How much IQ do you want anyway?

Started Dec 22, 2011 | Discussions thread
Rriley Forum Pro • Posts: 21,846
oe moonwalking like michael jackson

people who know what shutterbaldes are
and people like you
where then is the worth of anything else you say

for anyone can parade around the place quoting their BS blog site inserting out of context links like it means something, accusing people of stuff to discredit them in the bargain. Its been relatively quiet here with you on 'vacation', now I guess we have to put up with your chit all over again

Great Bustard wrote:

...those who divide people into two groups, and those that don't. I'm in the latter group.

Rriley wrote:

this is a nice piece entered as a comment on an OLP item

I read it when you posted it before:

The majority of people with cameras (not to exclude the DPR forum population) is comprised by people who neither have artistic nor technical talent. Those that have talent, either in the technical or artistic, represent an extreme minority. Those with talent in both are even more rare.

But so many seem to feel that being technically gifted is at odds with being artisitically gifted, just as so many feel that being beautiful or athletic is at odds with being intelligent.

When it comes to the technical vs the artistic, there's you (emphasis mine):

Curved image fields found in competitive wides for FF lets say Canon , mean its much easier to develop OOF corners and edges, add this to the already present softness and you have a disturbing edge performance in an image that you can defeat (to an extent) by stopping down, but then in a competitive sense (equivalence) you have lost all hope of matching noise performance/ISO.

In the case of zooms, this might mean that other aspects of the zoom are being offered preferred perfomance, in the case of wide primes, simply rubbish lenses .

And there are the photos I make with Canon wide primes:

Perhaps you see the photos in the links above as examples of your claim:

as a canon user you should know that canon are quite incapable of making a UWA lens that works.

On the other hand, I see those photos as stark evidence of extreme ignorance and hypocrisy on your part. Ignorance in that your

well I refute that, there is plenty of dissatisfied opinion on the matter of canon UWA, of course countering that is joe moonwalking like michael jackson. In your view all is well with Canon UWA, if it isnt what kind of hypocrisy is that?

in a word, its fraud..

sole metric for system performance is usually corner sharpness wide open, which, of course, is just plain dumb, and hypocrisy in your countless posts on the technical that have nothing to do with how a competent photographer would use their camera, in stark contrast with your posts in this thread (and others) about how IQ is simply not important.

of course you take a sample of links and quotes out of context to achieve that impression, and insert some nonsense about your claim of 'hypocrisy' to stiuck the knife in as is your usual fashion

it is an opinion widely held, you usually have a little fun quoting JSW, well here's his opinion on the quality of these lenses

Actually, it's basically because the ultrawide EF lenses are not stellar performers, with either film or digital.

but this is just a diversion to include remarks about canon UWA (which 24mm isnt) that are not consistent quality of their competition, which is why I use a Distagon on Canon FF as Im not that happy with the technique of sawing the edges off to disguise the weakness of corner resolution.

So, my counter to John Camp's blog entry is, and has been:

irrelevant and banned blog site of your own opinion dressed as fact

h ttp:

For some photographers, IQ may be the most important aspect of photography. For others, it may play no role at all or simply be an added plus. But it is time well spent to reflect on just how important IQ is to our own photography, given that IQ is, at best, merely a means to achieving a quality image, and, at worst, completely irrelevant to the image .

Regardless of what IQ differences there may be between systems, we have to decide when, if ever, these differences in IQ have any meaning. For example, a Suzuki GSXR-1000 may significantly outperform a Yamaha R-6 on a track, presuming the driver is skilled enough to make use of the extra performance. But if all you use the bikes for is traveling back and forth to work or school, the difference in performance between the bikes is meaningless -- it is more a matter of comfort, gas mileage, and other aspects of the bike that matter more by far .

Thus, it is my opinion that for the sizes that most people print (or display on the web), the differences in IQ between modern systems are insignificant for the vast majority, just as the performance differences in bullet bikes is insignificant for most riders. Instead, the the primary consideration for most people when choosing a system is not the merely the IQ of the images it produces, but the the types of images the system can produce and the operation of the system .

-- hide signature --


any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow