The story of the image below is equally a stretch for gear junkies. Strange as it may seem I took this image with a camera from a line of cameras that has been totally discontinued. Lens now orphaned. A relic of the dark past of digital imaging. The photo was taken nearly ten years ago, unposed, with a Sony a99 camera and the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 lens for the "a" mount Sony cameras. I expected it to be a soft, grainy mess but here we are. Sharp enough, perfectly exposed and used many times over in the theatre's marketing.
All from cameras that have been long since relegated to the junk pile of photographic gear.....
Ah well. Just reminiscing. Click either image to see it larger.
15 comments:
There's a lesson in this photo for all of us. Older cameras - even digital cameras - can make fine images. And, if they still work for their owners, there's no reason they can't keep going as long as there are media and batteries for them. It's useful to be reminded of this occasionally.
It’s also interesting that a camera just shy of ten years old, long since discontinued, could crank out images of that quality shooting at ISO 3200 under some really demanding lighting conditions. Maybe I should loosen up and push my G9 beyond ISO 1600.
I think all my cameras are at least ten years old now. OK, I'm not a pro, so I have no need for the latest and greatest gear, but I suspect that I am part of a larger demographic:
1) Hobby photographer
2) Rarely, if ever print beyond A4 size (~ 8" x 12")
3) Current cameras are 'good enough' for my simple needs
4) I cannot justify the eye-watering sums required to buy into a modern system, e.g. Canon mirrorless.
I loved my Nikon F3P's with aftermarket Beattie IntenScreens and F1.4 or F2 glass, making for a bright optical viewfinder. Allowing me to compose by "feel" and look wherever I wanted in the finder choosing the thing that would be my (manual) focusing "point". I still look back and love the way I composed and shot with those 1980's MF bodies. Maybe I liked what I shot because I was doing 3 to 14 assignments a day.
AF really did handcuff that with dimmer screens making MF challenging, limited AF points and other issues like tiny viewfinders on early digital bodies. Interestingly, as a then-news photographer, I won a lion's share of my awards using those ineffective, obsolete and inferior early digital bodies with all of their "problems".
Guess I'll go back to packing a couple (maybe 3 because of aging shutters) of my obsolete yet still enjoyable 2014-vintage Nikon D750's for a headshot job tomorrow.
There was a feel to and a way of working with those fully MF bodies that, interestingly, I'm only able to revisit after all these years with focus peaking and MF on a new Nikon mirrorless body. It feels a bit full-circle to me.
I've got an 11x14 print on exhibit with my local club of a photo taken at Chaco Canyon in 2006 with an 8Mpx Canon 20D. It was printed on the Epson 2200, my first photo printer, and it still looks great. Hard to imagine, isn't it?
Dick
Not strange at all. I took many nice karate sports photographs with my Olympus OM1 film camera.
I can see why that shot was used many times over for theatre marketing... it's lusciously beautiful !
I still use a Canon 20D and an older 100-300mm lens for photos of planes in the air at airshows. Saves me from spending money on a similar lens for my newer Sony cameras.
My old Panasonic GX1 with a (gasp) mf 50mm Summicron takes outstanding photos. So does my old Nikon D70s.
There's something less clinical about the colours from old cameras - film and digi.
They got them wrong more often (or, okay,I mussed up lighting/white balance) but when it clicked you got something painterly.
Although you can reproduce almost anything in post,it sometimes all ends up looking a bit clinical (same for lenses).
I'm sure the newest cameras take wonderful images of test charts ,but I do wonder if,by engineering out character, we're getting more consistent,but less interesting photos.
I've gone back to playing with film for a bit. Doing portraits of people coming out of lockdowns they seem to relax knowing that they won't see themselves instantly...
Mark
Of course you are right Kirk.
And of course you are wrong.
..
"gear doen't matter" (true)
"gear does! matter" (true)
My wife has a couple very nice medium-large prints on her office wall taken with my Olympus E5 and its crappy, noisy 10mp 4/3 sensor, including a highly detailed, cropped Raven photo at iso 6400 that looks great. I really think the key is the lens system, and pre mirrorless 4/3's cameras had what is still my favorite lens system. I kind of miss them.
Your personal camera of 2012 was the NEX-7, I have just re-read your original post.
I bought mine in 2012 and use it to this day. Still a great little camera, lovely 24Mb sensor in a very nice body that doesn't hark back to the 'good old days' of film photography.
In reality, a 24Mb APS-C sensor is where it's at, or should be. But where's the profit...........
I always think it’s funny when people post about how true professionals only use the latest generation of whatever systems they use. As though last years top of the line isn’t even a good paperweight.
Good Morning
Yes, how did we do it? Using those old junk camera and lenses, how did the people before us do it? Now days you do not have to know a thing about photography to get a good image. The law of averages say, if you shoot 10,000 images 1 maybe good. The camera does it all. Put it in the P mode do a YouTube video on how great you are, and there you you have it, your a "Pro," but you must have the best bells and whistles to get there.
I wish film was cheaper I'd go back to the darkroom.
Have fun
Roger
Post a Comment