This photograph is amazingly sharp. Just out of the ballpark.
It was done with a sub-$100 lens on a Leica SL2 body.
No built in lens profiles, no stabilization, no AF.
Just very nice glass in a well built tube...
I guess it's human nature to want to use the full potential of the tools we own. If you have a 47 megapixel, full frame camera it's assumed that you'll set it for raw file capture, put a zillion dollar lens on the front and shoot at its full resolution. But I would ask... if you buy a high performance car that can achieve 150+ mph does that mean that you always have to drive it all out? Does the tachometer always have to be pegged? Isn't most driving done "in town" on roads with 30 mph speed limits? Just a thought.
I bought a TTartisan 23mm f1.4 lens a while back for the L mount. It's an APS-C lens. It definitely does NOT cover the full 24 x 36 mm frame of a full frame camera. But on an APS-C camera the angle of view corresponds to a popular 35mm focal length on a full frame camera. When I used the lens on a Leica TL2 or CL I was impressed by the sharpness, color and lack of vignetting at the f-stops I normally take advantage of; f4.0- f8.0.
It's a really good lens for the price and I plan on getting a lot of use out of it. But....
I really like the color science and the ergonomics of the Leica SL2 and I'd also like to shoot a 35mm style lens on that camera as well. I have a lens for it. It's the original Sigma 35mm f1.4 lens in the L mount. It's huge and weighs a ton. Sure, it's very sharp and well corrected but it can be a burden to tote around. And when I shoot with the SL2 and the full frame lens I reflexively shoot the full resolution of the camera. And often use the raw format. But there are times when I wished that I could use a lens that's smaller, lighter and easier to carry around. So yesterday I decided to do the usual walk but instead of using a full frame lens I grabbed the 23mm TTA and put it on the camera.
I had hoped that using an APS-C lens and setting the camera for the APS-C format would trigger some internal logic which would compel the camera to write only the cropped raw file. I set the camera for raw+Jpg and went out for the walk. By setting the raw+jpeg in APS-C the camera did indeed show the cropped image across the full frame of the viewfinder. It was just as if I had the lens mounted on a cropped frame camera. The crop with the typical 1.5 X factor.
I shot merrily as I walked. I tried to photograph tight shots, close-ups, distance shots and everything in between. I even photographed a few frames with the lens wide open. I really liked the handling and the performance of the lens. I laughed a bit since I read that so many people devote so much of their time and money chasing "ultimate" lens performance when I think that comfort in actual use is at least as important and, as TTArtisan seems to be proving (some hit and miss...) they can make highly competitive lenses at small fractions of other makers prices.
There was no image stabilization. I could implement it only by cheating. I could chose a Leica M or R lens profile from the in-camera list. A lens profile that at least matches the focal length of the manual "dumb" lens I wanted to use. That would trigger the ability to use IBIS. But....as I've discovered before each of the canned lens profiles also comes with adjustments to color shift, vignetting and distortion parameters that many times harm the image rather than help if I try to cheat a profile made for one particular lens to a different, third party lens. Other than that the camera and lens interfaced perfectly.
When I got back home and looked at the files I realized that the raw files are always going to be presented in the full 35mm frame. In this case the raw files are shown as nice photos inside a black circle because....the lens doesn't cover the frame. But the Jpegs were perfect. They were written as APS-C files so no cropping or corrections had to be done.
So, what are the advantages of pressing a small, light lens into service on a camera with so much full frame potential? Well for one thing the files sizes are smaller. I also gain about a stop of depth of field. The entire package of camera and lens is much reduced making it a happier street shooting package. Manual focus lenses can be fast and fun to work with when image peaking and smaller apertures are engaged. And...under $100 USD. Seems just right to me.
What was I thinking? Not much. I just wanted to see how the lens would perform on a camera I really like. And still, at the crop format size, be able to have a high resolution file. If you are willing to work at your technique many of these inexpensive lenses can do admirable and professional work. At least I think I could get people to pay for images made with this combo. Of course you could spend thousands of dollars and get a Leica M mount 35mm Summicron lens and an M to L mount adapter and have the same size plus the "benefit" of the full resolution of the full frame camera. But where's the fun in that? Here are the samples. Decide for yourself.
I'm a walking advertisement for REI.
The pants, the shirt and the bucket hat.
You can't see my shoes but I got them at REI too.
No affiliation. No links here. But boy...
am I stylin'
one foot away from reality.
Ah. A rich frame filed with color and tones.
The camera and lens seem to "do" reds just fine.
A Veblen car. Mike would not be happy...
Sure. The added depth of field helped.
OT: Swim practice was exhilarating this morning. The water chillers were working overnight and the water was nicely cool; brisk. We did a monster set that went:
19 x 75 yard sprints with descending intervals. The last five should be "touch and go." Followed by a 100 recovery swim.
19 x 50 yard sprints with descending intervals. The last five should be close to best times. Followed by a 100 recovery swim.
19 x25 yard sprints -- all out -- on an interval that allowed for maximum effort. Followed by a 100 recovery swim.
I never figured out why we were doing 19 of each distance....
Coaches are working in a lot of HIT workouts lately which stands for High Intensity Training. They are trying to get us out of the habit of finding comfortable workout paces and getting us to swim closer to our racing times to build an acceptance of pain in return for speed. It seemed to work that way this morning.
If you are not exercising for at least an hour every day you are accelerating toward an endpoint you might not want. You don't have to train all out. An hour walk works almost as well. But everyone makes their own choices...
Speaking of choices...
Have you seen Michael Johnston's weekend post? He asks if the "Hobby of Photography" is getting priced out of reach of hobbyists? What do you think?
I get the statistics of inequality but I also know that most of our readers are highly privileged, high earners (at least during their careers) and professionals with college degrees. Is what we're seeing in the photography gear world really a progression toward unaffordability or are people just trying to have it all? Big cars, big houses, big toys AND a full complement of the latest cameras? I'd be interested to see what my readers think.
12 comments:
Pretty nice micro 43 panasonic cameras available with kit lens for less than $1000. Should be in the range of must people if they want a real camera.
Greetings Kirk -
I disagree on the progression toward unaffordability aspect.
There are thousands of used, refurbished and discounted cameras out there which will offer wonderful photographs and videos at almost any price point. As you grow and get more involved then you can move up the price scale as needed. Plus digital files mean no film developing costs and you can post your photos on many sites for free. Not to mention that newer smart phones can cover subjects just fine & many consider a smart phone as a must own anyway.
The key is to combine good research and knowledge into selecting the best set-up for what you need. If you are intentional about this then the results will come along just fine.
If you focus on the process, your gear will come along just fine.
Chris in Wisconsin
I am not sure that photography is becoming that much more unaffordable than anything else. I have never generated any income from my work so it’s always been sort of a stretch to buy some of the gear I wanted. And I have never been able to buy some of the gear I wanted. It’s the other stuff becoming so much more expensive that will put the brakes on my spending.
Mike Johnston is wrong, but it suits his narrative to say that photography is becoming too expensive for hobbyists and he is obsessed with Leica, but to explain why he doesn’t like them, dismisses them, rather perjoratively, as Veblen goods.
I’m glad youve set the parameters about the economics and I would say it’s about choice and what you do with yourself and your money. If I want to buy another Leica, I will and have been looking at the remaining new film cameras in their inventory, the MA and MP. Could prove to be a good buy especially with the secondhand value of my M6 closing in on them in value.
I saw earlier today that Leica and Panasonic announced another partnership; L Squared Technology. It seems they will share more input with each other as they are designing cameras, rather than simply rebadging each other's offerings.
It will be interesting to see where that goes; sounds like it could be good news news for fans of L-mount for APS-C.
I'll happily keep my T in the meantime.
The last shot. The bridge. I've seen a hundred shots from you of that bridge but this is beautifully layered and very, very three dimensional. A one hundred dollar lens? Wow!
-R.A.
I've been fairly careful with my buying of photo equipment; often preferring second tier cameras and top tier lenses. I've more often bought used rather than new equipment. It's not that I couldn't afford all new top tier equipment; it just makes little sense to me. And, I've been quite happy with most of that equipment and still have most of it.
As you, and many others, have pointed out most cameras today are more than adequate for the kinds of work I do -political events/demonstrations, landscapes, a little street, etc. with almost nothing for pay. So there's little need/interest in the latest/greatest. For me the most important factors beyond a set of baseline features available on all cameras today is the feel of the camera in my hands; how easy is it to use; and do I want to pick it up whenever I go out. I'd take my little Fuji X100V or Leica CL over the heavier, bulkier whatever latest/greatest on the market.
The sites I follow are skewed toward older more wealthy readers, but I don’t think it means that just because the cameras we buy are expensive, others view the offerings in the same way. When I started my hobby, a Pentax ME Super was expensive for me and I could only afford Vivitar and Tokina zooms. Didn’t diminish the fun. I was jealous of the pros with their Nikons and fast glass, but never thought I’d give up the hobby because of what I could or couldn’t afford in the future.
Then again, I used to want a Veblen car but just bought a used Miata, because it’s just more fun than a McLaren or Porsche unless you have your own race track.
Started my photo business with an ancient, well used Canon FTb a used 24mm lens, a used nifty fifty and a 135mm Vivitar lens. Didn't crimp my style...
I think Mike just has to let his inner lefty out once in a while, which usually doesn't bother me, because I also have an inner lefty. But: my first really decent camera, bought in 1968 or right around there, was a Pentax Spotmatic and it cost me right around $200 with a 50mm or 55mm lens IIRC. I also bought a 35mm and a 135mm at the same time, and they cost me a bit more than an $100, I think. At the time, I was making about $100 a week as a beginning reporter, with a wife and a baby...so, three weeks pay, more or less, for a pretty good outfit. The average US family now makes around $1300 a week. Three week's pay is about $3,900. Could you get a decent ILC and two or three primes for $3,900? Yes, you could.
Mike's little economics lecture about the 1% before the camera talk somewhat annoyed me, and I may have let my crankyness out because he didn't post my reply. Most 1% lectures is made-up BS for the most part. You need to have a family income of a bit more than $500,000 annually to make it into the top 1% in the US. Doctors (as an example) earn a but more than $300,000 annually, on average. That means that a married couple, both docs who met in med school, probably make it into the 1%. I understand that they are quite affluent, and also quite heavily taxed. But when people start lecturing about "the 1%," the imagination defaults to the Bezos and the Gates of the world, with their enormous yachts and private planes and oversized mansions. For the huge proportion of the 1%, that's not what we have. We usually have professional working people and small businessmen, who own, perhaps, a couple of McDonalds franchises. Ripping on the 1% (I am one) annoys me because I got there by working my ass off, I'm 78 and I'm still working my ass off. That's the same with most of the 1%.
Anyway, I don't think hobbyists are being priced out of photography. I think enthusiast photography is probably less expensive for the average guy than it used to be. It was never a cheap hobby if you wanted the best equipment; of course, it was never really necessary to have the best equipment to enjoy yourself and make some damn good prints. I remember making some prints from a newly purchased RZ67 and thinking that I was a friggin' moron. I didn't need that camera; I bought it (and it was a stretch) because it was cool to have it, but it wasn't cool to use it for the stuff I did.
We all make choices. We all have priorities. I can't count myself as being in the 1% for annual income but nor am I on the verge of dissolution either. In the end net worth trumps everything else financially. But your ability to be present and really enjoy life without endlessly comparing your situation with everyone else's is the key.
Generally, if one of my relatives complains about prices of things they want but don't need I suggest they....make more money.
JC thanks for the comment, I had many of the same thoughts.
I don't give shit about the economy or whatever money topic. I just want to say that people are missing the real point to Kirt's post. The images are freaking awesome from a $100 lens. They are freaking awesome. Forget your 401Ks. Look at the f-ing photo samples! That first one is the definition of sharpness.
Post a Comment