For what it's worth finally the first person I've come across who explains camera tech in a way I can perfectly digest. Don't change a thing about the style of your channel. Respect
So glad I watched this , perceived sharpness and the final print ! Etc just bought your ebook, very common-sense approach, I just wish people would stop pixel peeping.
Enlightening video. My biggest takeaway is "Don't believe everything they(camera industry) tell you." Things they can quantify may not be what we are looking for. Micro contrast is one of the keys to making pictures pop out(sharp). Pictures taken with Lumix S 50 1.4, Canon EF 50 1.2, Leica, Zeiss Loxia+Batis & Sigma Foveon x3 start growing on me.
Great vid on sharpness. About a week ago, I asked another Leica shooting you tuber why Leica? The reply was because I said so. What you start saying about Leica lenses & color somewhere around the 3+ minute mark is why he should refer anyone who ask why Leica to this video. Looking forward to watching your B&W video. Thank you.
The sum of all elements is what makes the photo. If you look at all parts individually, you miss the ...big picture. I've sold all my digital cameras and gone back to 35mm. OM1 still does it. Turns out though, as a student, it was a creative move I can barely afford hahaha! Love your reviews and insights! New subscriber!!
Beautifully said, Thorsten! It seems like nowadays everyone is looking at pictures at 100% and getting rid of those that aren't sharp when we should be looking at them holistically. Thank you for speaking truth, Thorsten! This is so liberating to me as a photographer!
Well said! I work in the camera industry and we are always dealing with customers who zoom in 100% on the PC when looking at their photos and claiming it is not sharp Enough!
I followed a link here from another RU-vid channel, and I'm so glad I did. You've reminded me a little of the art philosopher Gombridge, who's essays and books I'm very fond of reading, particularly Art And Illusion. I often feel that too many photographers get hung up on how many megapixels or dpi there are in an image, rather than enjoying it for what it is. Thank you for this. I feel mentally invigorated.
The Angry Photographer sent me here. He didn't fail me. Subscribed to you sir! Greetings from Germany! i mean seriously at last i find another good photographer like you, who actually explained in a very easy way what sharpness is. I always found it hilarious that almost all RU-vid Photographers zooming 100% on each photos they are capturing and say this one is focused and this one is not.
Thank you so much for your video! I called myself an enthusiast amateur. But I have been shooting film for years with Nikons and Minoltas, Nowadays I use Pentax and Ricoh, but I just ordered a Leica c-lux. Looking forward to enjoy Leica quality! Adn definitely, a good picture does not have to be tack sharp. Composition matters the most.
He does that intentionally - as well as putting it upside down - to show the audience that those Leicas are tools to be used and not to be locked out inside a vitrine haha
What a fantastic explanation of a very simple concept, its the end product that counts not all the tech that is involved in producing that final image!
Thankx for your insight as a professional ! I am an amateur and I shoot mainly Canon. My perception was that when I look at photos on flickr or other sources, the sharpness of the new lenses for mirrorless cameras is very impressive but almost kind of "clinical" and I nearly always preferred the look and the rendering of the older EF Canon glass which at the moment a lot of people want to get rid off. I recently bought an old Canon 5D 12MP camera from 2005 and eventhough getting the photo is a bit more cumbersome, the result if you nail it is just amazing, the colors, the rendering, everything. I have to tweek the photos of my mirrorless quite a bit for them to look like the ones coming from the 5D.
Just starting your video's and I have to say they are incredibly informative, I am picking up many tips all of which are very useful. I am going to enjoy working my way through your collection of video's. Thank you for taking the time to film and post these informative video's they are greatly appreciated.
VERY good video. Your explanation about sharpness changed my understanding. Thank you. Everybody crazy about sharpness and only few understand what sharpness actually is.
I am glad that you share your knowledge with us here, thank you very much! It will be superb if you share some of your experiences about film photography! Best regards from Sweden.
Ken, thanks for enlightening us to the meaning of "sharpness", and for introducing Mr. Overgaard. His presentation was most interesting, and did expand my photographic knowledge and perspective...as do all of your videos!
Loved it, very pleasant to watch, It made perfect sense to me, you are a person who knows what he is talking about and you explain in a way that the general viewers can understand, it is what it boils down to, nothing fancy. :-)
Very inspiring indeed. Im always upset with the sharpness on the eyes when zoomed in but you really made a point here that made me understand that youre not supposed to zoom and zoom. Thank you
Dear Thorsten von Overgaard. Just saw your video (from #Angry Photographer), which made my day. As I always said, its a question of perception and viewing distance. Thank you very much for your well expressed video. Will share it.
Hello Maestro. The picture you've took with the legendary Digilux 2 is just amazing. I have one of this, I exploide it on the side walk in Paris 3 years ago, then I can't get along with the idea to not have it any more with me, so I buy an other one, and I agree about the sharp fact. When the camera is in the right hands, the sharp side is existing where it have to be. I would love to know your set up you will recommend to use the Digilux 2, I mean something around... let's say the perfection, like on the picture you took. Best regards, Olivier
Thanks Thorsten. You have a very interesting perspective on sharpness. I agree with Fauxma that you need a bigger desk when moving your camera and lenses. Well done.
Just have to add to the many comments about your straightforward approach. very nice and without all the "hype" of those other "picture-takers" ;) on the web. Thanks
What you have said is really true...but today with marketing gimmicks & with DXO MARK everybody is running towards Sigma ART Lenses & Zeiss OTUS, just to get every pixel out of their sensors...for me, I choose the lens has got great Micro-Contrast, it will give my photograph life, Leica are Legendary Lenses, not because how sharp they are but how much life they put in the photographs taken with them....
@magicoflight : interesting point of view, thanks for sharing it. When it comes to film resolution, what are your sources ? I do have found clear explanation and film resolution is way higher than the figures you have presented here. Here is a short excerpt : « Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero. Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50. 320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter. 35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters. To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels. » From my own perspective that is also the way I feel it, since I am shooting both film & digital. Could you please tell us more about your sources and method of calculation ? Source : - www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm - www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/pdf/velvia_50_datasheet.pdf
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, they give me an anchor to peg my photographic philosophy. This is why I love Europeans. Americans are great with technology and information, but Europeans, I find, are the soul of everything I've come to appreciate in this world (as well as the Japanese too). From cars and automobile design, to visual arts, to literature and philosophy. Thank you again, and keep doing videos such as this, please.
You better hurry up and get over to Europe because it's disappearing fast. Muslims and Africans are being imported by the treasonous elites and the European birth rate has crashed below replacement. You can't have Europe without Europeans.
I am relatively new to photography and enjoyed this video. If I print a certain amount of photos in 8x10 format it helps me improve as I can now hold my photograph in my hands. It gives me a sense of creative ownership that I would not normally feel just looking at a monitor. Thanks again.
Yes, that is so true. I have professional printers make prints for galleries and such, but I also have a simple Canon Pixma printer (the simple one with five color catridges) for printing 8x10" prints on glossy glossy paper for anything I just want to put on a board or give to my kids friends. Sufficient quality and it's great to see what you did on a wall, and it's intersting to see what others see and say when they see a print. I had a workshop student who had a box on his sofa table with 8x5 prints of his newest/best photos, then guests could take the box and go through the photos. Smart way of making it real and have your own little gallery exhibition at home for family and friends to see.
Fully agree, it's called the Art of Lenses. You may try to compare for example a Leonardo painting where sharpness is intact dissolved because that is how light technically works, while the 15th 16th cent. Dutch school of panting interpreted sharpness as distinct contrasts which is not how light technically operates.
Yes, there was a proud school of light to accentuate, show colors and emotions. Da Vinci was one who spent a lot of time noticing how colors changed by different types and levels of light.
I shot Leicas and Hasseblads during the film years. I now own another brands of very high mp cameras. I'm never really satisfied with the results. Many camera manufactures do come close, but once you shoot with Leica Cameras, you will be spoil for life.
For some things, high resolution makes sense, but it's actually very specialized. Most of us can choose cameras and lenses that makes us happy and makes photography fun and worthwhile.
Great video. Some call it micro-contrast. Most people are only worried about, as you said, LPI, or how sharp is it. There is much more to a pleasing photograph. If you want best of both sharpness and micro-contrast shoot large format film and drum scan it...or even better someone who knows what they are doing use a darkroom. Keep up the good work.
I love your videos! Great stuff. Recently, I saw some negative comments about your master class. People buying classes for $600 and not receiving material. They said you were emailed but no responses. I hope that is not true!
I have a 100% satisfaction or money back policy, so that would be the outcome. More likely either the download failed and the person needed a new download code sent, or it was a preorder of a future release that wasn't available yet.
Thank you for clarifying a simple thing made complicated by the camera manufacturers (I mean, how else will they be able to push new cameras every year?)
I think you're right - its the look of the imagery. I get attached to the look when I find it and will usually stick with that camera for a long time and always regret it when I sell.
Very interesting and so true about what is the perception of sharpness but moreover artistic quality of an image. Since I got my first Leica (M8) last year and M lenses, I can feel it even when I look at the rear screen of the M8 which is so poor in definition. But all is so obvious, micro contrast are where the focus is and then all goes so smooth that if strengthens the sensation of sharpness and make the photography looks great. I'm wondering about switching to the M9-P or M-P(240) to get the full sensor sise. What would be your advise if I can ask.
Hello Mr. Overgaard, thank you for sharing, it's an interesting approach. Would there be a difference in sharpness between film and digital? Let's say, you make a digital image with an M240 and 50 Summicron. Then you make the same picture with the 50 Summicron, on film, and scan the negative. Would the sharpness of both images be perceived differently on screen?
That's a good question, in terms of overall sharpness. But the micro details (that makes up the overall picture) for sure would be more prominent, detailed and sharp. Film images are actually quite detailed, so it's not impossible. But back int he 1960's and 1970's you could special order film on glass plates for large format cameras so as to get a very precise surface. As film will never be as plane as glass, that's why. With digital sensors we basically got "glass negatives" so that's why with digital you can get overall sharpness and detail to a degree you can't with film. It would depend on the viewing medium (screen, print, etc) how much the micro-details would be visible from a distance. In my opinion it's like high fidelity in music: You may not be able to distinguish the micro details and the precision with which they are delivered in a great high fidelity stereo, but in the overall presentation you would sense it very clearly. Having said that, it's the light in the image that will make it pop or not - also in the micro details.
some people call this mircro contrast. When you use only 3 to 5 elements in a lens you have more abberation, less sharpness but way more contrast in the details and more natural colors. Its that simple.
I am greatfull for this post in that I am most confused about lens. Why some people like vintage lens and other don't think too much of them, why the significant price difference in lens cost. Why camera bodies decrees in values while lens seems to hold their price. It's all mysterious to me, however this post clears up the sharp and not so sharp factors.
Great video Thorsten. I do have a question however: How much of that initial look/signature is maintained after processing has taken place? Assuming Leica lenses have that unique quality you are talking about, can it still be observed after changes have been done to the original images? (such as the "Tones" in LR). Thanks
Yes, definitely, if you don't overdo it with sharpening or playing too much with HRD or tonality. Fundamentally it's clear and natural, and adding too much sharpness is exactly what some cameras. Not needed. It's not about sharp edges but about CLARITY.
Is just love your videos, you do it really well! With Best Regards Jess Demant Aggeboe ----------- Er bare vild med dine videoer, du gør det rigtigt godt! Med Venlig Hilsen Jess Demant Aggeboe
Thank you for an another good pragmatic education. Today is the technicallity in pictures and technical capabillty i equipment more hyped than ever I think. With Internet a problem has arised when you want to buy high end technical equipment. You cant get a good feeling of the mechanical or technical design quality. You can only reed or look at tests of other opinion and many of are going in measuring technical picture quality. So it's a good thing to point out the perception of picture quality. Do you like the pictures the Camera and Lense can produce - them it is fine! Do you like the feeling of taking pictures with the Camera. That should be more of an isue when you buy a Camera.
I always suggest people to iamgine being in a camera store, and the lens and camera that makes you most enthusiastic and eager as a child before Christmas, that's the right one (despite reviews, comparisons, sond-hand prices and all). ISO is another example today. We keep demanding more and more, but the reality is that few pictures are taken at so low light that it justifies that demand. Not to mention that photographers in previous times managed to do the most amazing low light photos with 100 ISO and less.
I have a 55mm F2.0 Auto Rokkor-PF lens that I purchased in the 1960s with my Minolta SR-1 35mm film camera. Today I use this lens on an Olympus EM-10 MkII. I was wondering if there is a way to focus any lens to achieve an effect similar to the Leica lens effect that you just discussed in your video. Thank you. walt
The look of soft but detailed is very Leica. Not that other lenses can't have that similar thing, but it's definitely a Leica look. Focus can be sharp, and/or clear in appearance. Leica has mainly the clear in appearance as the feature. That's what makes the details and everything look alive.
God , thank you sir , i hating myself for talking photo and zooming to check so it is sharp or not , it make me hate my photo for not sharp . Thank you very much .
