at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Moti Veteran Member • Posts: 8,479
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

is it worth it to ebay gear because a new model has 60 mp - not 38 ?

these are questions that boggle the mind

When you understand that a camerabis a tool and not a fetish object.

Moti

-- hide signature --
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,972
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

TRIODEROB wrote:

To obsess, or not obsess--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of few megapixels
Or to take arms against a sea of labs tests and charts
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--

Or

"‘Shall I compare thee to a hot piece of totty?

For full frame art more lovely and temperate"

teejaywhy
teejaywhy Regular Member • Posts: 262
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

Never started.

 teejaywhy's gear list:teejaywhy's gear list
Nikon D750 Panasonic G85 Olympus PEN-F
MarshallG
MarshallG Veteran Member • Posts: 7,242
At what point does it make sense to stop posting rhetorical questions?

I’m just curious, that’s all.

 MarshallG's gear list:MarshallG's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM +2 more
Marty4650
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,419
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?
2

robblackett wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

To obsess, or not obsess--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of few megapixels
Or to take arms against a sea of labs tests and charts
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--

Or

"‘Shall I compare thee to a hot piece of totty?

For full frame art more lovely and temperate"

Or

"Would a Leica by any other name smell as sweet?"

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +14 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,972
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?
1

Marty4650 wrote:

robblackett wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

To obsess, or not obsess--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of few megapixels
Or to take arms against a sea of labs tests and charts
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep--

Or

"‘Shall I compare thee to a hot piece of totty?

For full frame art more lovely and temperate"

Or

"Would a Leica by any other name smell as sweet?"

Verily. But even though the poetry is superb, the themes timeless and universal, it's basically all just all about fondling knobs.

techjedi
techjedi Senior Member • Posts: 3,661
Only you can answer that.
6

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

is it worth it to ebay gear because a new model has 60 mp - not 38 ?

these are questions that boggle the mind

For some people, gear purchases might give them the inspiration they need to regularly take photos. The performance gain may be irrelevant when considering this kind of purchase.

Some people buy things like pinhole lens cap lenses, lensbaby filters or other things that degrade the IQ, but provide them with a motivation to do more creative photography.

I think pros should buy whatever tool helps them do their job as efficiently as possible and hobbyists should buy whatever they can afford that keeps them interested in the hobby.

 techjedi's gear list:techjedi's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 90mm F2.8 macro Sony FE 70-200 F4 Sony RX100 Sony a6500 +18 more
captivatingphotography Junior Member • Posts: 47
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

There are two considerations regarding equipment.

The first is related to the quality of image that any equipment can provide, assuming perfect use. While everyone would want the best result, the important consideration is whether the use, or implementation, is ever likely to be sufficiently good to realise the potential. In reality, 99 times out of 100, our skill falls short and removes almost all benefit of better gear.

However, that brings us to the second. Whether we like it or not, better (and more expensive!) kit will almost always perform much better in terms of enabling quick and effective use. It gets us closer to that 'perfect use'. Often that does genuinely lead to better results.

The curious anomaly is that, judging by many comments you see, people concentrate on the former aspect of better quality of image, but it is the better performance in other areas that leads to their images improving. For example, if many of their previous shots were very slightly out of focus, because they were demanding too much of their gear regarding AF speed and accuracy, they will regard the new lens as 'razor sharp' but only because it nails focus quickly.

Ultimately, though, the measure of worth comes from the observers. If they are unaware of differences, to question your own choices is pointless.

mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,068
Re: Only you can answer that.
3

techjedi wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

is it worth it to ebay gear because a new model has 60 mp - not 38 ?

these are questions that boggle the mind

For some people, gear purchases might give them the inspiration they need to regularly take photos. The performance gain may be irrelevant when considering this kind of purchase.

Some people buy things like pinhole lens cap lenses, lensbaby filters or other things that degrade the IQ, but provide them with a motivation to do more creative photography.

I think pros should buy whatever tool helps them do their job as efficiently as possible and hobbyists should buy whatever they can afford that keeps them interested in the hobby.

The last sentence sums it up concisely. I agree with it.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,792
Re: When you are satisfied with what you have

D Cox wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

I can't think of any meaningful optical test that can give scores in percentage points;

Since MTF is a number from 0 to 1, you can think of it as a percentage if you like.

It isn't a single number, it's a function -- that is, a set of numbers that you can plot on a graph.

Of course, I know that. In fact, it's a complex function and what we call MTF is just the absolute value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function

But sometimes people say MTF50 (or MTF9 for Rayleigh, for example), for 50%, and they mean at the center at a particular f-stop or diffraction limited.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +23 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,068
Re: When you are satisfied with what you have

Lee Jay wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

I can't think of any meaningful optical test that can give scores in percentage points;

Since MTF is a number from 0 to 1, you can think of it as a percentage if you like.

It isn't a single number, it's a function -- that is, a set of numbers that you can plot on a graph.

Of course, I know that. In fact, it's a complex function and what we call MTF is just the absolute value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function

But sometimes people say MTF50 (or MTF9 for Rayleigh, for example), for 50%, and they mean at the center at a particular f-stop or diffraction limited.

So now MTF is not a number from 0 to 1. What changed?

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,792
Re: When you are satisfied with what you have

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

I can't think of any meaningful optical test that can give scores in percentage points;

Since MTF is a number from 0 to 1, you can think of it as a percentage if you like.

It isn't a single number, it's a function -- that is, a set of numbers that you can plot on a graph.

Of course, I know that. In fact, it's a complex function and what we call MTF is just the absolute value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function

But sometimes people say MTF50 (or MTF9 for Rayleigh, for example), for 50%, and they mean at the center at a particular f-stop or diffraction limited.

So now MTF is not a number from 0 to 1. What changed?

Read the above that you quoted and do so with your brain turned on this time.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +23 more
Marty4650
Marty4650 Forum Pro • Posts: 15,419
Lets be honest
6

(The following only applies if you live in the first world, and are curious about why we buy things we really don't need)

If we only bought things we absolutely needed, then the GDP would plummet and millions of people would be unemployed. Our economy and standard of living is based on consumption of things we don't absolutely need.

The truth is most of the stuff we buy we really don't need. We just buy things because we want them and are affluent enough to own them.

You need shelter, but you don't need a really nice place to live, complete with a two car garage, a $1,500 refrigerator with ice maker built in, central heat and air, a large flat screen TV, several computers and smartphones, an automatic dishwasher, and a washer and dryer. You also don't need 300 cable TV channels and a large collection of music and video.

You need food, but you don't need expensive meats, seafood, wine, beer, whiskey, or any produce that is out of season, and gets flown to you local supermarket from places where workers earn 40 cents an hour. You just need sufficient nutrition.

You need transportation, but you don't need a $40,000 SUV, or a sports car, or a very expensive electric Tesla so you can virtue signal your neighbors about how green you are. You just need something reliable to take you to and from work.

And cameras are no different. In fact, we don't need cameras at all. We just like having them. And once in a while we might take a nice photo. Because we enjoy doing it.

 Marty4650's gear list:Marty4650's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH +14 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,068
Re: When you are satisfied with what you have

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

I can't think of any meaningful optical test that can give scores in percentage points;

Since MTF is a number from 0 to 1, you can think of it as a percentage if you like.

It isn't a single number, it's a function -- that is, a set of numbers that you can plot on a graph.

Of course, I know that. In fact, it's a complex function and what we call MTF is just the absolute value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function

But sometimes people say MTF50 (or MTF9 for Rayleigh, for example), for 50%, and they mean at the center at a particular f-stop or diffraction limited.

So now MTF is not a number from 0 to 1. What changed?

Read the above that you quoted and do so with your brain turned on this time.

All I see are conflicting statements by you. Do you care to clarify the conflict? Do you still think MTF is a number from 0 to 1? Or is it a complex function? You made both statements.  Is it both in your mind?

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
Lee Jay Forum Pro • Posts: 54,792
Re: When you are satisfied with what you have

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

I can't think of any meaningful optical test that can give scores in percentage points;

Since MTF is a number from 0 to 1, you can think of it as a percentage if you like.

It isn't a single number, it's a function -- that is, a set of numbers that you can plot on a graph.

Of course, I know that. In fact, it's a complex function and what we call MTF is just the absolute value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function

But sometimes people say MTF50 (or MTF9 for Rayleigh, for example), for 50%, and they mean at the center at a particular f-stop or diffraction limited.

So now MTF is not a number from 0 to 1. What changed?

Read the above that you quoted and do so with your brain turned on this time.

All I see are conflicting statements by you.

That's because you aren't literate.

Do you care to clarify the conflict? Do you still think MTF is a number from 0 to 1? Or is it a complex function?

I'll explain it to you like you're a 4-year-old.

OTF (Optical Transfer Function) is a complex function.

MTF is the absolute value of OTF, so it's a real function.

However, many people simplify that real function to a single point and describe that single point by a fraction, decimal or percentage. For example:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

"Perceived image sharpness (as distinguished from traditional lp/mm resolution) is closely related to the spatial frequency where MTF is 50% (0.5)— where contrast has dropped by half."

Just in case you are wondering if he's credible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imatest

"Imatest LLC is a company that produces image quality testing software and offers a range of consulting services. Imatest was founded by photographer/engineer Norman Koren in Boulder, Colorado in 2004 to develop software for testing digital camera image quality."

Got it now?

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay

 Lee Jay's gear list:Lee Jay's gear list
Canon IXUS 310 HS Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon Extender EF 2x III +23 more
mamallama
mamallama Forum Pro • Posts: 56,068
Re: When you are satisfied with what you have
1

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

mamallama wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

D Cox wrote:

Lee Jay wrote:

Gerry Winterbourne wrote:

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

I can't think of any meaningful optical test that can give scores in percentage points;

Since MTF is a number from 0 to 1, you can think of it as a percentage if you like.

It isn't a single number, it's a function -- that is, a set of numbers that you can plot on a graph.

Of course, I know that. In fact, it's a complex function and what we call MTF is just the absolute value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function

But sometimes people say MTF50 (or MTF9 for Rayleigh, for example), for 50%, and they mean at the center at a particular f-stop or diffraction limited.

So now MTF is not a number from 0 to 1. What changed?

Read the above that you quoted and do so with your brain turned on this time.

All I see are conflicting statements by you.

That's because you aren't literate.

Literate? What does it take to understand two simple conflicting sentences??? Your insult is a joke and shows your desperation to deflect.

Do you care to clarify the conflict? Do you still think MTF is a number from 0 to 1? Or is it a complex function?

I'll explain it to you like you're a 4-year-old.

OTF (Optical Transfer Function) is a complex function.

MTF is the absolute value of OTF, so it's a real function.

However, many people simplify that real function to a single point and describe that single point by a fraction, decimal or percentage. For example:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

"Perceived image sharpness (as distinguished from traditional lp/mm resolution) is closely related to the spatial frequency where MTF is 50% (0.5)— where contrast has dropped by half."

Just in case you are wondering if he's credible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imatest

"Imatest LLC is a company that produces image quality testing software and offers a range of consulting services. Imatest was founded by photographer/engineer Norman Koren in Boulder, Colorado in 2004 to develop software for testing digital camera image quality."

Got it now?

Your words are just to obfuscate. Those with their brains turned on know that the "F" in MTF stands for function, which is not a number from 0 to 1.

You make a dumb statement and when called on it you go look up something and write a bunch of unrelated words and give some links to obfuscate as you just did. Your pattern is consistent.

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
OP TRIODEROB Veteran Member • Posts: 3,271
Re: When you are satisfied with what you have

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your Leica ;
I come to bury Caesar , not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;

( right now I am obsessing - I admit it - for a Leica monochrome )

Jake2046
Jake2046 Regular Member • Posts: 232
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?
1

I don't mind seeing new tech...BUT in no mean, I am going to buy it just because it's new. All these new tech innovations get so overblown and overhyped. My 6 years old camera still gets the job done. The only time I even consider getting a new camera body is because the old one broke.

Camley Senior Member • Posts: 1,790
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?
1

TRIODEROB wrote:

in other words how far down the rabbit hole should you chase small improvements in gear.

will it translate to much better images if you get a lens which score 7% more on a optical test ?

is it worth it to ebay gear because a new model has 60 mp - not 38 ?

these are questions that boggle the mind

You can say the same thing about computers and stick with an XP model.

Buy what you can afford. If you can't afford new gear then don't buy it.

People don't have to justify their gear decisions to anyone - except perhaps their spouses! If they want the latest or the most expensive model it's up to them and there is no shame in buying a 60 or a 160 MP camera, or yet another 35 mm f/1.4 lens.

If nobody purchased the latest and greatest cameras, because 8 MP is apparently all a sensible person will ever need, the whole camera industry would collapse. Personally I like 42 MP a whole lot better than 20 MP because I like to crop, remove keystoning etc. with the least restriction that I can reasonably afford.

 Camley's gear list:Camley's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS 6D
Camley Senior Member • Posts: 1,790
Re: Lets be honest

Marty4650 wrote:

(The following only applies if you live in the first world, and are curious about why we buy things we really don't need)

If we only bought things we absolutely needed, then the GDP would plummet and millions of people would be unemployed. Our economy and standard of living is based on consumption of things we don't absolutely need.

The truth is most of the stuff we buy we really don't need. We just buy things because we want them and are affluent enough to own them.

You need shelter, but you don't need a really nice place to live, complete with a two car garage, a $1,500 refrigerator with ice maker built in, central heat and air, a large flat screen TV, several computers and smartphones, an automatic dishwasher, and a washer and dryer. You also don't need 300 cable TV channels and a large collection of music and video.

You need food, but you don't need expensive meats, seafood, wine, beer, whiskey, or any produce that is out of season, and gets flown to you local supermarket from places where workers earn 40 cents an hour. You just need sufficient nutrition.

You need transportation, but you don't need a $40,000 SUV, or a sports car, or a very expensive electric Tesla so you can virtue signal your neighbors about how green you are. You just need something reliable to take you to and from work.

And cameras are no different. In fact, we don't need cameras at all. We just like having them. And once in a while we might take a nice photo. Because we enjoy doing it.

Well said.

 Camley's gear list:Camley's gear list
Sony a7R II Canon EOS 6D
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads