This kind of article is what we expect to get from the mass media
these days.
I think there are some good points made in that article, particularly
with respect to the size of the sensors affecting the "look" of the
images we get.
The point about that "video" look is a very valid one.
For many many years, I've always been able to tell immediately, while
watching TV, whether a show was shot on video tape or film.
I think there are a number of visual cues, one of which is the
presence or lack of the need for frame-rate conversion. And then
there's auto exposure and other details.
But clearly, one big "tell" has been the much deeper DOF that we
typically see in a video recording versus what might have been seen
in something shot on 35mm film.
As for the megapixel thing....
I think that overall, the article was correct. For the typical P&S
shooter, anything over about 6 megapixels is probably a waste. Yet
we see P&S cameras showing up with ever increasing numbers of pixels,
and to the untrained masses, that's a big selling point.
Ohh, it's got 14 megapixels, it's got to be a better camera than that
one with only 12 megapixels!
We all know there's a LOT more to it than that, and it's reasonable
for someone to come out and say it.
But the same oversimplification that leads to people thinking that
more pixels is always better can go the other way with people stating
that more pixels is now automatically bad.
As has been seen on this form for the last few weeks, this is NOT a
trivial subject, and even very intelligent and informed people can
end up with different ideas about this. And even a highly-regarded
source such as DPR can find themselves stepping into a deeper swamp
than they anticipated, and even making mistakes when it comes to
evaluating today's amazing cameras.
That article would have needed to be very long to really cover the
pros and cons and to go into the real details of this. And it would
have required some serious research on the part of the writer, too.
That article was not well researched, not balanced, and not extremely
tech-savvy.
Then again, it was not aimed at people who really care about any of
this.
Still, it's disappointing to see people being somewhat mislead by an
oversimplified and poorly researched article.
This forum is full of serious camera nerds. We can't expect the
typical consumer or the typical periodical to put the kind of effort
into this that we feel is necessary or appropriate.
Am I the only one here who watches "Deconstructed" and finds numerous
factual errors in each and every episode? I'll bet not!
Nerds, nerds, nerds!!!!
--
Jim H.
