Reading mode: Light Dark

Q: What we want?..

Go to last post
P

PhotOptimist

Veteran Member
Messages
3,249
Reaction score
646
Regarding image quality:

A: Maximum quality up to ISO 3200 ---> Pentax 645Z ---> Check the price and the bulk

B: Excellent quality ---> Nikon D810 ---> Check the price and the bulk

C: Very good quality ---> m4/3 ---> You put your opinion here.

I feel that sometimes we forget the basics in this forum.

We get what we pay for.
 
I'm not 100% sure what you're intending, but I look at it like this. There's a law called the "Law of diminishing returns" the point where any large amount of money you spend is only going to give you a small increase in performance. I think the FZ1000 fits into that scenario. Sure those other cameras will give bigger and better, but at a cost. Its up to you to decide whether the extra cost will produce images that justify the extra cost. If you are a pro, then yes. If you are a more casual user, probably no.
 
There is a saying that goes something like this, The snap shooter worries about the cost, the enthusiast worries about the technical performance, the professional worries about the light. It is rather obvious that light is the most important element in producing a perfect image, if we were to run through the menu to select smooth skin, party, or some other mode, we woulld become slaves to the camera, the manufacturers seem to think we are incapable of thinking for ourselves. I seldom use any other than P A S M, and only add the occasional filter to the camera.
 
PhotOptimist said:
We get what we pay for.
Click to expand...
However within certain budget constraints, and even form factors, there are many choices, so it is only natural to endlessly debate the pros and cons of each of those choices.

It would stop to some extent if camera companies stopped releasing new models so often, but they seem to be addicted to money or something.
 
Sometimes... well, sure. In general, however, I've been impressed that people here are remarkably level-headed about cameras meeting (or exceeding) rational expectations. "Best in breed" vs "Best in show" if you wish.

People can be happy about a camera's exceeding expectations, without implying that it's all things for all people.

It seems to me that the occasional long and nasty "image quality" threads generally include a visitor whose very firm position is "Don't you understand that your camera can't whip a large sensor and a bunch of prime lenses?" while everybody else is saying "But look at what I can get with what I have"
 
Jerrich said:
For me, it seems to come down to: Are you a picture person, or a pixel person. I bounce back and forth.

JR

--
Panny FZ200, ZS25, ZS40
Click to expand...
A pixel person is just a picture person who wants to be able to extract the picture within the picture

--
Sherm

SHERMANLEVINE’s albums | Flickr

www.flickr.com www.flickr.com
 
I cringe a bit at the "we." It suggrsts a kind of sameness that I neither see nor would subscribe to if I did see.. The one thing we all adhere to is difference, in most every way. And vive la difference!
--
David
pbase.com/morepix
 
Jerrich said:
Perhaps, but some here don't seem to ever see the picture since they are crawling around at 100%?
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly capable of crawling around at 100% and appreciating a picture as a whole. Why do so many people seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive?
 
Jerrich said:
Perhaps, but some here don't seem to ever see the picture since they are crawling around at 100%?
Click to expand...
You know, 1440p and 4K monitors are pretty close to viewing at 100% without zooming in at all. You can see every little detail, and every little flaw as well (while you also see the whole picture.)
 
It depends on the individual. I take a lot of pictures and once in a while I get a good one that I like very much. It may not be the quality others expect, or from an expensive camera but I like it.

In years to come there may be an entirely different way to make memories of what we see. That is what a photograph happens to be composed from. Sensors, and pixels may not even be in the "picture". Science may come up with an entirely different method.
 
I manage a small library and at present we have an exhibit of the creations of over 50 local residents we have a bit of everything on display from jewellery, leather and woodwork to paintings and photography.

We have one photo hanging on the walls that is 30 in by 40in printed on canvas. It is a photo of leaves on the pavement. This photo has garnered a lot of favourable comments. What camera was it taken with? I have no idea and I don't believe that it would really make any difference. It's all about the image, pixel peeping doesn't come into it.

Personnally I believe that the IQ worriers and Pixel peepers are not looking at the big picture.

To me the specs and controls and how it feels and handles are the most important parts of a camera.

NOTE: I hanker after the LX100 because it is one of the very few cameras (probably could count them on one hand) that has a real shutter speed dial instead of stupid push buttons. (Also the reason I bought the Pentax ZS5N back in film days when Canon were putting in buttons)
 
Castaway said:
It's all about the image, pixel peeping doesn't come into it.
Click to expand...
These two things are not mutually exclusive. I don't know why so many people act as if they are.

You can want a quality image (composition, quality of light, emotional impact, interesting subject, etc) and also want it to be free of technical problems (noise, artifacts, halos, etc.)
 
cainn24 said:
Jerrich said:
Perhaps, but some here don't seem to ever see the picture since they are crawling around at 100%?
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly capable of crawling around at 100% and appreciating a picture as a whole.
Click to expand...
cainn24 said:
Why do so many people seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...
Because there is that contingent who seem to think exclusively about matters of "Pixil Peeping" and in some cases apparently never attempt to that an actual photograph.

There's nothing "wrong" with that, but this sort of thing does tend to sort us into different "camps".







--
"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
 
Erik Ohlson said:
cainn24 said:
Jerrich said:
Perhaps, but some here don't seem to ever see the picture since they are crawling around at 100%?
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly capable of crawling around at 100% and appreciating a picture as a whole.

Why do so many people seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...
Because there is that contingent who seem to think exclusively about matters of "Pixil Peeping" and in some cases apparently never attempt to that an actual photograph.

There's nothing "wrong" with that, but this sort of thing does tend to sort us into different "camps".
Click to expand...
But is that a reality or just an impression based on how some people choose to spend their time on a gear-centric forum?

I have taken countless photographs with countless cameras over a period of many years, both film and digital, and I've enjoyed it immensely. And I continue to enjoy it immensely. That doesn't make me unique of course as most people here can say something similar. But if you sampled my contributions to discussion here you could easily walk away with the impression that all I care about is obsessing over IQ and the more technical aspects of photography.

So naturally I simply wonder if people are just being pegged incorrectly. I have no trouble believing that there may be a few amongst us who don't really take many photos at all, but a contingent?
 
Tan68 said:
In addition to cost to benefit in money, there are cost to benefit in weight/bulk of any other system. 'Cost' in changing lenses, etc.. No new idea, just adding other cost of convenience to that of money.
Click to expand...
And that's the group I count myself in.

I would not have any of these on a bet:

"Regarding image quality:

A: Maximum quality up to ISO 3200 ---> Pentax 645Z ---> Check the price and the bulk

B: Excellent quality ---> Nikon D810 ---> Check the price and the bulk

C: Very good quality ---> m4/3 ---> You put your opinion here."

Since I can get plenty of 16x20 or larger prints from a pocket camera with simply amazing zoom range (to this old buzzard from the pre-zoom age), I would not consider the above, at any price, or even free.

Well, anyway, that's what WE, or anyway, I, want.

"---> You put your opinion here.", it's just a matter of where we as individuals, draw the line. ;-)







--
"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
 
cainn24 said:
Erik Ohlson said:
cainn24 said:
Jerrich said:
Perhaps, but some here don't seem to ever see the picture since they are crawling around at 100%?
Click to expand...
I'm perfectly capable of crawling around at 100% and appreciating a picture as a whole.

Why do so many people seem to think that the two are mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...
Because there is that contingent who seem to think exclusively about matters of "Pixil Peeping" and in some cases apparently never attempt to that an actual photograph.

There's nothing "wrong" with that, but this sort of thing does tend to sort us into different "camps".
Click to expand...
But is that a reality or just an impression based on how some people choose to spend their time on a gear-centric forum?

I have taken countless photographs with countless cameras over a period of many years, both film and digital, and I've enjoyed it immensely. And I continue to enjoy it immensely. That doesn't make me unique of course as most people here can say something similar. But if you sampled my contributions to discussion here you could easily walk away with the impression that all I care about is obsessing over IQ and the more technical aspects of photography.

So naturally I simply wonder if people are just being pegged incorrectly. I have no trouble believing that there may be a few amongst us who don't really take many photos at all, but a contingent?
Click to expand...
I chose "contingent on purpose because it implies a sub-grouping. And, no, I'm not saying a large group - just that this mind-set does exist on this and other forums: there are some for whom the interest is in the minituae, not the "Big" (or even, any, "picture".

And that - like racing - "improves the breed". :-D







--
"Measure wealth not by things you have but by things for which you would not take money"
www.flickr.com/ohlsonmh/ [email protected]
 
It was the case with FZ1000 and now with LX100...

Endless complaints about image quality!

The expectations are so high and unreal...

For example: How much would a 24-75mm f1.7-2.8 lens cost for m4/3 system?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top