Looking back over the past two years I see that a lot has changed in my understanding of the craft of photography. I've looked as deeply as I could (without access to a full optical lab) at the subject of lenses, resolution, and what really happens when we talk about resolution and "sharpness".
I was prodded into action by a couple of articles on The Online Photographer's blog about how to make "good" black and white images from digital files. The outcome of that was I rediscovered how much I enjoy making monochrome images. As a bonus it seems to me that my current output has become "sharper" and "smoother" than my earlier 4x5inch and 8x10inch enlargements and contact prints.
Which leads me to a short story about the path I've taken in transitioning from large format film to APS-C digital.
The thing that kicked me into digital was it's ease of access and immediacy. I could see something, snap a photo of it, and review the results before I continued on my way. The change certainly was not because digital was as sharp as large format film. It wasn't.
When I started into digital I acquired a Canon 40D (later a 50D, a 7D, and a 5D MkII) and two lenses, a 24-105L and a 10-22mm EF-S. I paid a lot for all this equipment so I was "all in" as they say.
Looking back I'm shocked at my early digital work. In a small size the images are merely OK. But comparing the original files against my current output I can't believe I hadn't chucked the whole plot into the ocean and returned to film. The Canon sensors and lenses, while famed and widely lauded, are "soft". The original files are nearly unusable. I can't stand to "pixel peep" them.
Thinking I might shoot a bit of video I started picking up old Nikon Nikkor manual focus lenses. They are widely available and can be had for little money. I went with Nikon because Canon's old R/FL/FD mount lenses would not fit on Canon EOS without serious modification.
With the Nikkor lenses all I needed was a simple adapter. But manually focusing, even with AF confirmation chips in the adapters, was a hit and miss operation. For this one reason I never could see how much sharper than Canon zooms a good fixed focal length lens really is.
One of the first things I did after buying a Sony A6000 was to mount one of my Nikkors on the camera and see how sharp the system was. I was shocked by what I saw. The APS-C sensored images were demonstrably sharper than anything I ever saw out of the Canon system.
Knowing what resolution was possible and wanting a bit of auto focus, I purchased a trio of Sigma Art DN lenses, tested them, found them to be as sharp as my Nikkors. Back when I owned Canon cameras Sigma was still known as a low cost, low quality aftermarket supplier. Over the years Sigma's reputation changed and some of that is due to the quality of the Art DN series.
Now I have a choice between using the old manual focus Nikkors and newer AF capable small lenses. I find that around town and when I can relax and take my time I like using the Nikkors. When my wife and I are traveling the Sigma lenses are just about perfect.
On this end of the long road of experience I find that coupling high quality imaging with a better understanding of how to make a "luminous" black and white image that something startling to me is possible. When I compare my old 8x10inch film contact prints with a digital print, the digital image in many ways "looks" better. When I compare a 20x24inch enlarge 4x5 image to a similarly sized digital image I see the very same thing. The digital image in many ways "looks" better.
While there is so much more I could say about all this (I have obviously skimmed over many important details), the bottom line is: The tiny, very lightweight Sony APS-C mirrorless cameras produce images at least the equal in terms of quality as any high quality large format film camera I ever hauled through the world.
I was prodded into action by a couple of articles on The Online Photographer's blog about how to make "good" black and white images from digital files. The outcome of that was I rediscovered how much I enjoy making monochrome images. As a bonus it seems to me that my current output has become "sharper" and "smoother" than my earlier 4x5inch and 8x10inch enlargements and contact prints.
Which leads me to a short story about the path I've taken in transitioning from large format film to APS-C digital.
The thing that kicked me into digital was it's ease of access and immediacy. I could see something, snap a photo of it, and review the results before I continued on my way. The change certainly was not because digital was as sharp as large format film. It wasn't.
When I started into digital I acquired a Canon 40D (later a 50D, a 7D, and a 5D MkII) and two lenses, a 24-105L and a 10-22mm EF-S. I paid a lot for all this equipment so I was "all in" as they say.
Looking back I'm shocked at my early digital work. In a small size the images are merely OK. But comparing the original files against my current output I can't believe I hadn't chucked the whole plot into the ocean and returned to film. The Canon sensors and lenses, while famed and widely lauded, are "soft". The original files are nearly unusable. I can't stand to "pixel peep" them.
Thinking I might shoot a bit of video I started picking up old Nikon Nikkor manual focus lenses. They are widely available and can be had for little money. I went with Nikon because Canon's old R/FL/FD mount lenses would not fit on Canon EOS without serious modification.
With the Nikkor lenses all I needed was a simple adapter. But manually focusing, even with AF confirmation chips in the adapters, was a hit and miss operation. For this one reason I never could see how much sharper than Canon zooms a good fixed focal length lens really is.
One of the first things I did after buying a Sony A6000 was to mount one of my Nikkors on the camera and see how sharp the system was. I was shocked by what I saw. The APS-C sensored images were demonstrably sharper than anything I ever saw out of the Canon system.
Knowing what resolution was possible and wanting a bit of auto focus, I purchased a trio of Sigma Art DN lenses, tested them, found them to be as sharp as my Nikkors. Back when I owned Canon cameras Sigma was still known as a low cost, low quality aftermarket supplier. Over the years Sigma's reputation changed and some of that is due to the quality of the Art DN series.
Now I have a choice between using the old manual focus Nikkors and newer AF capable small lenses. I find that around town and when I can relax and take my time I like using the Nikkors. When my wife and I are traveling the Sigma lenses are just about perfect.
On this end of the long road of experience I find that coupling high quality imaging with a better understanding of how to make a "luminous" black and white image that something startling to me is possible. When I compare my old 8x10inch film contact prints with a digital print, the digital image in many ways "looks" better. When I compare a 20x24inch enlarge 4x5 image to a similarly sized digital image I see the very same thing. The digital image in many ways "looks" better.
While there is so much more I could say about all this (I have obviously skimmed over many important details), the bottom line is: The tiny, very lightweight Sony APS-C mirrorless cameras produce images at least the equal in terms of quality as any high quality large format film camera I ever hauled through the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment