Replying to the Same Old Argument

I find myself drawn in to arguments on-line from time to time. Recently I posted to a You Tube video that was trying to dismiss micro four-thirds as largely irrelevant and doomed to the dustbin of history. In arguing against my support of m43rds, the video’s author talked about how Sony was shrinking its full frame cameras and also about the perceived quality differences of different formats. Here is my reply with a few minor tweaks…

In terms of Sony's size progress, I assume that you are referring to the camera bodies almost exclusively. With modern electronics and high efficiency batteries, making a body almost as small as the sensor shouldn't really be a huge issue. In fact, the main limiting factor there will probably be heat dissipation, something that Sony has indeed struggled with. Lenses seem to be another matter altogether. One can say that a certain manufacturer has managed to shrink full-frame to almost the size of m43, for example, but that is only true of the body.

My photography is largely centered now on landscape and animal imagery, and I acquire my shots by hiking to the locations that interest me. When I was using Canon gear, a "professional body" and 400mm lens was about all I wanted to carry over a four hour hike, and even then the size of the lens made the setup unwieldy. Since switching to Olympus, I can carry my OM-D E-M1 and three professional zoom lenses with greater ease and comfort than that single Canon lens and body combination. Have I sacrificed anything in results? Not a thing. As stated earlier, I am actually getting better quality results from the Olympus, although also as noted the Olympus body is slightly newer than the Canon.

Now, all other factors being equal, a larger sensor camera will tend to produce cleaner (read as less noisy) images, however, this isn't always the case and isn't always ideal either. Street photographers, for instance, have always often preferred the gritty look that a little grain (noise) introduces into their imagery, especially when leveraging shadowed scenes and monochrome results in low light. The same could be said for styles such as that cinema-noir look that we occasionally see from fashion photographers.

In fact, there are advantages and disadvantages to every format and technology out there. I think it does photographers a disservice to dismiss one option over another as it reduces choice. While I agree that tiny film formats like 110 produced snapshot quality images at best, this was just fine for families that needed to save some money, and carry something that mum could fit in her purse. There were also art photographers who leveraged the specific characteristics of that format to obtain the "look" they wanted. We should remember that photography, like painting or drawing, is an art form. This should recommend that we embrace any tool that gives us creative options rather than dismissing one format or another because the marketers out there want their product to succeed and a competing product to disappear from the shops.

Medium format absolutely has its place and is brilliant in the right circumstances, such as the studio where its weight and size is not an encumbrance but its pixel quantity and light gathering capabilities can excel. 24x36, or so-called "full-frame," is ideal for manufacturers who have learned to exploit the market very well indeed based on its perceived advantages. It also seems to work well for many landscape photographers/wedding photographers who are able to handle the transport issues its lenses create. APS-C and m43 offer almost identical performance parameters, frankly; although, APS-C is marketed as a kind of gateway to full-frame, which means that its adherents often wind up owning big heavy "full-frame" lenses so they loose the weight and size advantage that the format should provide, while only occasionally "moving up" to full-frame anyway.

If you really want to make an argument for what to keep, which I think would be a mistake, then you could say keep the cell phone, keep micro four thirds and keep medium format. Each offers a comprehensive ecosystem that isn't just tied to another format the way that APS-C and "Full-Frame" are. Also, given that medium format can now be made as small in weight and size as full-frame, the arguments most try to apply against m43 could also be applied against full-frame.

Honestly, one should just find what they like and use it.

Creativity and the Image Quality Myth

I guess I take issue with all of the conversations regarding Image Quality (IQ) that one reads on the Net, in part because they are ultimately arguments about gear, and more specifically about sensor size and camera make. Bantering back and forth about which camera is best, based on a subjective list of qualifiers is nothing less than short sighted nonsense.

Photography, like painting, drawing, printmaking or sculpture, to name a few related pursuits, is a creative endeavour. We don’t all go out and shoot the same brick wall, the same way, with the same light, and then compare results to see which camera captured the most detail with the least noise in order to decide who took the best photo! What we do is make images designed to capture the imagination, tell a story, or inspire the observer in some other way.

Sometimes, the photographer can achieve a successful image through incredible colour, carefully balanced composition, finely rendered detail, a uniquely positioned point of view, compelling subject matter, striking juxtapositions, timing of the moment, an eye for structure, incorporating tantalising textures, or through combinations of some, or all, of these elements, and more besides...

Knowing what to photograph, when, where, and how, then processing it as, or if, needed to realise your vision is far more important than whether a particular camera can shoot at 5, 10, or 20 frames a second. It is more important than whether Camera A is likely to produce less noise at some specific ISO setting than Camera B.

Or is it?

Given that artists are seeking to fulfil a specific and unique vision, it just may be useful that Camera A produces less noise than Camera B, or perhaps, it will work out the other way around. The thing is, photography, as I said above, is a creative pursuit. With that in mind, it may prove advantageous to understand the differences in colour, contrast, noise, etc. that distinguishes one camera, or one lens, from another. but not necessarily for the common IQ reasons argued about on the photo forums. The creative photographer might need the so-called poor noise performance, of Camera B to help get the look he really wants.

Instead of paying homage to hype, and eventually paying more money in pursuit of a common standard of image quality, you might find it far more profitable to do things a little differently, and in so doing, find something much more uncommon. In this day and age of mass everything, where every new look is instantly duplicated a million times over, it is easy to produce technically excellent images day after day without anyone ever really taking notice. It is more likely that you will be noticed, not for doing what everyone else is doing, but for doing something special - the ability to consistently produce the compelling AND the unique is probably far more valuable. In photography, as in life, it is probably better to lead than to follow, to be a trend setter than to be a trend adopter.

If there is one thing worth remembering, it is that image quality is really about producing photos that successfully reflect your vision. Attempting to achieve what others covet will likely result, if you are successful, in producing the same old, same old. Ask yourself, is the same old same old really likely to attract anyone for more than a moment, no matter how technologically proficient you and your camera may be? If it’s same old, it’s really just same old, no matter the cost of admission.

Enough About Sensor Size Already!

You can't directly compare digital sensors and film. It's apples and oranges really. I worked with film in my own darkroom many years ago, and as an analog process, the negative image on the film is "enlarged" by projecting light through it onto the photosensitive paper. Both film and paper have a grain, and the image had to be recorded to film through a camera lens with all its imperfections and then projected though the film, with its grain, via an enlarger lens with all of its imperfections. The smaller the image on film, the greater the imperfections and grain appeared once enlarged.

Digital is a little different. We aren't talking about "grain" but about detail. A digital value can be recorded on a tiny pixel or a big pixel, it can then be translated by a printer onto paper or displayed on a computer screen. The pixel's value is numeric and will remain the same no matter how big or small it was. Also, sensor performance is such that we are getting to the point, at least at "normal ISOs," where frankly, you would be hard pressed, if not entirely stymied, in any attempt to tell the difference in image quality between a 1" sensor and a full frame sensor. This bigger versus smaller sensor argument is getting really old to the point where it is more of a marketing tool for purveyors of so-called "full-frame" formats than an indication of any sort of noticeable quality differential.

For the vast majority of photographers, a more practical consideration might be system weight, cost, and/or size. At some point people will probably begin to look at photographers with full-frame dslrs the same way we would now look at someone carrying a VHS video camera instead of an digital 8 type of device. Remember all those giant video cameras people would take on their cross country trips? Who would do that now?

I put my Canon gear on the shelf a year ago and switched to Olympus M43s. The only differences in output quality worth mentioning are related to the age of the equipment rather than the size of the sensors. The slightly newer Olympus gear gives me better dynamic range and better low light performance. Otherwise, both systems offer great image quality. The real benefit, for me, to the m43s gear is its much smaller footprint and much lighter weight. The Canon body was big and heavy, and its lenses offered an even more substantial size and weight penalty. As for prices, well, take a look at “L” glass and decide for yourself.

Frankly, beyond all of the hype, buying the most expensive camera in the world won't make you a better photographer. If you want to take good pictures, stop looking at gear and practice taking photos with whatever you happen to have at hand. Also, consider this, beyond the attributes that people identify tin their efforts to define image quality, different cameras, formats, brands, and etc., will create files with different looks. Consider this a good thing as it will offer you a way to make something a little different from what the next guy is making – not necessarily better, or worse, but uniquely your own.