Your experience would probably be different from mine. So I’m not going to be objective, I’m just going to share my subjective experience moving from a Micro Four Thirds to a Full Frame camera. I take it seriously but this is still a hobby for me.) (You could argue I’m still failing at my self-appointed role as a documentarian, but also I need to enjoy it in order to continue doing it, so sacrificing my enjoyment would be counterproductive. But if I took a weird photo of your wedding day where nothing was in focus but the flare and you were paying me for it… That’d be different. So if I take a weird photo where nothing is in focus but the flare then nobody can justifiably grumble at me. The reviewers experience and perspective and even their income all impact how they might interpret a camera.įor example, I can only afford to value fun over optical flawlessness because I’m not doing it as a job. What I’m trying to get at with this preamble is that camera reviews often try to be objective, but they can’t. We achieved perfect digital recordings on CD and people moved back to vinyl and cassettes.Īs usual Brian Eno sums it up: “Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature.” It’s a bit like the resurgence of cassettes, or the VHS aesthetic: As soon as we can achieve perfect representations we seek out imperfect ones. I value optical interestingness over optical flawlessness. These characteristics are considered a flaw, but I’ve come to love them. Sharpness often drops off towards the corners, and their anti-flare coatings are often inferior, meaning if you point them anywhere near a light source they flare like mad. To be fair though vintage lenses don’t really perform like modern ones. A modern version would cost thousands, but I bought this lens plus the speed booster for about $150. This meant obtaining lenses with really low F stops, and this combined with budget constraints led me to discover vintage lenses.Īsahi Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 from the 1960sĪccounting for crop-factor and a speed booster (which smushes all the light from a Full Frame lens onto a Micro Four Thirds sensor), I end up with a roughly 80mm F0.9 lens full frame equivalent. To work around this limitation I’ve had to find ways to pull as much light as possible onto that sensor. This is a problem because, as you probably know, a lot of live music takes place in dimly lit rooms. The high ISO performance is my biggest complaint the image collapses into a smudgy mess above ISO 3200. I’ve driven it hard (77,918 shutter count) and it’s served me well, but there are a few areas where I’ve never really been satisfied. For the past five years all of the images and videos taken for were taken on this camera.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |