A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
anotherMike Forum Pro • Posts: 10,270
Re: A point about the DSLR/.vs./MIRRORLESS

Funny - it's posters like "coastin" whom I no longer read, who never offer any real contribution to a thread, who only come into forum discussions to mount personal attacks or criticize, that are a large reason I never put up any of my imagery. I have less than zero respect for such people.

The other matter is that I print to judge image quality. I don't consider a jpeg file to be a truly high end tool to judge image quality by, only a rough tool. Any basic research into how a jpeg is created, followed by thinking about the vast variance of monitors and devices used to view them online (with varying pixel pitches, varying degrees of accuracy of color, etc) would make this pretty obvious.

Edit: Some explanation here is in order. I have been evaluating the 24-70/2.8S Z mount lens. I own 2 laptops and 2 desktops. Both desktop monitors are high end color calibrated units: an NEC Spectraview and an HP Dreamcolor. One laptop is 3 years newer than the other. I was evaluating, on one of the laptops, images from the 24-70 at 24mm and F/6.3 on a complex, deeply detailed scene with detail side to side, front to back. On the newest laptop, which I took on the road with me, the corners seemed fine and I was impressed. Same image when I got home, viewed on the NEC and the dreamcolor, the corners were just "okay", but not up to "prime quality". I did a test print at 17x22", and lo and behold, the corners of the 24mm shot looked a bit "dead" - there wasn't the cohesive, consistent transparency that really high image quality produces across the frame. The broad central area was stunning, prime quality. So, the print was still pretty good, but compared to a shot from the 25/1.4 Milvus, the difference was not as obvious on the laptop, quite obvious on the bigger monitor, and fairly/moderately obvious in print at 17x22 or A2 size. And that wasn't viewing prints at some nonsense super close distance, but reasonable viewing distances. So given that, do you now see why I don't place much emphasis trying to prove my view with jpegs, particularly online ones, as a method of judging image quality? How could I know that the viewer had the right equipment to view them properly to arrive at a good conclusion?

(BTW, at 35mm, the situation was different - the zooms image quality easily met my standards across the frame in such a scenario, on every output medium, same with 50 and 60mm, which the F mount variations couldn't get close to doing)

When I read a restaurant review, I can't taste the food. So I have a few reviewers whose tastes I can correlate to and understand, and read their descriptions, and then ultimately try the place out. I offer my thoughts on lenses with the context of my use cases and I honestly try to give recommendations based both out of what I use them for and what others might, and hope that people consider that information and try/rent one out for themselves to see if there is any correlation between my thoughts and theirs. That will be more helpful than an online jpeg I might provide.

And that's all I'm going to say about that - too many years here fighting all the people who want to have long extended arguments about why I should provide images, of which I'm long past tired of getting into.


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