sonyalpharumorsLog in

+1
I agree! It’s not the camera that makes a photographer, it’s the skills and experience using the tools that are within any and all cameras put onto the market in the last 10 years; including but not limited to DSLR’s SLT, cameras with mirrors or without and even cellphones are capable of producing wonderful images.

The order below is arguable, but my point is that the product made by Canon, Nikon, Sony and other are not the most important part of the image.

1. Subject
2. Light
3. Post processing skills (The Darkroom)
4. Photographer
5. Optics
6. Camera

I see daily, images from equipment far less costly the my a850 and Zeiss lenses that make me rethink how I invest in my trade. the camera is only a platform that supports the optics the photographer uses to image the subject.

congratulations!

Sigh… Must be the small reproductive organ syndrome again… Gotta compensate with something that’s bigger and think big. It’s a real health issue you know. LOL

Maybe groar thinks a bigger sensor will make his women love him again.

Actually it’s not. A good photographer can shoot excellent images with every camera, as long as he knows his gears. That’s why e.g. Ansel Adam shoot great pictures even with an old view camera; terrible camera by modern standards. Or look at Robert Capa’s work and camera. And you even can do beautifull images with a Holga plastic camera.

Only amateurs debate about the equipment used and mostly forget about the image itself.

Adorable little troll

Well to Kurts comment of “wiping the floor”… In what regard?

Certainly no one believes an APS-C f1.8 lens is capable of producing the same caliber of bokeh that a FF f1.4 lens can achieve? The physics alone won’t allow it. Can an f1.8 lens let in as much light as an f1.4 lens? The 35/1.4 G is no slouch, and anyone who’s used it “properly” understands it needs taming to produce the unique results it does.

It’s no secret either that Kurt thinks the Minolta 35mm f2 lens is “better” than the f1.4 G. He bases that claim upon FF Midfield sharpness at f4 and under. But anyone with an eyeball can see they equal at f5.6, and the G/1.4 has less vignetting, superior far corner sharpness, floating element close focus advantage, and bokeh like no other.

I don’t appreciate the global “wipe the floor” type comments without testing criteria being established to make the claim upon. There are types of images that the G1.4 can make that the APS-C Zeiss could never produce merely upon the limits of physics.