This may seem rather simple (or is it...?)

telefunk wrote:

Abu Mahendra wrote:

telefunk wrote:

That reminds me.

i went through the audiophile thing too and actually built my own speakers out of frustration with commercial offerings. However I never went down the path of the giant speaker cable hogwash :-).

What I learnt when developing cross-over filters for speakers is that the simplest and softest filter was always the best one (given drivers that will allow 1st order filtering). To put things simply: the less electronic correction you have to apply, the better for a 'natural' soundscape.

Now I recall someone here on DPR saying that some zoom lenses have that extra magic, amongst which the Pany 12-32 because there is not way too much glass in there to screw things up.

So that makes sense to me.

Passive crossovers? Stone age tech. People will insist on simple, first-order passive crossovers while ignoring the plain fact that the signal has undergone complex digital processing involving high tech active electronics before it reaches the speaker. 21st century digital electronics then coupled to 20th-century tech RLC circuits. Ditto for the idea that fewer lens elements makes for a 'purer' image.

Uhh possibly slightly off-topic:

99% of loudspeakers have passive crossovers. So they better be well-designed.

First active speakers by (who else?) Philips were the MFB speakers and later the amazing digital series.

You perhaps overlook studio monitors used by the pros for mixing, mastering, when critical neutrality is at a premium. 99% of studio monitors use active crossovers and an specialized amp for each driver, avoiding the brutish approach of extenal amplification mediated by a primitive passive RLC circuit.  My listening station at home uses (Focal)  active monitors.

MikeJ9116 wrote:

telefunk wrote:

MikeJ9116 wrote:

I have made comparisons in the past between music and photography. I too was into hi-end audio back in the 1990s and became too obsessed. Where music and photography align is that they each have an art and a technical component. I have been envious of people who can filter out the technical side and focus almost solely on the artistic side. These people look at the content of a photo or the melody/message of a song and appreciate the essence of either one. I need a mixture of both to truly enjoy music or photography.

I am also working on not making photography the main focus of a vacation, family gathering etc. I missed a lot of good times and memories fixating on getting photos. One reason I keep gravitating toward smaller gear is to keep me from being temped to spend too much time on the technical side of snapping a photo. This is the reason the M100 attracts me because it has good IQ but you can't get too wrapped up in using it and missing moments that can't be substituted by taking a photo.

I'm not sure I would trust Canon for going 100% automatic. Pany seems to have nailed that thing better. OK and now I'm running for cover!

The M100 is tiny and has an APS-C sensor. I also have EOM M lenses and gear to use with/on it. Canon is actually pretty good for JPGs with the SL2 I own and I image the M100 would give similar results. Plus, the base settings can be tweaked to taste or one can shoot RAW if desired.

No need to run for cover from me. I 'm not a fanboy of any brand these days.

Lot of people complain about the Digic7 colours: I, Marco Nero , Amazon reviews.. . AWB gives an unpleasant blue-cast to outdoor pictures. Anyone else?