter, you probably know that you cannot obtain the same results from a smartphone camera (which doesn't mean that one cannot take an artistically valid picture with a phone, it's just going to be technically inferior). We're not talking about bad photographers here, we're talking about someone that knows what he's doing trying to use a smartphone camera seriously. All the skill and knowledge can't do much against rolling shutter or banding in gradients that should be smooth, etc.
jamesg 8y ago
Whilst it can be somewhat subjective, and different styles of photography will benefit different amounts from exotic gear, it's surprisingly complex even in fairly narrow domains. You're probably right that the first image wouldn't be significantly different on any other lens: it looks to be shot with a fairly narrow aperture in fairly unchallenging lighting conditions, so you're not hitting any of the aspects of photography where lens design has really advanced. A really cheap lens might show distortion or chromatic aberration (admittedly less important in B&W) at the edges, but beyond that, you'd be fine. But I saw this article recently, and it's a sample size of 1, but nonetheless I found it somewhat surprising: https://petapixel.com/2018/08/15/is-the-sensor-or-the-lens-to-blame-for-poor-image-quality/ https://petapixel.com/2018/08/15/is-the-sensor-or-the-lens-t... -- unfortunately it doesn't specify how these images were processed so it's hard to draw conclusions (eg: if it was all SOOC JPEGs, I'd be willing to believe that the older image processor in the D610 has worse highlight reconstruction, for instance. Or possibly worse demoasaicing). However prior to reading that article I'd have unconditionally recommended investing in glass before getting a new body; evidently my mental model for this was at least slightly deficient. FWIW, my 2c: take photos that leverage the gear you've got, and conversely choose gear to get the kinds of images you want. Eg: I love my Nikkor 85/1.4G lens, despite its shortcomings, and you'll never get the same results on a smartphone (I mean, 85/1.4 is a pretty razor thin depth of field). If what you want is a super creamy background and tons of detail on the in focus regions, and you like the framing at 85mm, then that's pretty much the only way to get it (that I know of anyway). However, if you're only shooting wide angle, with everything in focus, then the differences will definitely be more subtle. They'll be there (eg: a Zeiss 21/2.8 on a D850 will pull out detail that the smartphone just won't know is there, the D850 sensor will have a lot more dynamic range, etc), but those differences will be less readily apparent, especially if you're viewing these images on a smartphone screen. One last point: you're no doubt aware, but there are more dimensions to a lens' quality than its resistance to chromatic aberration (re: fancy APO optics), speed, or resolving power. I have a couple of the Voigtlander lenses for Micro 4/3, and while they have a lot of shortcomings, (so much coma aberration!), the way they render the background has a particular quality to it that's hard to replicate; not always desirable either, but sometimes fun. I also enjoy playing with some of the shortcomings: it will render with a kind of a halo-like glow around close objects when shot wide open. Likewise, the bokeh on my Zeiss 100/2 MP is pretty special (I believe this is a consequence of them not using any aspherical elements), despite the fact that it suffers from terrible chromatic aberration (possibly also related to them not using any aspherical elements). There's also color rendition of different lenses, but much of that can be corrected / simulated in post if you're patient enough. And every now and then I shoot with an old Zeiss Jena 200/2.8 lens with an adapter precisely because of its shortcomings yield a particular look. Colors are a bit more muted, it's a bit less contrasty, and chromatic aberration is extremely pronounced. It looks like a photo that would have been taken in the 60s, which is kind of neat. Apologies for the long post! I love this stuff. :) Edit: one more link. Ming Thein's review of the Zeiss 100/2 MP gives some more details on that lens, and I think some of the shots he's included are a great example of that lens's specific background rendering. Despite occasional annoying ellipses, it has a "swirly" property to it that I really like and I just don't get on any of my other lenses. https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/27/revisited-and-reviewed-the-zeiss-zf-2-2100-makro-planar-t/ https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/27/revisited-and-reviewed...

by tlb 8y ago

frostburg 8y ago

The APO part doesn't matter, but the flat field of focus of a macro lens might have relevant there given the subject. Exotic gear only matters if your're trying to do something hard (for example big prints from 35mm film or extreme macro or high speed photography...) and I say this as a Contax/Leica/Hasselblad shooter/gear snob. Merely decent gear is important - smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look.

microcolonel 8y ago
> ...smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look. Which is another way of saying: smartphones tend to take pictures which are acceptable or good under a smaller set of viewing conditions than pictures taken by a skilled photographer operating an optically/electronically advantaged camera in equivalent circumstances.
- frostburg 8y ago
  No, you don't need something very advanced. You can take better pictures with consumer film cameras from the forties. The issue with smartphone pictures is that digital sensors cannot be made that small with good results yet; dynamic range is garbage especially if you move from base iso (which is often 32 or so) and even in optimal circumstances forcing your phone to take a correct exposure is generally very frustrating even with "manual" modes.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    > You can take better pictures with consumer film cameras from the forties. That's not exactly a fair comparison. In a film camera, you're essentially replacing the "sensor" every time you add a new roll. '40s film (largely) has terrible dynamic range (far worse than an upmarket smartphone camera), is incredibly noisy under conditions smartphones can handle gracefully. Color film compatible with common cameras had only existed since 1930, and it remained disappointing well into the '70s.
    - jacobush 8y ago
      People tend to forget that say, Kodak Portra 400 is a technological marvel and pretty recent too. (2010)
jdietrich 8y ago
>smartphone pictures are universally awful when given a closer look. A few years ago, I would have agreed with you. The latest generation of flagship phone cameras (iPhone 8, Pixel 2, Galaxy S9) are comparable in quality to a good compact camera. I really can't see much difference between a modern smartphone and an old favourite like the Powershot S120. You wouldn't want to make big prints, but you can get genuinely good images from a flagship smartphone, especially with a third-party app like Camera+ or ProCamera.
- lmilcin 8y ago
  Smartphone cameras are excellent quality. The pictures are bad because statistical user is a person who never tried to become better photographer. There is A LOT of excellent smartphone photos, they are just being drowned in deluge of random photos.
  - frostburg 8y ago
    I'm not in any way implying bad faith here, but have you ever used a good camera?
    - lmilcin 8y ago
      Depends what you call good camera. For the past couple of years I have been using Nikon D600 with Nikkor 17-35 f2.8, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VRII and Nikkor 50 f1.4 as my workhorse. Camera doesn't mean much. I give my camera to random people and guess what, I get random photos exactly as if they were done with a smartphone. It is not the camera, it is the photographer that takes the picture. The picture is the light field that was present at the moment of taking it -- your job as a photographer is to create or find an interesting light field and the camera is just technical means of preserving it. CAMERA WILL NOT MAKE YOUR PHOTO INTERESTING. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsmVw4tCWY
      - frostburg 8y ago
        That's some very good practical gear. My inner snob would say that the 50/1.4 is no Summicron, that I would rather use a 135/2 Apo-Sonnar than the (actually not cheaper) 70-200 and that retrofocus wide angles meant to work well with digital sensors are inferior in the more rarefied markers of image quality to non-telecentric designs like the biogons, hologons and super-angulons of old. This doesn't matter, you probably know that you cannot obtain the same results from a smartphone camera (which doesn't mean that one cannot take an artistically valid picture with a phone, it's just going to be technically inferior). We're not talking about bad photographers here, we're talking about someone that knows what he's doing trying to use a smartphone camera seriously. All the skill and knowledge can't do much against rolling shutter or banding in gradients that should be smooth, etc.

jamesg 8y ago

Whilst it can be somewhat subjective, and different styles of photography will benefit different amounts from exotic gear, it's surprisingly complex even in fairly narrow domains. You're probably right that the first image wouldn't be significantly different on any other lens: it looks to be shot with a fairly narrow aperture in fairly unchallenging lighting conditions, so you're not hitting any of the aspects of photography where lens design has really advanced. A really cheap lens might show distortion or chromatic aberration (admittedly less important in B&W) at the edges, but beyond that, you'd be fine. But I saw this article recently, and it's a sample size of 1, but nonetheless I found it somewhat surprising: https://petapixel.com/2018/08/15/is-the-sensor-or-the-lens-to-blame-for-poor-image-quality/ https://petapixel.com/2018/08/15/is-the-sensor-or-the-lens-t... -- unfortunately it doesn't specify how these images were processed so it's hard to draw conclusions (eg: if it was all SOOC JPEGs, I'd be willing to believe that the older image processor in the D610 has worse highlight reconstruction, for instance. Or possibly worse demoasaicing). However prior to reading that article I'd have unconditionally recommended investing in glass before getting a new body; evidently my mental model for this was at least slightly deficient. FWIW, my 2c: take photos that leverage the gear you've got, and conversely choose gear to get the kinds of images you want. Eg: I love my Nikkor 85/1.4G lens, despite its shortcomings, and you'll never get the same results on a smartphone (I mean, 85/1.4 is a pretty razor thin depth of field). If what you want is a super creamy background and tons of detail on the in focus regions, and you like the framing at 85mm, then that's pretty much the only way to get it (that I know of anyway). However, if you're only shooting wide angle, with everything in focus, then the differences will definitely be more subtle. They'll be there (eg: a Zeiss 21/2.8 on a D850 will pull out detail that the smartphone just won't know is there, the D850 sensor will have a lot more dynamic range, etc), but those differences will be less readily apparent, especially if you're viewing these images on a smartphone screen. One last point: you're no doubt aware, but there are more dimensions to a lens' quality than its resistance to chromatic aberration (re: fancy APO optics), speed, or resolving power. I have a couple of the Voigtlander lenses for Micro 4/3, and while they have a lot of shortcomings, (so much coma aberration!), the way they render the background has a particular quality to it that's hard to replicate; not always desirable either, but sometimes fun. I also enjoy playing with some of the shortcomings: it will render with a kind of a halo-like glow around close objects when shot wide open. Likewise, the bokeh on my Zeiss 100/2 MP is pretty special (I believe this is a consequence of them not using any aspherical elements), despite the fact that it suffers from terrible chromatic aberration (possibly also related to them not using any aspherical elements). There's also color rendition of different lenses, but much of that can be corrected / simulated in post if you're patient enough. And every now and then I shoot with an old Zeiss Jena 200/2.8 lens with an adapter precisely because of its shortcomings yield a particular look. Colors are a bit more muted, it's a bit less contrasty, and chromatic aberration is extremely pronounced. It looks like a photo that would have been taken in the 60s, which is kind of neat. Apologies for the long post! I love this stuff. :) Edit: one more link. Ming Thein's review of the Zeiss 100/2 MP gives some more details on that lens, and I think some of the shots he's included are a great example of that lens's specific background rendering. Despite occasional annoying ellipses, it has a "swirly" property to it that I really like and I just don't get on any of my other lenses. https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/27/revisited-and-reviewed-the-zeiss-zf-2-2100-makro-planar-t/ https://blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/27/revisited-and-reviewed...