Less is enough?
24/01/09 21:36 Filed in: photographic culture
For a long period in time, every modern product seemed to follow Moore's Law:performance doubles, while costs drop. In consumer parlance this meant that every year new products would be set in the market that had more features than the previous generation and this would be sold for the same price. Now with a recession storm blowing in everybody's face, a new tendency emerges: lower the price and get the same features as before. For the so called prosumer and hyper-consumer, his is bad news. For the rest of the world, this is really good news.
Some companies (Leica among them) have always followed the philosophy that the right amount of features is a better and more elegant proposition than cramming in every possible feature into a product. With less features we have to delearn a few things and relearn some old skills.
There are now two types of cameras for the serious user. The well-known distinction between cameras for professionals and for motivated amateurs is more and more becoming a no-brainer: Basically it is aspiration and drive for quality imagery that dictates the choice of a camera. Well-built products not only keep going indefinitely, exhibit more resilience, but also are engineered to a higher degree of accuracy. If you want or need these qualities to get the pictures with the content that you aspire to show to the world, you should be prepared to invest major sums of money.
The two types of cameras I am referring to are cameras that rub out every photographic mistake you make and cameras that help you to become a better photographer. To the first category belong all current high-end dSLRs. The Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3(X) are typical examples. When you have acquainted yourself with the operation of the camera, there is hardly anything that can go wrong and even if you make mistakes, the camera will smooth away your errors.
The second category is sparsely populated with the classical film-loading cameras, like the Leica M7 and MP or the Nikon F6 and the solid-state-array-fitted Leica M8(.2).
If the emerging trend continues, we may see more products that offer less and ask more form the user.
The second part of the Summilux test (21 and 24mm) will be published tomorrow. To analyze the full capabilities of theses lenses I had to use film. Not only for the uncropped viewing angle, but also to get to the bottom of detail definition. The M8 sensor has a resolution limit that does not allow the exploitation of the full potential of modern Leica lenses.
Even the current topcats of DSLR (with 20+ Mp sensors) offer less resolution than modern films developed in current hightech chemistry. Future tests will be conducted on the Spur HRX-3 developer and the very new Spur DSX process for microfilm technology.
I have to admit that working with film is a most enjoyable way of taking pictures. It is a very honest process and here is skill required to get good results. It takes a longer time to get the final result, it is more laborious and you have less options for manipulation.
There is no question that the computer based photography can deliver better imagery and spectacular results with a modicum of user input.
If the current crisis implies a revaluation of craftsmanship, the value of work and less reliance on automated features, we will all benefit.
Some companies (Leica among them) have always followed the philosophy that the right amount of features is a better and more elegant proposition than cramming in every possible feature into a product. With less features we have to delearn a few things and relearn some old skills.
There are now two types of cameras for the serious user. The well-known distinction between cameras for professionals and for motivated amateurs is more and more becoming a no-brainer: Basically it is aspiration and drive for quality imagery that dictates the choice of a camera. Well-built products not only keep going indefinitely, exhibit more resilience, but also are engineered to a higher degree of accuracy. If you want or need these qualities to get the pictures with the content that you aspire to show to the world, you should be prepared to invest major sums of money.
The two types of cameras I am referring to are cameras that rub out every photographic mistake you make and cameras that help you to become a better photographer. To the first category belong all current high-end dSLRs. The Canon 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3(X) are typical examples. When you have acquainted yourself with the operation of the camera, there is hardly anything that can go wrong and even if you make mistakes, the camera will smooth away your errors.
The second category is sparsely populated with the classical film-loading cameras, like the Leica M7 and MP or the Nikon F6 and the solid-state-array-fitted Leica M8(.2).
If the emerging trend continues, we may see more products that offer less and ask more form the user.
The second part of the Summilux test (21 and 24mm) will be published tomorrow. To analyze the full capabilities of theses lenses I had to use film. Not only for the uncropped viewing angle, but also to get to the bottom of detail definition. The M8 sensor has a resolution limit that does not allow the exploitation of the full potential of modern Leica lenses.
Even the current topcats of DSLR (with 20+ Mp sensors) offer less resolution than modern films developed in current hightech chemistry. Future tests will be conducted on the Spur HRX-3 developer and the very new Spur DSX process for microfilm technology.
I have to admit that working with film is a most enjoyable way of taking pictures. It is a very honest process and here is skill required to get good results. It takes a longer time to get the final result, it is more laborious and you have less options for manipulation.
There is no question that the computer based photography can deliver better imagery and spectacular results with a modicum of user input.
If the current crisis implies a revaluation of craftsmanship, the value of work and less reliance on automated features, we will all benefit.