1200mm: Digital Teleconverter

Started 8 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Henry Richardson Forum Pro • Posts: 18,859
IQ vs. QI
7

OldGuy-Yuri wrote:

Thank You Henry and all who have contributed to this thread!
I'll admit to having completely ignored the DTC function - ignorance and assumption are terrible things. And we all have hidden pockets of both.
DTC seems to have landed in my hidden pockets.
But it does look as if DTC can have some fun and interesting results.
so... a thread which shows the true worth of forums like this.
Thanks!
Yuri

Thank you, Yuri. IMO, the obsession on these forums with anal retentive efforts to get the highest technical quality (often for no real purpose) while in so many cases not caring about actually getting interesting photos goes too far. In other words, too much emphasis on IQ (image quality) and not nearly enough on QI (quality image). And I don't mean that IQ is never important, far from it, and in some situations it is very important. It just seems to me that a lot of people have no balance. But that is just my opinion.

I posted this on 2007-9-14:

IQ = Image Quality (strictly on the technical aspects of the sensor, etc. -- noise, noise reduction artifacts, sharpness, and so on) and it should not be confused with the much more important QI = Quality Image. To have high QI you need to be a good photographer.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/24828803

Worry more about QI (quality image) than IQ (image quality) and your photography will be much better. And this applies to lenses too.

I wrote this several years ago:

Ramblings about Travel and Photography

http://www.bakubo.com/ramblings.html

Here is one bit:

In my opinion, a whole lot of people get way too obsessed about technical image quality (extreme sharpness, minimal distortion, minimal chromatic aberration, etc.) and almost totally ignore making quality images. Personally, I also chuckle when I hear someone repeat the old saw about it being "all about the glass" or "all about the lenses." Spend time looking at photos over the past 50-100 years. Notice how many of those that are so wonderful are wonderful almost always because of subject, composition, timing, lighting, etc. and almost never because of the particular lens and whether it was marginally sharper, had slightly less distortion, and so on than another lens. Let the gearheads who do not actually take many photos worry themselves to death about that stuff. Take photos and you will get better. Obsess over gear and you will just end up being a gear fanatic. You just can't buy your way to good photos, but getting out there with the gear you have and taking photos, looking at other people's photos, and thinking will improve your vision and skills so that you can start taking good photos.

I do understand the attraction of quality gear, the aesthetics, the tactile feel, the perceived status conferred, and so on though. I just also understand that a lot of people get sidetracked in their hope to take photos they really like by getting on the gear track. Also, there are people who love cameras and gear as a hobby and are not all that interested in photography. Nothing wrong with that. It's your money and you can do with it what you want -- after you have paid all of your taxes to various government entities that demand the first cut, that is. All just my opinion, of course.

"I'm always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

And also, let's have some fun with our cameras. Almost everyone could use a bit of fun, particularly in 2020. I, for one, think that having a pseudo 1200mm-efl is totally wild. Years ago I would never have even dreamed of that. Sure, 1200mm-efl is not the most useful focal length, but it certainly gives a view that most of us are not accustomed to. And I can usually even handhold it! Crazy, man! With the 100-400mm lenses you could even get a pseudo 1600mm-efl. Who wudda thunk not so long ago?

-- hide signature --

Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow