Leica M10, Canon RP, or the ancient 20D. Is it a huge difference for landscape photos?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- The photos shown in the video:
www.flickr.com...
www.flickr.com...
www.flickr.com...
If you chilled out properly and found that the love for cameras and photography has increased in you, then you can help me chill through Buy me a coffee, which is a simple way to donate as low as 2$. Your continued support is most welcome, and will contribute to elevate this channel and to greatly aid my gear acquisition syndrome... so I can keep on being chill and share future treasures with you. This is my buymeacoffee account that is shared between my Real World Audio channel and this wonderful Shutter & Chill channel.
www.buymeacoff...
I appreciate every kind gesture. Greetings, János
The standard approach to compare cameras is to look at parameters and measure. That is extremely useful when you have a very specific need that can be quantified, and you need a very specific tool that is guaranteed to deliver it. The above approach that I took in this video was not to evaluate which is a better camera. This little exercise was done to show that no matter what camera you have, cheap or expensive, old or new, coveted or shunned - you can capture wonderful memories with each, and each have a personality that makes them suitable for different moods, and you should rather hunt for the moods than the specs when choosing a camera (and lens...) for yourself. Of course, if I could pick a camera (someone would give it for free), the Leica M10 would be a no-second-thoughts choice. Yet - the modest Canon 20D with its 20 year anniversary coming up, is still capable to capture memories that bring life and beauty to your computer screen.
Since I made this video I have repeated this little test (watching these three photos) on 4 different computers, 5 different screens. There was a huge difference in how each computer / monitor rendered them. On some the technical advantage of Leica was very apparent, on others it did not show at all and the RP seemed to have the technical edge. Yet, in all cases the 20D shot remained closest to my heart, presentation being close to film, while on some screens it seemed primitive, on others mighty evolved and refined. Different monitors / computers (video cards) made the biggest difference on the 20D file.
All in all, my bottom line is that if you happen to have any of these three cameras - you are a happy camper, and the only upgrade you need is to get out more and take more photos with the camera you have. (Also, if you happen to have the 20D and not happy with it, UPGRADE YOUR MONITOR before reaching for a different camera!!!!) Good luck! Cheers, Janos
For me vintage film cameras vs. modern digital cameras is a similar experience to SET tube amps vs. commercial solid state high power amps. There is a difference and depending on your taste and whether you print your photos or just post them online you will prefer one over the other. Older top level pro digital cameras such as the Nikon D3 can be had at bargain prices compared to the latest models and vintage mechanical film cameras like the Leica M3 offers the choice of using modern lenses vs. vintage film lenses. A modern lens has modern optical qualities while a vintage lens has optical qualities that many find more pleasing and enjoyable. Not all lenses are alike just as not all loudspeakers are alike. However, all this comparison can only be appreciated over time and with some experience.
In my mind I also picture the same contrast between amplifier types and camera types. Just like modern solid state, modern cameras with modern lenses produce stunning, very accurate photos. Yet, they often fail to provide a perspective, and it is so much harder to feel the photographer behind, and what his intentions were, what was his frame when he took the shot. It is just a very detailed snapshot of the moment, with no soul, no purpose behind. And when conditions are not perfect (light starts to fall off, etc) then technical aspects start to come out that make the photo even more removed from human context: oversharpening creates the impresion that I am not looking at a photo anymore, but a computer generated image. In the age of AI we have no clues to differentiate these soulless shots from the computer generated counterparts. My impression with modern is that when every aspect is perfect for the shot, it gives an extremely "accurate" rendering. However, without perfect conditions we get a picture that looks stellar on a cursory inspection, but once we go down to the pixel level it is most often quite repulsive. It is like a pathological lier, who always has to pretend he is perfect, and as a result you loose your trust when you can trust him.
As with SET, older lenses and older technology (like the D3 and 5D classic) do not even try to be perfect, they own their shortcomings. They do not want to trick you like a shady car dealer.
I think it's part of the human experience, to have imperfection and even more importantly: to have honesty. Old tech (camera and stereo) are absolutely honest about it, and the new gear can do stunning things but you never know when it's real and when is it faked.
"The Best Camera Is the One That's With You: iPhone Photography" by Chase Jarvis is a book I recommend to those who are just getting into photography.
Thank you for your recommendation!