at what point does “image quality” become inconsequential?

[emraphoto]

let me first say that i fully understand that should your game be landscape or advertising then i am aware of the importance of “image quality”. make no bones about it, it does have its place.

where the importance is lost on me is when a full frame dlsr is used as a benchmark for a compact or micro 4/3 type camera. i must of course admit i am 100% a content guy. if the merit of an image boils down to whether or not a d(whatever) would have made it “better” then you have lost me a long time ago.

i see reviews ad nauseum where a miniscule sign in the background of a mundane image of the outside of the local city hall is compared against multiple selections of cameras and i get the impression that the concept and merit of a compact is lost on some folks. combine that with the bewilderingly good images coming out of the gf1 i am toting about these days and i find myself going “huh”?

i have heard, on numerous occasions, “we are not there yet” in regards to the micro 4/3’s cameras AND even compacts ala the g10/11. it leaves me asking “where is THERE”? laser sharp leaves in the background of the photo of the kids at the park blown up to A3? the face of the person in the window of a building 350 yards away enlarged 100% on the screen? super clean images at iso 6400?

does any of this matter?

 

[Brian Puccio]

At what point does “image quality” become inconsequential? When your photos suck.

 

[emraphoto]

perhaps the other way around?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Image quality ceases to matter when you cease to be limited by your equipment, i.e. when your camera can take better pictures than you can. This is the concept of the 'quality threshold' that I have been preaching for years. The 'quality threshold' is astonishingly low for the vast majority of pictures: my Exakta Varex IIa with its 58/2 lens is above it.

After that, you're normally paying for greater ease of use and a camera that you simply like using better. Neither of these should be neglected, as they will both make you happier and therefore make it easier to get better pictures.

Just occasionally, though, you see a hint of 'magic' in a particular combination, and also, there's no real harm in more megapixels unless they are crammed too tight on the sensor: I see a detectable difference between the M8 and the M9.

The real trick is to decide what you want, and to go for it: indecision, or accepting second best, is the route to constantly changing cameras, and always feeling you are limited by whatever you own.

I don't feel limited by an M9. Yes, I know its limitations (long lenses, high ISO, etc.) but for me, the good points vastly outweigh the bad. For others they don't. But I do feel badly limited by cameras where the only viewfinder is a screen on the back -- and therefore I get worse pictures. No doubt a lot of it is habituation, and no doubt for 90% of the pictures I take, it doesn't really matter. But the other 10% of pictures matter too.

Cheers,

R.

 

[patois]

Your images should be compelling regardless of if you shoot with a trillion dollar leica or cup with a hole in it.

 

[Brian Puccio]

perhaps the other way around?

No, I think if your photos suck, it doesn't matter how many megapixels you've got, how little noise there is at ISO 1600 or anything else, it's a poor photo and there's no way around that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Your images should be compelling regardless of if you shoot with a trillion dollar leica or cup with a hole in it.

Well of course they should be, but personally, I find the Leica easier to use (though I must admit I've never tried anything more expensive than an S2). And guess what? I get better pictures with cameras that do what I want in a way that I find all but inuitive.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BillBingham2]

I've wondered that for the past year or two. With all the power of the developing/editing software I think you can fix just about anything. People forget the amount of dodging and burning we did in the darkroom. How much retouching was done with brushes and such. I wont get into the question of format size and ability disc vs instamatic vs 135 vs 4x5. You're still working with the same film, just lens quality, film flatness and then degree of enlargement.

Not shooting professionally (read having someone to bug me about quality other than myself) I have to say from everything I've seen the D700 reads close enough (other than the size of the camera) to replace my Nikon F. My GRD III is a fine replacement in every way for my Bessa L & 25/4 combo (my snapshot camera). I'd love a bit more reach at the ASA/ISO but the quality is excellent it actually has become my main camera.

I'd like them to look at higher sensitivity and color rendition to make it match Kodachrome but it's as good as the old Ektachrome 400 from the last 70's so I'm OK. Again, I'd like the high ASA/ISO be as good as pushing it to 1200 (it rocked for me back then).

B2 (;->

 

[emraphoto]

No, I think if your photos suck, it doesn't matter how many megapixels you've got, how little noise there is at ISO 1600 or anything else, it's a poor photo and there's no way around that.

I get it and agree

 

[emraphoto]

Well of course they should be, but personally, I find the Leica easier to use (though I must admit I've never tried anything more expensive than an S2). And guess what? I get better pictures with cameras that do what I want in a way that I find all but inuitive.

Cheers,

R.

I will second the interface importance Roger. i place that high above megapixels or high iso capability.

 

[Finder]

Photography is a process. The photographer needs to master the process which includes understanding the limitations. If I want a grainy harsh look to my images, I will not shoot 100 speed film in an 8x10 view camera. I do not ask my E-P1 to do what my Horseman SW612 can do. I don't dis my goat because it is not a cow.

But these qualities do not make a good image; they add flavor--I assume we are going beyond control of exposure and focus. So I agree, the discussion that X camera/format is somehow superior to Y camera/format is a pointless argument. Now, if you don't like the result, then don't use a particular camera/process, but it does not make it "inferior."

 

[maddoc]

I think it boils down to the content of an image, either the image has "something" interesting or it is just plain boring. Most images (photos) that I like are technically spoken far from perfect but interesting in the one or other way. On the other hand, many technically perfect photos I find plain boring because the only interesting part is the technical perfection.

 

[Ranchu]

I am completely uninterested in an M8-9 or a D700, but I will keep my G10 forevah. The thing is, to get 'image quality' improvements in one aspect, another aspect suffers. The G10 has the best color of any camera Ive used, and I give up dynamic range for it. That sucks but color is my first priority.

 

[emraphoto]

i suppose there is a point to the "language" Finder and you raise good points. it's in those exact examples that I get lost.

the digital M's are great examples. the cameras have been decried at length for not being up to par with say a D3 or 5D and i suppose it smells of "punter" logic to me.

 

[emraphoto]

I think it boils down to the content of an image, either the image has "something" interesting or it is just plain boring. Most images (photos) that I like are technically spoken far from perfect but interesting in the one or other way. On the other hand, many technically perfect photos I find plain boring because the only interesting part is the technical perfection.

aBLOODYmen!

 

[emraphoto]

i am currently revisiting your comments on the "quality threshold" Roger (here and ap etc.). it appears your have a far more eloquent approach than i

 

[ruben]

I would have to agree to the concept that sharpness is relative to the taste of the photographer, excluding those who are pro and are compelled to fullfil the requirements of their specific branch in the industry.

"There" too is a relative concept within the same parameters as above. "There" for me not ended with the micro 4/3, but the Panasonic G1 left me happy enough to buy two bodies and never look back - a rare feature in a GAS addicted like me.

Outspokenly the higher Canon machines have much more image quality. Unfortunately they lack the acrobatics of the abovementioned cameras. And to my opinion the flipping back of one of the Canon G fixed lens camera series is mounted on the wrong camera. Canon had done much better to mount a flippable back to any of their small size dslrs.

The Panasonic G1 has been a major achievement as for the first time, in my very personal subjective judgement, the flexibility of design puts in question marks the desairability of higher image quality. But of course I am not a Pro but a free bohemian.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Sparrow]

When the prints look “good enough” ... the law of diminishing returns applies to each stage not just the camera.

 

[emraphoto]

for the record Ruben i have never had an image turned down due to image quality inferiority. pocket sized point and shoots included.

 

[40oz]

Why not shoot with 110 film instead of 35mm?