Diversity and Resolution

I am just saying that I did not get into photography to deal with such calculations, charts, and formulae. I don't understand the point of your interest, either. One can't be interested in this stuff as an end in itself. It has to apply at some point to a camera and a photo file. While one can use this info to help sort out different cameras in an effort to purchase the best one, I just think it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe if you are a pro but whether you buy a D800e, a Sony NEX 5, a Canon, Samsung, or anything else, there will be pluses and minuses. My point may just be that no system is perfect whether measured by resolution or any other factor. All this time spent worrying over specs is time not spent shooting. So, my real point: don't worry; be happy. Enjoy your camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brev00

All this time spent worrying over specs is time not spent shooting. So, my real point: don't worry; be happy. Enjoy your camera.

---

Exactly. I have a camera with a kit lens, 28-200 telephoto and two more manual lenses on the way. I have great fun and photos I've shown have been appreciated. If you don't like my photos, don't worry. I do.:)

My entry: 10.1MP camera, f/8, 1/200sec, ISO 100, flash thru diffuser.

http://i49.tinypic.com/wul303.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brev00

I am just saying that I did not get into photography to deal with such calculations, charts, and formulae. I don't understand the point of your interest, either. One can't be interested in this stuff as an end in itself. It has to apply at some point to a camera and a photo file. While one can use this info to help sort out different cameras in an effort to purchase the best one, I just think it is unnecessary and overkill. Maybe if you are a pro but whether you buy a D800e, a Sony NEX 5, a Canon, Samsung, or anything else, there will be pluses and minuses. My point may just be that no system is perfect whether measured by resolution or any other factor. All this time spent worrying over specs is time not spent shooting. So, my real point: don't worry; be happy. Enjoy your camera.

---

Larry and Brian,

My hobby is vintage and military watches - the photographing of which, although not particularly easy, is simply a means to an end, as might be deduced from my signature. Sad to say, my interest in photography is more in the theory, because I have an inquiring mind and can't stop digging into the minutiae of the "why" rather than the "how". There are no rolling landscapes in my portfolio, no model portraits, no wildlife and no bug or flower macros - just snapshots. In fact there is no portfolio. I don't even print but that doesn't stop me posting on print resolution if it is evident that a poster has no idea of what "ppi" means.

I do realize that there only a few people on these three fora who have any interest in my more technical posts. For your goodselves, do go ahead and use LPPH or whatever you prefer and be happy to live without the obsession that some other metric might be more applicable.

So what do y'all think? Are technical posts de trop for these fora? Should I change my avatar and start asking questions about the best way to sharpen a landscape or to soften a models' skin?

Ted,

Wow! I would say we are complete opposites since I am all about the image and find the associated numbers and such diverting but of no real import. However, we use the same lens, the Sigma 70 2.8 Macro, so there must be some simpatico there somewhere. I really can't say whether purely technical posts have a place here since I am just a guest myself. I imagine you do apply some of this theory to your watch photography. But, interesting that you would use sharpening a landscape or softening a model's skin, two photoshop type reality alterations, as the opposite of the ivory tower. I am much more interested in the raw file and all the choices I have in developing an image from scratch. That point of freedom--the initial image lies before me but the result has yet to emerge--is what fascinates me with photography right now. I can make a dozen different images from one raw file. And, sometimes I do (well, two or three).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brev00

Ted,

Wow! I would say we are complete opposites since I am all about the image and find the associated numbers and such diverting but of no real import. However, we use the same lens, the Sigma 70 2.8 Macro, so there must be some simpatico there somewhere. I really can't say whether purely technical posts have a place here since I am just a guest myself. I imagine you do apply some of this theory to your watch photography. But, interesting that you would use sharpening a landscape or softening a model's skin, two photoshop type reality alterations, as the opposite of the ivory tower. I am much more interested in the raw file and all the choices I have in developing an image from scratch. That point of freedom--the initial image lies before me but the result has yet to emerge--is what fascinates me with photography right now. I can make a dozen different images from one raw file. And, sometimes I do (well, two or three).

---

Excellent choice of lens, Larry.

Once I was of the firm opinion that cameras could only be compared by viewing the RAW conversion with no conversion processing (sliders @ zero) and certainly no post-processing, your "initial image" in fact. Boy, did I get beaten around on another forum by folks who kept talking about "the print" which apparently is the only arbiter to determine whether Camera A was better than B.

Now I have mellowed somewhat and my current research is trying to compare my two cameras (see signature below), the research being critical to the question "do I keep my Sigma stuff or not?". The reason being, not surprisingly, that a 4000px x 3000px image re-sampled downward can produce a surprisingly acute image. (My images rarely exceed 1024px wide, BTW).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

I do realize that there only a few people on these three fora who have any interest in my more technical posts. For your goodselves, do go ahead and use LPPH or whatever you prefer and be happy to live without the obsession that some other metric might be more applicable.

So what do y'all think? Are technical posts de trop for these fora? Should I change my avatar and start asking questions about the best way to sharpen a landscape or to soften a models' skin?

---

Keep the techno-babble coming. :D I realized I spend more time reading about camera and lens technology than looking at photos, so I'm definitely approaching the art from an egghead's perspective. However, when it comes to truly great photos, there's very little substitute for a combination of strong technical and artistic skills. The eggheads and the ahh-tists are both correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RustBeltRaw

The eggheads and the ahh-tists are both correct.

---

Without eggheads the ahh-tists (how apt) would be still using parchment, quill and charcoal:D

Cheers
Wolf

Ted,

I see only one camera listed in your signature, the Sigma. One big reason I don't compare cameras is I own one and expect to remain in that state for the foreseeable future (if my Nikon D90 cooperates). So, I work within its parameters and my own limitations. It would be interesting to try out the Nikon D800e v. the Canon Mark III but to what end? I am not in the market and I would just wind up depressed. Ignorance is bliss and all that. In the end, I am satisfied with being satisfied. I would like to see your comparison shots if they are available on the web. It also might be interesting to see how a software expert might be able to make images from two different cameras seem identical. A lot of the differences are probably in the feel, the handling, as well as the image quality.

Larry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brev00

I see only one camera listed in your signature, the Sigma

I would like to see your comparison shots if they are available on the web. It also might be interesting to see how a software expert might be able to make images from two different cameras seem identical. A lot of the differences are probably in the feel, the handling, as well as the image quality.

---

Thanks Larry,

I've updated my signature, which I had done on another forum but not here, duh.

I'm currently working on a shoot-out between my two cameras, a 3.4MP Foveon and a 12MP micro 4/3", which I intend to publish when done. The Nikon D90 is a very nice camera - I had one for a while but sent it back (too many bells and whistles for me, compared to the Sigma).