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

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
Robert111 Contributing Member • Posts: 566
Re: At that point when...

absquatulate wrote:

you realise that no camera you ever bought made you a better photographer, no non photographer ever looks at your photos and wonders what camera took it, and when you realise you've been kidding yourself for years and actually you just like new toys. Plenty of people never have that epiphany so don't beat yourself up if you don't either, but don't try and kid yourself new stuff ever makes you a better photographer, it just doesn't.

More important than the particular camera is learning how to get the most out of your camera within its performance limits, finding interesting subjects, framing well, and post processing skillfully.

 Robert111's gear list:Robert111's gear list
Sony RX10 IV Sony RX100 VI Olympus E-M1 II Sony a9 Sony a7R III +14 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:

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.

No, you just don't understand simple language.

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.

So you're going to tell me Norman Koren is wrong by using the statement above?

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

A function can have a value and still be described by the name of the function. This sort of thing is done all the time, and MTF is described as a number commonly.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22MTF50%22

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.

Well, if my statement was dumb than so was Norman's and the same with all the hundreds of people that show up in the search above.

I think that makes you dumb for not recognizing the obvious, not me.

-- 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 EF 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye USM +23 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:

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.

No, you just don't understand simple language.

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.

So you're going to tell me Norman Koren is wrong by using the statement above?

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

A function can have a value and still be described by the name of the function. This sort of thing is done all the time, and MTF is described as a number commonly.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22MTF50%22

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.

Well, if my statement was dumb than so was Norman's and the same with all the hundreds of people that show up in the search above.

I think that makes you dumb for not recognizing the obvious, not me.

Sorry, you wasted all that time (4 hours) since my post looking up an article that does not prove your point. There is nothing there that says MTF is a number between 0 and 1. Keep trying. But you are looking for something that does not exist. Google Search is not your friend when looking for something that does not exist.

Yes everybody knows functions will have a particular value (number) at each argument, but a function is not a number. You used the word "is". Do you know the meaning of "is"?

 mamallama's gear list:mamallama's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +1 more
Tuonov2 Senior Member • Posts: 1,180
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

I think people selling their old hardly used gear to upgrade to the latest and greatest is wonderful, it means that when I wear out my gear I can pick up fantastic equipment for cents on the dollar. Happy days.

BattleBrat Regular Member • Posts: 273
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

For me, I looked at what I really needed from my photographs and I looked and found lenses that fulfilled those requirements (16x24 print size, Sharp enough lens to not need sharpening, smooth bokeh) and I’m VERY happy with my current gear as a result.

 BattleBrat's gear list:BattleBrat's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Olympus OM-D E-M5 Canon EOS M Canon EOS 6D Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +18 more
SonyOB Contributing Member • Posts: 715
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

I do not think that Amazon (the owner of DPR) has any other interest in photography than getting cash flow. Real photographers are few and far apart. Gadgets are there for any bored nerd (like myself) to buy. Buying is so much easier than learning a trade.
My pictures suck but I know everything of Chromatic Aberration. And I love the 'unwrapping' videos on YouTube and the talking faces, one black lens in the left hand another, black also, in the right. Who use very long sentences to say nothing.

Playing a 'let's pretend' game.

-- hide signature --

"If your pictures are not good enough, you need to buy some more stuff from Amazon"
(Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon)

 SonyOB's gear list:SonyOB's gear list
Sony RX100 V Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Sony a7 III Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM +13 more
Max Iso
Max Iso Senior Member • Posts: 7,724
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?
1

SonyOB wrote:

I do not think that Amazon (the owner of DPR) has any other interest in photography than getting cash flow. Real photographers are few and far apart. Gadgets are there for any bored nerd (like myself) to buy. Buying is so much easier than learning a trade.
My pictures suck but I know everything of Chromatic Aberration. And I love the 'unwrapping' videos on YouTube and the talking faces, one black lens in the left hand another, black also, in the right. Who use very long sentences to say nothing.

Playing a 'let's pretend' game.

Shots fired !

-- hide signature --

"Teach me how to sacrifice
I'm told that I don't know a thing
But maybe with some time alone
We'll both learn what it means
I feel as though I owe you more
Than just these words of gratitude you read
So before it ends, my friend
I'll teach you how to, bleed...." -

 Max Iso's gear list:Max Iso's gear list
Nikon D300 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm F1.8 Panasonic Lumix G 25mm F1.7 ASPH +5 more
OP TRIODEROB Veteran Member • Posts: 3,271
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

I can see upgrading if the improvement is dramatic.

what is startling to me is how folks will so easily flip systems which requires first ebaying everything or selling to a dealer and getting completely fleeced.

Two cameras diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not own both
And be one photographer , long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where they were  lost in the undergrowth;

fferreres Senior Member • Posts: 2,241
Re: at what point does it make sense to stop obsessing over gear minutia ?

Tuonov2 wrote:

I think people selling their old hardly used gear to upgrade to the latest and greatest is wonderful, it means that when I wear out my gear I can pick up fantastic equipment for cents on the dollar. Happy days.

Exactly. I love those with quick upgrade cycles. I am so thankful to them; I owe them a lot. But even to people that where geeks about 90 years ago...when I buy a Contax from 1936, the only reasonI can buy it is because someone bought it in the first place.

What would we do without those that work professionally or make enough to try all the latest and greatest? They get to use it first, and the rest only need to way until they have moved on (ideally, 10 years down the road, us reading can afford it by then :-).

Unless if it's a Leica 7.5cm f1.5 lens

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads