Is an obsession with image quality healthy? ... Rant

Started Jun 13, 2011 | Discussions thread
richard stone Senior Member • Posts: 2,217
Re: Is an obsession with image quality healthy? ... Rant

Image Quality is just one aspect of certain kinds of photography. And some images benefit from various kinds of reduced image quality; the famed 'portrait lenses" for various cameras are meant to be used on women of a certain age.

What strikes me is of course the question itself: is an "obsession" a good way to begin looking for approval of anything? Or are there some good obsessions? Probably. And obsessions can be fun, too, properly indulged. And one person's obsession just bores someone else completely. The Sigma enthusiasts are living proof.

However, what strikes me with the trolls and dummies who have been visiting the site and making disapproving noises, is that they must want the new camera to be all the things all the other older Sigma cameras were not, and to compete with the Canon 5D etc. I refer to the wannabe wedding pros, who want images in utter darkness, and sports photographers.

I mean really, it reminds me of people who think something magical happens when you stay out late at night. Or something like a childhood fantasy: "Look ma, pictures with no light!!! Isn't That Cool!!!

I think if Sigma had wanted to build a camera for those wedding and sports people they could have done it, by using the new chip fabrication to make a larger sensor chip with much fewer and larger pixels. Sigma did not do that. Instead, Sigma apparently decided to do what the older cameras did, only much better.

A mistake? Maybe, unless Sigma believes that it will never gain much of a hold on the wedding and sports people, who may not be contributing much to the photography world, although they are Professional Photographers, and so to be admired and envied. What exciting lives they must lead, not like us dull and lifeless drones.

That brings me to: Are all professional uses of photography equal in all terms? Thus when I hear that the Sigma SD1 will not be used by "Pros" because it does not match up with the 5D in terms of 3200 ISO.... I wonder who really cares? Or maybe the Pro Photographers who take class pictures of elementary school children will not switch to the SD1, because...Well, who cares why?

Maybe the SD1 is a perfect camera for a certain type of image and for a certain kind of use? I think the price is too high for most "consumers," but it may not be, in the end, too high for certain professional uses, if it has a perfect use and works well. I am still waiting for someone with some skill to make proper use of the thing, and then we will see. As it is now we have people complaining about chromatic aberration (caused by the camera?) and others who will never even touch the thing complaining about green casts in the corners.

For me, what I like about my trusty SD10 is that people still look at my pictures and say they are just so good and they want to see more. It is odd how they seem to leave so early in the evening, before I even have a chance to go through the ones I really like.

-- hide signature --
 richard stone's gear list:richard stone's gear list
Sigma SD10 Sigma sd Quattro Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM Sigma 30mm F1.4 DC HSM Art
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow