Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I think your example proves the opposite of the "newer is better" proposition. And no, in my experience musicians talk about music 1000 times more than they talk about their instruments. Here it is the opposite breakdown. Many, many discussions here are about products and many posts may as well have been written by a sales and marketing rep from one of the manufacturers.

The prices of musical instruments are distorted by collectors and dealers. A late violinist friend of mine, many years ago, bought a violin at an antique barn we were visiting. It was dirty, missing the bridge, tailpiece, strings, pegs, and it had a $6 price tag on it. My friend offered the dealer $4 and the deal was made. On the way home he told me that it was a Guarnerius. "Oh my God" I said, "what are you going to do with it?" He said "I am going to play it, and you are going to keep quiet about it! Instruments need to be played, not collected and then sitting in some display case and too expensive for musicians." He added a new fingerboard, bridge, pegs, tailpiece, and strings, and he took the label from one of your "cheap violins" and stuck it over the top of the real maker's signature. He never kept it very clean, and lugged it around in an old beat up cheap leather case. For 50 years he played it, and he played it well. People often praised his playing, but no one ever said "that is a Guarnerius!" No one ever talked about the instrument. They talked about the music, and that fiddle, in the right hands, made some damn fine music.

Joseph Guarnerius del Gesu
https://www.si.edu/spotlight/violins/guarneri

Mike

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

Reminds me of the story I believe is called "The Master's Touch". At an auction this old violin was being bid on by various people. The auctioneer asked $10, then $8 on down. This old man picked up the violin, tuned it and started to play. After he had finished, someone bid $100, $200 and up. An observer asked "Why had the bids changed so much?" He was told, "It was the Master's Touch."

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It was a poem made into a song. This is bluegrass great Laurie Lewis' version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNn9a0TV0IE

paver Loc: Miami, Fl

I my mind, part of the love I have of photography, is in dealing with the use of precision machinery presented in a nice camera.

Akin to a nice timepiece, or a fine double shotgun.

As mentioned many times, an entry level camera, can take, in the hands of a real shootest, photographs that rival those taken with the best gear available.

Just something about fine tools.

Might take some heat for not being a true "pureist".

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

Who cares what camera you use? It makes no difference. Look at the old greats, any camera today is better than what they used, yet most people can't take photos that can compare.

Bipod

Or maybe not...

Charles Fontayne and William S. Porter, "Daguerreotype View of Cincinnati. Taken from Newport, Ky", 1848
(reassembled from a later series of 8 × 10 film negatives). Download and view.

(Download)

Bipod

How do you get this depth-of-field with a digital camera, topcat?

Carleton Watkins (U.S.A., 1829-1916) Cape Horn, Columbia River 1867

(Download)

tdekany Loc: Oregon

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Mike, you can’t compare “musicians” to what we call photographers on forums. People on photo forums like this here are amateurs, not professional photographers. I’m sure pro photographers also don’t talk about the gear amongst themselves.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

By adjusting the aperture. Btw, do you have permission to post these photos?

Why don’t you use one of your masterpieces?

le boecere

I wonder how many of the pros, semi-pro's and pro-wannabees on this forum are still using a Kodak Brownie...exclusively.

Bipod

Here's the stalker, folks --- he just stopped by to drip some venom.

Uh, is your name topcat?

So then, what f-stop do you set the aperture to, in order to get that depth-of-field?

It's a straight question, how about a straight answer?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

9

Well, here is a quick snapshot at f5.6

But if I were to print this, I would have used a tripod, F4 and use modern tech that is available to me in my cameras and use focus bracketing - all I need to do is set the initial focus and I can program the camera to take up to 999 shots. Of course I wouldn’t use more than 10 or 15 shots and I’d have the whole picture tack sharp.

Is it a straight enough answer for you?

PS: where is your example? Are you not man enough to use your own photos to prove your point? What kind of a photographer are you?

(Download)

Bipod

Thanks, but the answer to a "what number?" question is a number, not a picture and
load of horse-puckies.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

5.6 is not a number? Lol. For someone who is in the habit of typing a whole page of nonsense, you are one to talk.

If I just said f5.6 without proof, you’d have an issue.

Just shows, that you are nothing but a TROLL.

How pathetic you are. Not only did I provide the aperture, I also posted an example to show you how much DOF one gets with m4/3

The least you can do is use your own photos.