the early versions of micro m43 ......... not that great ?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Mr Giggles Contributing Member • Posts: 788
Re: QI vs. IQ
2

Henry Richardson wrote:

Decades ago I decided that most of the time worrying too much about IQ is a barrier to getting good photos. Years ago I wrote this about it:

Ramblings about Travel and Photography

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

In my opinion, a whole lot of people get way too obsessed about technical image quality (extreme sharpness, minimal distortion, minimal chromatic aberration, noise, 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 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.

And that reminds me of something that I posted in 2013. In 2013 I went to see an excellent photo exhibition titled:

Radical Transformation: Magnum Photos into the Digital Age

I wrote about it at the time (note the part I made bold below):

The photos were excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the people on the internet would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition.

Probably about 90% of the photos in the exhibition were B&W. Some of the photos are famous iconic photos from Capa, Cartier-Bresson, et al that you have seen before.

Later I was walking around with my camera and I sort of wondered if all the photos in the exhibition had been taken with digital cameras if some of them, maybe a bunch of them, would have been deleted in the camera? I imagine these photographers are smart enough to not be over concerned (concerned, of course, but not over concerned) with all the technical details and let those things override what the image looks like and whether it is interesting. Fortunately, the photos had not been deleted.

Most of the photos in the exhibition could have easily been taken with my Canon G15 and the technical quality in many cases would have been even better. Just being able to quickly change ISO or use Auto ISO is a huge advantage. Good ISO from 80 on up to, oh I don't know, 3200. Even 12,800 is usable and quite good compared to just slightly fast film from a long time ago. Especially if shooting in raw. A long time ago ISO/ASA 400 B&W film was fast. [And ISO/ASA 32 color slide film was high speed.]

Here is the exhibition info:

https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/2013/radical-transformation/

everyone knows the most important thing is the photographer

(it amazes me that some folks think they have a special profound insight on this )

but this is a gear forum devoted to one small group of cameras

its literally the spot to have this discussion about M43 gear

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