High ISO Performance and Fast Lenses

[WayneF]

To be honest Wayne, I looked at the detail shots on your page two and even while you declare f/22 the winner in many cases, I clearly see that the part in focus is noticeable softer which is what it is about here. It's however possible something is wrong with my vision but I'll let others be the judge of that.

Sure, f/22 diffraction does make it slightly softer (so does f/11 being two stops past f/5.6, as is f/22 two stops past f/11), but the f/22 depth of field can improve the picture greatly (some pictures, depending). When comparing slightly vs greatly, you do sort of have to look at the whole picture, but greatly usually wins.

Do you remember the days of shooting ASA 10 Kodachrome? (10 as I recall, around 1960). We thought it was so wonderful, and it was wonderful, but some of it was because even bright sun required shooting not past f/5 to have any shutter speed at all. It was sharp film, but some of the effect was that f/5 also improved our lenses (those in that day). I didn't have Nikon F until about Kodachrome 25. Digital sure has come a long way. But the Kodachrome DOF (and the density range) was real tough sometimes.

Diffraction definitely exists, and DOF definitely exists, and they are definitely related, but I fear the whippersnappers today may not all have the experience to understand everything. And to make it worse, in this respect, we hear some pretty bad advice today.

I said that the smaller the sensor pixels, the more important fast lenses become if you want to have some options left. Technically they could go as small as 1µ with those BSI sensors but they'll become severely diffraction limited. Resolution and detail would suffer when using too slow lenses. DoF has nothing to do with this; it's besides the point.

If you want to crop small or print large with such sensors, you have to be able to open up wide.

That's just wrong. Wait and you will be surprised by the truth. Or you can be surprised today if you just look around, at actual pictures instead of reading the internet.

Whatever the size of any imagined Airy disk, what we see depends on the size of the image viewed, whether it is resampled to 1/16 size to show near full screen on the monitor (when you see 256 pixels combined into one monitor pixel - do you really imagine the original pixel size actually affected the diffraction you can see?)

Or resampled to 1/2 size to print 8x12 inches (and you see 4 pixels in one, but which resample is still enlarged about 9x size, because that is what printers can do). Printing is the harder case.

The DOF AND Diffraction seen depend on the size of the image viewed, how much enlargement of the smaller film or sensor. Fuzziness shows bigger as we enlarge it. I think many people using DOF calculators don't realize the numbers apply to 8x10 inch image enlargements. Monitor images are much smaller (NOT 3000 pixels size), so DOF will appear greater than the calculator indicates. And diffraction will appear less. They look better on the monitor, and it is not dithered color either. The internet geeks don't care, they only see their little calculators, and imagine Airy disks being centered on pixels.

I show my crops on those diffraction pages, and they are quite extreme crops. The first page is 100% crops (except the f/40 ruler is larger, about 1/4 frame height). The second page is not 100%, but almost, it is a very small crop, FX is only about 2x 100% crop.

 

[J-see]

Again, risking the rapsheet of this author also isn't good enough for you to be relevant.

Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter


You somehow seem to assume that someone able to operate a steam engine also knows how to fly a rocket to the moon. Good luck with that.

 

[Woodyg3]

Again, risking the rapsheet of this author also isn't good enough for you to be relevant.

Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter


You somehow seem to assume that someone able to operate a steam engine also knows how to fly a rocket to the moon. Good luck with that.

I assume it is possible to learn to drive a locomotive AND pilot a rocket ship. This is good, as we need different tools for different purposes.

I read all I could stand of the article you posted, J-See, and his conclusions are a little baffling to me. The camera currently on the market with the lowest noise at high ISO and second best image sharpness is the D810, which also has very small pixels at 36 mp. The only camera on the market with better sharpness and detail is the new Canon 5DS with 50 mp. If diffraction caused the problems it is supposed to, these cameras would have no better high ISO performance and certainly no better sharpness than a camera with a12 mp sensor.

I enjoy the science, but at some point day to day practical experience has to be taken into consideration. I've been taking photos for a half century, and I would much rather have a landscape where the flowers in the foreground AND the mountains in the background are reasonably sharp at f/16, vs tack sharp mountains and totally out of focus foreground at f/4.

 

[WayneF]

Again, risking the rapsheet of this author also isn't good enough for you to be relevant.

Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter


You somehow seem to assume that someone able to operate a steam engine also knows how to fly a rocket to the moon. Good luck with that.

I have respect for many of Rogers ideas, but sometimes...

The article as a whole is about noise in pixel size. This part about diffraction again theoretically imagines a diffraction spot size (of some point source we did not photograph), comparing it to the pixels size, and assumes they are all somehow perfectly centered and aligned (all of the megapixels of them are each magically aligned perfectly?) Because of course, that assumption can be calculated, and with this perfect alignment, he claims to compute contrast change of spilled over edges (I think we should know the color of the pixel and spot, and how the spill color compares to the spilled over pixel. What if the adjacent pixel is the same color? Many of mine are...)

Sorry, I can't accept that as a realistic model that will ever affect my shooting. I am aware that stopping down increases diffraction, but I don't worry about pixel size in relation to it. I need to hear how each diffraction spot manages to become perfectly aligned on the center of a pixel. And the color difference of the adjacent pixels. And some explanation how our extended subjects compare to point sources.

I also need an explanation how sometime using f/22 to even f/40 therefore cannot possibly improve an image, when that has been so perfectly clear for (maybe 100) years that it obviously does (at least for lens focal lengths approaching suitable for 35 mm film size, and then better for telephoto lengths). It still worked fine last week, but I have not checked again today.

If pixel size matters to diffraction, which is a blurring (a larger spot on the pixel), why does pixel size not matter to depth of field, which is a blurring (a larger spot on the pixel)? How could they possibly be different? Stopping down seems to improve DOF? Or perhaps pixel size is not a factor of either one?

Mostly, I also need to see actual photo results showing how that notion is fact. Same lens, same everything, except pixel size. You, me, no one, has ever seen such a picture. It makes a nifty notion, but how does it in fact apply to real world pictures? If it in fact actually matters, it should be trivially easy to show in pictures how it actually matters. We can see those things that matter, which is what "it matters" means. Why have we never seen it? We only see contrived graphics, or charts, someones calculator notions. However, I can see my own results. And my bet is on the high resolution version.
Yes, we can of course see that diffraction increases and obviously matters, and DOF too, but not in relation to pixel size.

Again, in the past 25 years, we saw compacts go from about 0.3 mp to at least 16 mp today. Yet in all that time, they have been diffraction limited to about the same f/4 (because of focal length, and d = f/4). Pixel size has had little if any effect on diffraction. Why is that?

To pull out the locomotive, what about Ansel Adam's f90 group in the 1930s? The full purpose was to achieve higher detail in the photos. He was using longer lens on view cameras, maybe 350mm, but I can do 350mm too. It does work better on longer lenses, because of f/d.

You claim it matters. I know you just read it somewhere, but if it matters, it would seem you could easily show me how it actually matters? Just a couple of simple pictures?

I can't. I can only show photo results showing how pixel size is not much factor of diffraction, and that f/22 to even f/40 can obviously in fact improve the picture in many situations. Situations not that special. Often many landscapes, the interesting ones, those with a foreground.

Beginners are losing out if they don't realize and learn when stopping down past f/16 definitely can help. There are times it helps. It is why the lenses provide the way to do it (at least telephotos do).

 

[Bourbon Neat]

Good to see such in depth discussion without personal attacks. I appreciate the points and references offered as this is helpful to us lesser experienced folks in learning.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

Many years ago when I had my first computer with a hard drive it was a total of 10MB. I was wondering why would anyone need this much storage. Now I have 9TB.
Electronics including cameras are impossible to limit. I really don't think any one of us can predict what will be out in 5 years (Look back at the improvements of the last 5 years) Now look forward to what might even be possible 50 years from now by looking at where cameras were 50 years ago.

[FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]

[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]Nikon F, April 1959
[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]
Refer to Michael Liu's [/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]Nikon F site[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica] for detailed info[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, helvetica, verdana, comic sans MS]*[FONT=Arial, helvetica, verdana, comic sans MS] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, helvetica, verdana, comic sans MS]Message Board[/FONT][FONT=Arial, helvetica, verdana, comic sans MS] for various Nikon F models[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]The first Single Lens Reflex (SLR) camera from Nikon - the model that has made Nikon the overwhelming choice for professionals for the last 40 years, a system oriented camera with a revolutionary modular design concept, with [/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]interchangeable viewfinders[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica], focusing screens and a[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]motor driven[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica] capability made this camera a pro's choice and more importantly, created a strong Nikon presence. Remained in production until 1974, it was still available even after the [/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]F2[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica] was officially launched, there was over a million units have been sold worldwide. Together with its debut, Nikon introduced their [/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]first zoom lense[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica], the auto Nikkor Tele zoom 85mm-250mm f4/f4.5. The rangefinder model, [/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica]Nikon S4[/FONT][FONT=Trebucht MS, Arial, helvetica] was also introduced at the same year.[/FONT]​

 

[WayneF]

Many years ago when I had my first computer with a hard drive it was a total of 10MB. I was wondering why would anyone need this much storage. Now I have 9TB.
Electronics including cameras are impossible to limit. I really don't think any one of us can predict what will be out in 5 years (Look back at the improvements of the last 5 years) Now look forward to what might even be possible 50 years from now by looking at where cameras were 50 years ago.



Nikon F, April 1959

Refer to Michael Liu's Nikon F site for detailed info
*Message Board for various Nikon F models

The first Single Lens Reflex (SLR) camera from Nikon - the model that has made Nikon the overwhelming choice for professionals for the last 40 years, a system oriented camera with a revolutionary modular design concept, with interchangeable viewfinders, focusing screens and amotor driven capability made this camera a pro's choice and more importantly, created a strong Nikon presence. Remained in production until 1974, it was still available even after the F2 was officially launched, there was over a million units have been sold worldwide. Together with its debut, Nikon introduced their first zoom lense, the auto Nikkor Tele zoom 85mm-250mm f4/f4.5. The rangefinder model, Nikon S4 was also introduced at the same year.​

That Nikon F (1959) had two adjustable settings, aperture and shutter speed (actually the aperture ring was on the lens).
But it was complex, with many additional features

1. shutter button
2. film advance
3. exposed film frame counter
4. self timer - 3 marked dots to set 3, 6, or 10 seconds.
5. a film rewind
6. a cable release socket
7. a lens socket and release, about the same as today.
8. PC flash sync socket
9. Depth of Field preview button
10. Mirror lockup button
11. Prism release button - could look down at it for a waist level finder, and could swap the viewfinder screen.
12. and of course a release to remove the back to load film.
No light meters. No batteries. It seemed pretty exotic in the day.
I don't think I forgot much, except there was a non-function film speed dial on the bottom, just to remember what was in it. The film speed was what it was of course.

Which was of course the norm in the day, but there were not many SLR then, at least not until Nikon F. More range finders and twin lens reflex, like Rolliflex and Yashica. Hasselblad and Bronica started about the same time as Nikon F.

But that doesn't mean "The first Single Lens Reflex (SLR) camera"? I think the sentence must mean first with motor drive. That it probably was, it grew to be quite a system. Life magazine photographers were the really big deal then, a few dozen of them, traveled world wide like National Geographic photogs, but much bigger, much more prestigious then, like living gods of the photography world, and they used only Nikon F.

Nikon certainly wasn't the first SLR. The Exacta SLR was early, in the 1930s, and not very expensive. Contax SLR was ten years before Nikon, also German. Then Pentax SLR in Japan, 1952 I think, and probably others were earlier SLR too. Nikon had rangefinders, but first SLR was 1959.

I used to drool over the Contax back then, but it was like $350 and I couldn't even imagine it. It had focal plane shutter and a penta prism viewfinder, which simply took your breath away - big, and bright, seemed like magic after being used to range finders. My situation improved, and I did eventually manage a Nikon (a Ftn, a later F model, same but with builtin light meter, with a small mercury battery just for the meter). Nikon had become the really big deal then, at least in my eyes.

The Canon AE-1 was 15-16 years later, but was the first with a CPU chip and automation, which became big in the consumer market.
​

I remember in the day, I was using metal Nikon reloadable film canisters, which were feltless, no scratches.
I still have a few:

The knob in bottom for the camera back rotated to open and close these canisters as the back came loose, and I guess it was a load, because my knob screw shaft failed. I took it to a local camera repair shop in Houston, back in the days when they actually repaired things. Cluttered old shop, hard to imagine today, cluttered work benches, cameras piled everywhere, pretty neat place. The guy turned a new threaded knob shaft on a lathe, and had it ready next day. Worked perfect. It was kinda different times.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I worked for PhotoWorld One Hour photo a number of years ago. This was way before digital. I remember a one of the national meetings we had they passed a photo around for all of us to look at and see what we thought. Was a good looking print. They then told us it was a digital print. They did say it would be a while before we saw anything like this in the market place. The photo to get film quality took 2 hard drives to hold the 1 print.

I think photography has it's own "Moore's law" type of progression. I would never say we have reached any limits in any photographic equipment. Saying something can never get better than "X" is a dangerous statement. The future is bright for all of us in photography. Companies like Nikon must keep up and maintain quality and when a mistake (D600) is made they really need to bend over backward to get in front of it and own the mistake and really do more than needed to make customers happy. Once that mistake was made they should have had a full recall to repair and gone out of their way to make sure all cameras came back. If the problem could not be fixed then the camera should have been replaced. I am picking on this one issue because we all know about it.

With camera phones getting to be as good or even better then some of the point and shoots the DSLR market must surpass our wildest imaginations. I think it can.

 

[J-see]

I assume it is possible to learn to drive a locomotive AND pilot a rocket ship. This is good, as we need different tools for different purposes.

I read all I could stand of the article you posted, J-See, and his conclusions are a little baffling to me. The camera currently on the market with the lowest noise at high ISO and second best image sharpness is the D810, which also has very small pixels at 36 mp. The only camera on the market with better sharpness and detail is the new Canon 5DS with 50 mp. If diffraction caused the problems it is supposed to, these cameras would have no better high ISO performance and certainly no better sharpness than a camera with a12 mp sensor.

I enjoy the science, but at some point day to day practical experience has to be taken into consideration. I've been taking photos for a half century, and I would much rather have a landscape where the flowers in the foreground AND the mountains in the background are reasonably sharp at f/16, vs tack sharp mountains and totally out of focus foreground at f/4.

The noise of the D810 is related to the full well capacity. A smaller pixel can have a similar full well capacity as a larger pixel if the quantum efficiency of the sensor improves. The lack of surface area will be compensated by the increase in photon count. That's why BSI sensors manage that increase in Mpixels without sacrificing quality. The pixel pitch gets smaller but the QE increases. If you manage to register the same amount of photons, it doesn't matter how, you'll have the same quality of signal. Also let's not forget that a part of the so-called ISO performance is fake and depends purely on in-cam noise-filtering. Which doesn't really filter noise btw, it just averages signals.

Diffraction affects sharpness because it "pollutes" neighboring pixels which is why images get softer and softer beyond some point. The smaller your pixels, the earlier this occurs. You can shoot your landscape at any aperture you like but, depending the cam, the more you close down, the less your options with that shot. That's all there is to it.

It's easily verified, especially at its current extremes. Shoot anything with an FX pushing it beyond f/22 or a DX beyond f/15 (if I'm correct) and then crop to 100% and see what you think of the shot. I certainly can't use those any longer at that crop level. I start deleting them long before since they're too soft.

I rarely shoot any landscape above f/8 btw. There's no need for more unless I'm shooting straight into the sun.

 

[Woodyg3]

I remember looking at pictures of the Nikon F models in Popular Photography and wishing I had a way to scrape the money together for one. I especially liked the black bodies instead of the silver because it looked more "professional" to me.

It's true that we have come a long way, and technology will deliver things in the future that we can't comprehend today. Things like being able to adjust focus AFTER a picture is taken. Still, some of my black and white shots taken while I was in high school with an Argus C3 with Plus-X Pan film are stiil hanging on the walls of my house. I try to avoid being too much of a gear head and remember that photography is mostly art.

 

[WayneF]

Diffraction affects sharpness because it "pollutes" neighboring pixels which is why images get softer and softer beyond some point. The smaller your pixels, the earlier this occurs. You can shoot your landscape at any aperture you like but, depending the cam, the more you close down, the less your options with that shot. That's all there is to it.

No, the pixel part is just a bad guess. We have seen Zero evidence pixel size matters about diffraction. We cannot show it matters. We can't even properly explain why it might matter.

Diffraction affects sharpness because a supposed point source becomes a supposed larger diffraction ring, at least diffraction covers a larger area, hiding subject detail in that same area (of course our extended subjects are not point sources, and do not even make Airy disks, but they do suffer diffraction. Airy disk is sort of an astronomy thing).

The way digital works is that the pixels simply sample the colors over the area, trying to reproduce fine detail, a little like mosaic tiles in that respect. But that larger area (including diffraction) could be sampled by one pixel, 2 pixels, 4 pixels, 16 pixels, etc. A reasonable belief is that more smaller pixels can better represent the fine detail that is there, which we call "higher resolution", and we favor it, it produces sharper images. Limiting sampling to fewer large pixels, or to one pixel, cannot eliminate or reduce or change the diffraction in any way, it is there, and it is what it is. The best that the lower resolution of larger pixels can do is to lose any smaller detail, be it diffraction or subject. Higher resolution is ALWAYS a good thing (sure, it can be too high, higher than is useful for the situation, so I am really just saying greater detail is always a good thing).

A blur filter would do about the same job as larger pixels.

It's easily verified, especially at its current extremes. Shoot anything with an FX pushing it beyond f/22 or a DX beyond f/15 (if I'm correct) and then crop to 100% and see what you think of the shot. I certainly can't use those any longer at that crop level. I start deleting them long before since they're too soft.

Damn, you are hardheaded J-see. Sure, diffraction does exist, but pixel size is not a factor of it. You didn't even mention pixels here, you're just ranting.

Simply look at Diffraction limited images? Really? and next page. It is nothing new, it's all been well known since about Day One of Photography... guessing 150 years? Variable apertures were invented because they help at less than infinite distance.

It is taught. Also see when to use f/22 - Google Search

What matters can always be shown (if it matters), and very often, depth of field matters more (can be seen to help more) than diffraction hurts.

You are reading and believing outrageous assumptions about some magic alignments, which simply is not true. How do you imagine these Airy disks (which don't even exist for extended subjects) manage to get perfectly aligned, one for one, each centered on a pixel? That is complete nonsense. But it is the entire basis of your side of this.

Anyone refusing to consider ever going past some imagined limit (often about f/11), because they heard it was bad, when in fact it is needed and can obviously help, simply has not learned all they need to know. Try a few new things, it is how we learn.

I rarely shoot any landscape above f/8 btw. There's no need for more unless I'm shooting straight into the sun.

See? I'm ruling you out as an authority about this. Photographers with more experience often intentionally go out of their way to try to include near foreground subjects in landscapes, because it adds depth, adds interest, adds beauty. It matters, it can be seen.

But it causes quite a depth of field problem, from near to infinity, which stopping down even more of course is the solution, it helps, it can be seen. It helps macro too. Overall sharper images. This is general knowledge.

 

[WayneF]

I remember looking at pictures of the Nikon F models in Popular Photography and wishing I had a way to scrape the money together for one. I especially liked the black bodies instead of the silver because it looked more "professional" to me.

It's true that we have come a long way, and technology will deliver things in the future that we can't comprehend today. Things like being able to adjust focus AFTER a picture is taken. Still, some of my black and white shots taken while I was in high school with an Argus C3 with Plus-X Pan film are stiil hanging on the walls of my house. I try to avoid being too much of a gear head and remember that photography is mostly art.

I remember the C3... It was very popular. I never had one, but I saw many, and envied and wanted one. They were in the $50-$60 range, and as a student, I couldn't afford it. In the beginning, I only had a Brownie Hawkeye box camera, and was using the dorm darkroom.

Later on, living off campus, I managed an inexpensive range finder camera ($30 class), and I took a journalism photo class in order to have access to their darkroom, which took my breath away too.. A BIG gas fired rotary dryer, and in the dark room, we just put our finished prints in the the rinse water, and an assistant came around and washed and dried them. High cotton.

If you have not already seen it or similar, I'm thinking you may find this 1959 Sears Photo Catalog interesting:

1959 did not have Nikon in it yet, but a few of the Sears Tower brand imports did offer Nikon lenses.

http://www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/sears_1959.pdf

 

[wornish]

FWIW, I personally think this pixel size part is a myth about diffraction, only a confusion factor invented and promoted by techie wannabes, proud they learned to compute things (meaningful or not), instead of being promoted by lens or sensor designers who count (and actually know). My opinion, but Nikon, Canon and Sony don't say things like that either.



Got to disagree with you on this one.

Diffraction is real.

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

 

[WayneF]

Got to disagree with you on this one.

Diffraction is real.

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

I already mentioned CambridgeInColor. #13

 

[J-see]

FWIW, I personally think this pixel size part is a myth about diffraction, only a confusion factor invented and promoted by techie wannabes, proud they learned to compute things (meaningful or not), instead of being promoted by lens or sensor designers who count (and actually know). My opinion, but Nikon, Canon and Sony don't say things like that either.



Got to disagree with you on this one.

Diffraction is real.

Diffraction Limited Photography: Pixel Size, Aperture and Airy Disks

I assumed it was simple to understand that if the width of a wave is 3µ, if your pixels are 1µ in size it reaches 3 but if your pixels are 6µ it only affects one.

Maybe that's too much for some.

 

[WayneF]

I assumed it was simple to understand that if the width of a wave is 3µ, if your pixels are 1µ in size it reaches 3 but if your pixels are 6µ it only affects one.

Maybe that's too much for some.

How do you get the supposed spot perfectly centered on the pixel? On every one of the 24 million of them? How does that work?

If it matters, why can't we see it? Can you show how it matters?

Why doesn't it also affect DOF, which is a very similar larger spot (called Circle of Confusion). How can it possibly be different?

Yes, that is too much for some. I favor assuming a more random arrangement that tends to average out overall. It is not about pixels at all. More pixels for higher resolution and greater detail is always a good thing.

Sure, diffraction is a bad thing. But it is also a relatively slight thing, in that there are many cases when major diffraction at even say f/40 hurts much less than the greatly improved DOF helps. Speaking of the overall picture effect. I have posted a link to show that, but of course, we all already knew it.. So in those cases, dare to try f/22 or f/32. You will like it. Photographers have enjoyed using this knowledge for very many years/decades.

 

[J-see]

How do you get the supposed spot perfectly centered on the pixel? On every one of the 24 million of them? How does that work?

Don't tell me you don't understand the difference between a visualization of a phenomena and the phenomena itself?

 

[Woodyg3]

I remember the C3... It was very popular. I never had one, but I saw many, and envied and wanted one. They were in the $50-$60 range, and as a student, I couldn't afford it. In the beginning, I only had a Brownie Hawkeye box camera, and was using the dorm darkroom.

Later on, living off campus, I managed an inexpensive range finder camera ($30 class), and I took a journalism photo class in order to have access to their darkroom, which took my breath away too.. A BIG gas fired rotary dryer, and in the dark room, we just put our finished prints in the the rinse water, and an assistant came around and washed and dried them. High cotton.

If you have not already seen it or similar, I'm thinking you may find this 1959 Sears Photo Catalog interesting:

1959 did not have Nikon in it yet, but a few of the Sears Tower brand imports did offer Nikon lenses.

http://www.cameramanuals.org/booklets/sears_1959.pdf

That was a very fun link to check out! It was an amazing time in photography, with everything from 4x5 press cameras to 16mm mini cameras. I would love to have an old Rolleiflex.

When I was about 7, I started with a Brownie too, Wayne. My dad bought me an Instamatic when I was about 10. I got my dad's C3 as a hand-me-down when I was in my teens. Eventually I got another hand-me-down from my dad some time in high school, with a Konica Autoreflex. That was the camera that made me some money in college shooting sports. I got paid a whole $5 once for a picture that was published in Track and Field News.

Thanks again for the link, it brought back a flood of great memories!

 

[Woodyg3]

Don't tell me you don't understand the difference between a visualization of a phenomena and the phenomena itself?

As in theoretical vs. real world? Again, please provide some real world examples. I've yet to see any, but have certainly seen plenty of examples of better sharpness with higher mp sensors. At all apertures.

 

[WayneF]

That was a very fun link to check out! It was an amazing time in photography, with everything from 4x5 press cameras to 16mm mini cameras. I would love to have an old Rolleiflex.

Ah yes, the memories. Most of which were cravings for gear I could not afford. I've more than made up for it now though.

Sears was a strong camera outlet in the day, top end stuff too. I was intensely into it then, and remember many things, but a big one is the ongoing dispute in the camera magazines (our only source of knowing anything current, the library books were too old)... was the dispute about the feasibility of actually building light meters into cameras, which was starting about then (semiconductors had been invented, although meters were mostly just older selenium cells then, no battery). Could a meter actually in the camera actually be trusted? And were we really going to allow it to actually zero the meter and to actually align the exposure and adjust the camera? It was big responsibility, and thus a pretty big deal, not that it was available, but that they were daring to do it to our cameras!

It was like all else, just fear of the unknown, but it was very seriously debated, not that it had any effect. It certainly was NOT an obvious plus at first. Only a few cameras did it early, but I remember even Leica offered one, just attached a little reflected meter on top of the camera, awkward little thing, but it worked like any other reflected meter (harder to aim). The catalog showed one like it in the hot shoe of the C3 (just a parking spot), but very few meters are in that catalog. The meter had to be pointed, and aligned, and then the settings made in the camera. They were mostly slow to add meters, I think really it needed a bit more technology first. Nikon was not fast to do it. I had about the third version FTn in 1968, which worked very well. Integrated TTL, a lot like today, except we had to turn the lens aperture ring to manually zero the meter every time. At least you could see the meter pointer in the viewfinder.

I guess we debate about fully automated now. I suspect some of the future will be about improving that automation. I hope Auto White Balance is first.

Little simple handheld selenium reflected meters were available then, not expensive, but becoming in wide enough use so that the next year, Kodak had to double the ASA speeds of all B&W films to remove a very husky safety factor (overexposure was good for B&W negative film ... expose for the shadows). Of course, we already knew to double it. But somehow it was better if we metered it ourself than to allow the ignorant camera to do it.