Jump to content
IGNORED

I think I'm bored with audio now.


Hailey

Recommended Posts

As someone who has owned and used some of the best cameras going back more than 50 years, I can attest that, at least, with Nikon's high-end Coolpix cameras with wide zoom ranges (42, 62, and 83X) those limitations are negligible. And truth to tell, no 35mm or smaller digital sensor size gives as good an image as Panatomic X or good 'ol Kodachrome. But then film quality is the goal, and we aren't there yet with still photography. The sensors and the lenses are getting better. Also, the world's finest resolution and the world's best lenses won't do one any good if the camera system is such a bulky pain-in-the-ass that one will leave it at home more than one is apt to carry it with them. That was my dilemma. I'll gladly give up a little image quality to have a versatile camera that I will take with me most anywhere. The Coolpix P900 with it's 24 mm to 2000 mm equivalent focal length in ONE lens and it's fast shutter speed, essentially zero latency and it's variable DIN equivalent (100 - 6400) and 4608 X 3456 resolution fits my current needs for a camera to a degree that I wouldn't have thought possible a few years ago. – and they keep getting better all the time!

 

I don't think your statement that modern sensors are not reaching the quality of analog film is one that many photographers today would subscribe too. Look at the latest FF sensors; technically (dynamic range, resolution) they are better than silver based films ever were.

 

And with regards to the best size/quality ratio, I personally find the APS-C format in my Fuji X100T the best compromise between portability, resolution, and especially low light performance.

 

That said, I have the FF Leica Q (28mm prime) on my "need to get it at some point". So far, I must admit the price point, even if "cheap" by Leica standards, has put me off so far (there are many other toys you can buy for €4000+).

Link to comment
As someone who has owned and used some of the best cameras going back more than 50 years, I can attest that, at least, with Nikon's high-end Coolpix cameras with wide zoom ranges (42, 62, and 83X) those limitations are negligible. And truth to tell, no 35mm or smaller digital sensor size gives as good an image as Panatomic X or good 'ol Kodachrome. But then film quality is the goal, and we aren't there yet with still photography. The sensors and the lenses are getting better. Also, the world's finest resolution and the world's best lenses won't do one any good if the camera system is such a bulky pain-in-the-ass that one will leave it at home more than one is apt to carry it with them. That was my dilemma. I'll gladly give up a little image quality to have a versatile camera that I will take with me most anywhere. The Coolpix P900 with it's 24 mm to 2000 mm equivalent focal length in ONE lens and it's fast shutter speed, essentially zero latency and it's variable DIN equivalent (100 - 6400) and 4608 X 3456 resolution fits my current needs for a camera to a degree that I wouldn't have thought possible a few years ago. – and they keep getting better all the time!

 

As I said, it all depends on one's needs.

 

The image quality of an 83x zoom will not be as good as that of a short range zoom or even less as good as that of a fixed focal length but for many uses and users it'll be good enough (though personally I am partial against "swiss army knives" that are enough for a lot of uses but excel at none).

The smaller sensor allows for longer zoom ranges, closer macros and smaller/lighter bodies but will not perform as well at high ISOs - it's an unavoidable fact - and the DOF will not be as shallow.

Besides, apparently the P900 doesn't do RAW which for me is mandatory, and I say this as a Fuji user who is allowed some amazing straight out of the camera JPEGs.

Another problem, for me, would be the tiny viewfinder for I am unable to frame with the rear LCD.

 

Finally, I don't agree that digital image quality isn't up to film quality; in fact, I would say it's surpassed it in most if not all aspects, just as digital audio has surpassed analogue in most if not all aspects.

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
As I said, it all depends on one's needs.

 

The image quality of an 83x zoom will not be as good as that of a short range zoom or even less as good as that of a fixed focal length but for many uses and users it'll be good enough (though personally I am partial against "swiss army knives" that are enough for a lot of uses but excel at none).

The smaller sensor allows for longer zoom ranges, closer macros and smaller/lighter bodies but will not perform as well at high ISOs - it's an unavoidable fact - and the DOF will not be as shallow.

Besides, apparently the P900 doesn't do RAW which for me is mandatory, and I say this as a Fuji user who is allowed some amazing straight out of the camera JPEGs.

Another problem, for me, would be the tiny viewfinder for I am unable to frame with the rear LCD.

 

Finally, I don't agree that digital image quality isn't up to film quality; in fact, I would say it's surpassed it in most if not all aspects, just as digital audio has surpassed analogue in most if not all aspects.

 

R

 

Side note, I wonder why there is no equivalent to Fujifilm in Hifi, combining beautiful retro looks with up to date modern technology, great build quality and excellent usability.

 

I'm not aware of any Hifi electronics brand that pulls this off as well as Fuji.

Link to comment
As I said, it all depends on one's needs.

 

The image quality of an 83x zoom will not be as good as that of a short range zoom or even less as good as that of a fixed focal length but for many uses and users it'll be good enough (though personally I am partial against "swiss army knives" that are enough for a lot of uses but excel at none).

 

Well, Semente, you are certainly a champion of the incredibly obvious this night, aren't you? :)

 

The smaller sensor allows for longer zoom ranges, closer macros and smaller/lighter bodies but will not perform as well at high ISOs - it's an unavoidable fact - and the DOF will not be as well shallow.

Besides, apparently the P900 doesn't do RAW which for me is mandatory, and I say this as a Fuji user who is allowed some amazing straight out of the camera JPEGs.

Another problem, for me, would be the tiny viewfinder for I am unable to frame with the rear LCD.

 

Certainly, a new Hassleblad two-and-a-quarter digital camera would have film-like resolution, but smaller sensors, not yet. OTOH, The "tiny viewfinder" has about the same field of view as a 35mm reflex camera. Yes, the camera has no RAW resolution, that's true, but at this stage, I can live with that.

 

Finally, I don't agree that digital image quality isn't up to film quality; in fact, I would say it's surpassed it in most if not all aspects, just as digital audio has surpassed analogue in most if not all aspects.

 

not yet, but soon enough.

 

R

George

Link to comment
Well, Semente, you are certainly a champion of the incredibly obvious this night, aren't you? :)

 

Well, it was early in the morning over here, perhaps that explain's it.

 

In any case, what's "incredibly obvious" to you might not be so for others.

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
Wow, That's impressive. I've never tried photographing the moon, but, the image stabilization on the Coolpix P900 is VERY good. I'll have to try it sometime.

 

What kind of lens? Looks like a picture through an astronomical telescope.

 

Thanks. It's 500/4+2x+1.4x. The older Canon IS wonders aimlessly when sitting on tripod. So it's stabilization off and mirror lock up. Anything above 1000mm you could easily see the moon moving across the viewfinder. It's a rather surreal experience :)

Link to comment
Side note, I wonder why there is no equivalent to Fujifilm in Hifi, combining beautiful retro looks with up to date modern technology, great build quality and excellent usability.

 

I'm not aware of any Hifi electronics brand that pulls this off as well as Fuji.

 

How's this for retro (1980's) with modern technology, released within the last six months 2016.

 

c-3850.jpg

AS Profile Equipment List        Say NO to MQA

Link to comment
How's this for retro (1980's) with modern technology, released within the last six months 2016.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29269[/ATTACH]

 

That's a good one, I really like Accuphase (although I'm generally not big into the "champagne + wood look").

 

However, I probably should have added "reasonably priced" to the list of criteria above.

Link to comment
As I said, it all depends on one's needs.

 

The image quality of an 83x zoom will not be as good as that of a short range zoom or even less as good as that of a fixed focal length but for many uses and users it'll be good enough (though personally I am partial against "swiss army knives" that are enough for a lot of uses but excel at none).

The smaller sensor allows for longer zoom ranges, closer macros and smaller/lighter bodies but will not perform as well at high ISOs - it's an unavoidable fact - and the DOF will not be as shallow.

Besides, apparently the P900 doesn't do RAW which for me is mandatory, and I say this as a Fuji user who is allowed some amazing straight out of the camera JPEGs.

Another problem, for me, would be the tiny viewfinder for I am unable to frame with the rear LCD.

 

Finally, I don't agree that digital image quality isn't up to film quality; in fact, I would say it's surpassed it in most if not all aspects, just as digital audio has surpassed analogue in most if not all aspects.

 

R

 

Another problem is that small lenses, no matter how well made, hit the diffraction limit pretty soon. It's physics, no way around it.

Link to comment
That's a good one, I really like Accuphase (although I'm generally not big into the "champagne + wood look").

 

However, I probably should have added "reasonably priced" to the list of criteria above.

 

Whoopsie, leaves this right out:

 

products-momentum-mono.jpg

 

(I'm a huge fan of the steampunk look, probably due to reading a bunch of science fiction. Lots of other folks detest it.)

One never knows, do one? - Fats Waller

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. - Einstein

Computer, Audirvana -> optical Ethernet to Fitlet3 -> Fibbr Alpha Optical USB -> iFi NEO iDSD DAC -> Apollon Audio 1ET400A Mini (Purifi based) -> Vandersteen 3A Signature.

Link to comment
In the old "film days", I would often just carry my Leica M3 and its 50mm f1.4 Summilux, to save carrying all that bulk. Then I bought an Olympus XA and found that it had a superb 35mm f2.8 lens and took to carrying that with me. Much lighter and would fit easily in my pocket. But I missed the interchangeable lenses. So, I went back to the SLRs.

 

I think you will find that a Nikon Coolpix P900 will more than adequately address all of your concerns. If you still find the P900 too big and heavy (at 31 ounces, with lens) and could do with a 42X zoom (24-1000 mm equivalent) instead of an 83X (24-2000 mm) the Nikon Coolpix P530 weighs only 17 ounces all inclusive and operationally and performance-wise is, as far as I can see, essentially identical to the P900. It just lacks a few features like a swivel LCD screen on the back (big whoop!) and built-in Wi-Fi.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]29203[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]29204[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]29205[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]29206[/ATTACH]

 

George,

 

I will be the first to admit there is little I don't understand about photography and have been a photography buff since my Uncle Hy turned me on to photography. One thing I learned, no matter how much money I spent on equipment, upgraded to the latest and best, must have lenses, was that I sucked as a photographer. The definition of a "photographer" is the issue. When I see your pictures, I see you understand composition and the picture really tells the story. Kudos. I hear people arguing about this sensor, DR, bokeh, DXO specs, etc but greater than 90% have no ability to compose which is what makes a good/great photographer.

 

I had a very good friend, who unfortunately passed too soon from a motorcycle accident, who was truly an artist with his camera. He studied the zone system from an Adams disciple for years until there was nothing left to teach him. His photos are all over the 4 corners and when he died in 2002 his wife gave me some photos he never showed. Truly remarkable. He was one of these people when you driving on the turnpike and he would scream pull over; in a panic I would pull over and he would pull out his Mamiya 7 or his Hasselblad (occasionally his Nikon) jump out of the car with his monopod or tripod and take a picture. I would respond what the f--k is your major malfunction. The rest of the afternoon he would spend in his darkroom and emerge with a work of art.

 

Point is some of us (like you) see the picture while most of us point and shoot (regardless of what we spend) and call ourselves a "photographer". By the way, I like your last picture the best and second the least.

Link to comment
I will be the first to admit there is little I don't understand about photography and have been a photography buff since my Uncle Hy turned me on to photography. One thing I learned, no matter how much money I spent on equipment, upgraded to the latest and best, must have lenses, was that I sucked as a photographer. The definition of a "photographer" is the issue. When I see your pictures, I see you understand composition and the picture really tells the story. Kudos. I hear people arguing about this sensor, DR, bokeh, DXO specs, etc but greater than 90% have no ability to compose which is what makes a good/great photographer.

 

I agree completely. Without good composition, the picture will be terrible with any camera. Conversely, a skilled photographer can perform miracles with modest equipment. However, there are times where a great composition requires a minimum level of gear to be adequately captured. That is why the expensive stuff exists in the first place.

Link to comment
I agree completely. Without good composition, the picture will be terrible with any camera. Conversely, a skilled photographer can perform miracles with modest equipment. However, there are times where a great composition requires a minimum level of gear to be adequately captured. That is why the expensive stuff exists in the first place.

 

YUP.

 

One of the things that always pissed me off was that my mother-in-law would take this crappy camera on her vacations and take these amazing pictures (in the days of film). I would shoot away, using all my gear, schlepping the stuff all over only to be disappointed with just about every shot I took. Digital has obviously made better "photographers" out of most of us BUT I still suck and am man enough to admit it. I have a few pictures that serendipitously have come out beautiful but I admit to not having the skill or patience despite the knowledge.

 

Incidentally, one of the "best" post-processing plug-in/app I have ever used was Lucis. Unfortunately she just went out of business and you can no longer get it, except if you know someone who has a license and the program.

Link to comment
I will be the first to admit there is little I don't understand about photography and have been a photography buff since my Uncle Hy turned me on to photography. One thing I learned, no matter how much money I spent on equipment, upgraded to the latest and best, must have lenses, was that I sucked as a photographer. The definition of a "photographer" is the issue. When I see your pictures, I see you understand composition and the picture really tells the story. Kudos. I hear people arguing about this sensor, DR, bokeh, DXO specs, etc but greater than 90% have no ability to compose which is what makes a good/great photographer.

So true. I'll take Ansel Adams with a disposable 35mm camera over an amateur with the best camera on the market, any day. Cameras are just tools. The rest is all about the person using the tools.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
So true. I'll take Ansel Adams with a disposable 35mm camera over an amateur with the best camera on the market, any day. Cameras are just tools. The rest is all about the person using the tools.

 

Analogous to high audio, where my rule is NEVER TELL YOUR WIFE HOW MUCH IT COSTS, in my days of collecting 1st editions, I had a signed Adams "Yosemite and the Range of Light" with one of HIS originals of Half Moon. Unbeknownst to me, my wife took it from my office and put in on the coffee table in the living room, where my then 3 year old Golden Retriever, Riley, ate some Ansel Adams. I saved a good portion of it but still.......

Link to comment

This raises an interesting aspect of my life. My audio-based interests are all digital. I don't like any analog medium for audio. I grew up on CDs, so that's what I'm used to. And, I don't think vinyl or tape sound good. That's just me. I love digital audio. I think it is capable of reproduction that other formats can't touch.

 

However, when it comes to photography, I am an analog guy. Sure, I have a Canon 5d mk III for the times when I need quick and decent shots (audio shows and a fast moving daughter), but I shoot a Hasselblad 503CW for the most part. I like the analog tools. I like being limited to 12 shots per roll of film. I like metering the light and composing photographs. I like sending my film into a lab several states away and waiting for the results to come back. I also absolutely love the look of the finished product.

 

My family was at an apple orchard this weekend, and I shot with a Super 8, Hasselblad 503CW, and Canon 5d mk III. Different tools for different situations. Shooting digital was literally no fun. The final images we good, but I shot them, loaded them to my computer, looked a them for a couple minutes, sent a few to my mom, and closed the photo app. Not sure if I'll ever see the photos again. On the other hand, the analog video and film has been sent out to different labs. I await the results with bated breath.

 

The Super 8 video has a unique look to it. I love it.

 

The medium format square analog photos that will come back as 5x5 prints, 6x6cm negatives, and digital scans, will be really neat. I'll probably sit at the table with my daughter and show her the prints, and show people who come over to the house. I'll also have the negative, that should last a very long time, if stored properly.

 

It's strange, when it comes to audio, I believe I can get the best and most accurate reproduction with digital. I have a need for the best and most accurate reproduction. When it comes to video and images, I don't care about the most accurate. I have an artistic / creative desire to use analog tools to get a result that pleases me.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Analogous to high audio, where my rule is NEVER TELL YOUR WIFE HOW MUCH IT COSTS, in my days of collecting 1st editions, I had a signed Adams "Yosemite and the Range of Light" with one of HIS originals of Half Moon. Unbeknownst to me, my wife took it from my office and put in on the coffee table in the living room, where my then 3 year old Golden Retriever, Riley, ate some Ansel Adams. I saved a good portion of it but still.......

That's a story for the ages.

Founder of Audiophile Style | My Audio Systems AudiophileStyleStickerWhite2.0.png AudiophileStyleStickerWhite7.1.4.png

Link to comment
Awesome is how I'd describe naked eye observation along the US - Canada border near Hamilton Bay, no horizon glow bleaching out the milky way

 

Heck - *everything* about the sky is awesome. I still get a charge out of taking someone who has never really looked up before with a pair of field binocs, and watching when they first see M42 or M44. ;)

Anyone who considers protocol unimportant has never dealt with a cat DAC.

Robert A. Heinlein

Link to comment
So true. I'll take Ansel Adams with a disposable 35mm camera over an amateur with the best camera on the market, any day. Cameras are just tools. The rest is all about the person using the tools.

 

There was a story where Hemingway bumps into Adams at a social event and asks him what camera he took his impressive photos with. Adams response was to ask him what type writer he wrote all his seminal works on...

Link to comment
So true. I'll take Ansel Adams with a disposable 35mm camera over an amateur with the best camera on the market, any day. Cameras are just tools. The rest is all about the person using the tools.

I agree that the most important factor in photography is the brain behind the camera but one does need an effective tool if we wish to get the job done (though like in audio that doesn't necessarily mean the most expensive).

 

Curiously I have never been interested in landscape photography, perhaps because even the best and most beautiful images fall short of being there by way too much...

I prefer found pictures with people on them.

 

R

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
This raises an interesting aspect of my life. My audio-based interests are all digital. I don't like any analog medium for audio. I grew up on CDs, so that's what I'm used to. And, I don't think vinyl or tape sound good. That's just me. I love digital audio. I think it is capable of reproduction that other formats can't touch.

 

However, when it comes to photography, I am an analog guy. Sure, I have a Canon 5d mk III for the times when I need quick and decent shots (audio shows and a fast moving daughter), but I shoot a Hasselblad 503CW for the most part. I like the analog tools. I like being limited to 12 shots per roll of film. I like metering the light and composing photographs. I like sending my film into a lab several states away and waiting for the results to come back. I also absolutely love the look of the finished product.

 

My family was at an apple orchard this weekend, and I shot with a Super 8, Hasselblad 503CW, and Canon 5d mk III. Different tools for different situations. Shooting digital was literally no fun. The final images we good, but I shot them, loaded them to my computer, looked a them for a couple minutes, sent a few to my mom, and closed the photo app. Not sure if I'll ever see the photos again. On the other hand, the analog video and film has been sent out to different labs. I await the results with bated breath.

 

The Super 8 video has a unique look to it. I love it.

 

The medium format square analog photos that will come back as 5x5 prints, 6x6cm negatives, and digital scans, will be really neat. I'll probably sit at the table with my daughter and show her the prints, and show people who come over to the house. I'll also have the negative, that should last a very long time, if stored properly.

 

It's strange, when it comes to audio, I believe I can get the best and most accurate reproduction with digital. I have a need for the best and most accurate reproduction. When it comes to video and images, I don't care about the most accurate. I have an artistic / creative desire to use analog tools to get a result that pleases me.

Have you tried printing your digital photos?

I find that paper is the right media for a photo to exist...

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
So true. I'll take Ansel Adams with a disposable 35mm camera over an amateur with the best camera on the market, any day. Cameras are just tools. The rest is all about the person using the tools.

Theres an overused, but true, meme ... The Best camera is the one you can be bothers to carry with you.

Eloise

---

...in my opinion / experience...

While I agree "Everything may matter" working out what actually affects the sound is a trickier thing.

And I agree "Trust your ears" but equally don't allow them to fool you - trust them with a bit of skepticism.

keep your mind open... But mind your brain doesn't fall out.

Link to comment
The Super 8 video has a unique look to it. I love it.

 

The medium format square analog photos that will come back as 5x5 prints, 6x6cm negatives, and digital scans, will be really neat. I'll probably sit at the table with my daughter and show her the prints, and show people who come over to the house. I'll also have the negative, that should last a very long time, if stored properly.

 

It's strange, when it comes to audio, I believe I can get the best and most accurate reproduction with digital. I have a need for the best and most accurate reproduction. When it comes to video and images, I don't care about the most accurate. I have an artistic / creative desire to use analog tools to get a result that pleases me.

 

I guess this can be compared to those musicians and producers that prefer using analogue gear and recording techniques for creative reasons.

 

R

 

 

P.S. Though in both cases one can achieve similar results with software.

"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

 

HQPlayer Desktop / Mac mini → Intona 7054 → RME ADI-2 DAC FS (DSD256)

Link to comment
I agree that the most important factor in photography is the brain behind the camera but one does need an effective tool if we wish to get the job done (though like in audio that doesn't necessarily mean the most expensive).

 

Curiously I have never been interested in landscape photography, perhaps because even the best and most beautiful images fall short of being there by way too much...

I prefer found pictures with people on them.

 

R

 

I don't see landscape photography as an attempt to recreate the experience of being there. To me it's the creation of an artwork with the help of nature.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...