Pixel Peeping Madness!!! What the M8 made me realize.

E

eleskin

Well-known
Local time
5:15 PM
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,080
We have all heard of the term "Pixel Peeper". I began my career in Photography in 1989, moved through 35mm starting with Minolta, and then discovering Leica, and then moving into Medium format (6x9) in the mid 1990's. When looking at my M8 files, I am amazed at the detail and tonal range, and am not bothered by the ISO issues (Even with the M8's faults, it beats any 35mm and gives Medium Format a run for the $$$$). In 1990, if we had a camera the size of the m8 that could give us highly detailed prints of large size (16"x20" - 20"x24") that this camera is capable of, we would have been in absolute heaven!

When I hear the voices of pixel peepers, especially those who have never sweated it out in the darkroom, I have to think they are crazy, and do not realize how spoiled they truly are. When cameras of quality came into existance, especially those above 10mp, we have then reached a sort of plateau where adding more and more Megapixels became a fever in the photography world, but at the cost of talking about what is really important, the lenses and how they render an image. How often have we heard how many of the DSLR wide angle lenses cannot compete with rangefinder designs (rangefinder lenses have less distortion, greater sharpness at the edges, and have fast F stops as well as being much easier to focus in low light, even when compared with automated focus systems inmodern SLR's and DSLR's.

I can go on and on, but I do remember Leica stating better and faster LENSES are a much better approach than having the latest and greatest sensor.
 
Agree. But as I'm sure you remember same "pixel peepers" existed in film days as well. chasing new technology, etc. it was just a bit slower. For me, I pretty much couldn't care less how my pictures look at 100% magnification. Its the end result that counts. I was never into get the perfect shot in camera (probably because of my lack of knowledge about exposures, etc). I use to sweat it out in the darkroom, getting my picture that way i like it and now its much easier to do the same in Lightroom instead of darkroom :)
 
There were Grain Nazis thirty years ago, telling folks like me who shot HP-5 that our prints looked like crap bigger than 5x7" and that real photographers used, at minimum, a 4"x5" view camera or better yet, contact printed 8"x10" negatives onto Brilliant paper.

The only thing that's changed is the names of the gear and the people.
 
"How often have we heard how many of the DSLR wide angle lenses cannot compete with rangefinder designs (rangefinder lenses have less distortion, greater sharpness at the edges, and have fast F stops as well as being much easier to focus in low light, even when compared with automated focus systems inmodern SLR's and DSLR's."

I would love to see a test between a 14-24 2.8 on a D3x vs. anything similar on a M9 to see if this actually is true, I doubt it..
 
eleskin said:
When I hear the voices of pixel peepers, especially those who have never sweated it out in the darkroom, I have to think they are crazy, and do not realize how spoiled they truly are.
Click to expand...

I like to keep reminding myself that any technically or compositionally poor photograph is my doing not the camera, sensor or the film.
My reference point always goes back to exhibition prints that I've seen over the years from the great 35mm masters : Salgado, HCB, McCullin, Capa etc.
If I can achieve what was possible 50 years ago I will be more than happy.

If on the other hand, I want a massive scale architectural landscape in the spirit of Adams, Gursky or Burtynsk:
In the past nothing short of large format or stitched digital would cut it.
Such large negatives/pixel-rich images are effectively over-sampled, thus reducing optical flaws, compared to enlarging or upscaling a small sensor to several feet across.
However the quality achieved today from the best lenses and sensors and their ability to withstand enlargement is truly amazing : the rules are changing.
 
ulrikft said:
"How often have we heard how many of the DSLR wide angle lenses cannot compete with rangefinder designs (rangefinder lenses have less distortion, greater sharpness at the edges, and have fast F stops as well as being much easier to focus in low light, even when compared with automated focus systems inmodern SLR's and DSLR's."

I would love to see a test between a 14-24 2.8 on a D3x vs. anything similar on a M9 to see if this actually is true, I doubt it..
Click to expand...

The original quote is another form of pixel peeping and the differences IMHO are not so great today. I doubt most people would notice the difference. I too would like to see such a test.

Bob
 
Nikon Bob said:
The original quote is another form of pixel peeping and the differences IMHO are not so great today. I doubt most people would notice the difference. I too would like to see such a test.

Bob
Click to expand...

I agree, and the irony of it was fascinating :)
 
I think a lot of this issue is that most folks today demand cameras that perform well on a monitor, rather than on prints, because so many people, even those with very expensive cameras (film and digital), seem to rarely print anything. I have very nice 13"x19" prints from my first Canon digital, the 3 megapixel D30. If folks would just print from these cameras, the whole pixel peeping thing would become unimportant.
 
The absurd thing is that when they demand that the lens perform well on a monitor, they don't look at the picture, they look at 1:1 crops of the corners. The picture itself is unimportant.

I always think of people standing in an exhibition, looking at the corners of pictures with a loupe, muttering "Well, if he had used a Leica..." and walking out again.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I think a lot of this issue is that most folks today demand cameras that perform well on a monitor, rather than on prints, because so many people, even those with very expensive cameras (film and digital), seem to rarely print anything. I have very nice 13"x19" prints from my first Canon digital, the 3 megapixel D30. If folks would just print from these cameras, the whole pixel peeping thing would become unimportant.
Click to expand...

i agree. i also think that when a pictures merit boils down to "pixel peeping" criterion it is already lost on me.
 
rxmd said:
The absurd thing is that when they demand that the lens perform well on a monitor, they don't look at the picture, they look at 1:1 crops of the corners. The picture itself is unimportant.

I always think of people standing in an exhibition, looking at the corners of pictures with a loupe, muttering "Well, if he had used a Leica..." and walking out again.
Click to expand...

The last comment sounds like a local camera club photo judging contest.

Bob
 
ulrikft said:
"How often have we heard how many of the DSLR wide angle lenses cannot compete with rangefinder designs (rangefinder lenses have less distortion, greater sharpness at the edges, and have fast F stops as well as being much easier to focus in low light, even when compared with automated focus systems inmodern SLR's and DSLR's."

I would love to see a test between a 14-24 2.8 on a D3x vs. anything similar on a M9 to see if this actually is true, I doubt it..
Click to expand...
I think the Nikon lens is increadible. At the present time i can not imagine much getting close in terms of image quality. But everything has its limitations. Its hefty, the front element bulges precariously and there is no means of protecting it. Also filters are not an option. Have had a few issues with flare in bright light. This shot was taken at 14mm and it was the edge sharpness (right corner grass) which impressed me.

Richard
Longshaw_Moor_DSC4097jpgsmall.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom