Why the 800E is more important than ever

"Trevor" wrote in message
...
[]
Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full
screen size is NO comparison at all.

If you are producing images for the monitor, then it's the ultimate test.

Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.

If what you use are 6 x 4 prints, then it's what's on those prints which
matters.

I'm amazed at the people who are so stupid as to deride any real
comparison as "pixel peeping", the same idiots who call checking a
camera image or histogram "chimping" I suppose. I guess it makes them
feel superior when obviously they don't have a clue.

Trevor.

Knowing exactly how your kit is performing is important of course, but
it's also important to understand the limitations of the output medium you
are using. No point in paying grossly excessive amounts for optics or a
camera when you're never going to use its full resolution capabilities.
You may need 36 MP, I don't for what I do.

David

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:59:48 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

Surely you only need to resample if you want to retain the original
image size? Otherwise it's pixel to pixel and damn the image size.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

If you want to pixel peep, then don't resample. If you want to compare
the 10 MP and 16 MP images Rich was talking about when displayed as an
image - on a monitor or when printed out - then for use on the monitor for
fair comparison (with the whole image occupying the screen), you need to
resample to the monitor's native resolution.

Which immediately destroys the purpose of trying to make comparisons
at the pixel level.

I was trying to get an answer from Rich as to how the two cameras compared
on real-world images - those displayed on a computer monitor, HD TV, or or
a print viewed at normal viewing distance, without a magnifying loupe.

Cheers,
David

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 06:58:13 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

"Trevor" wrote in message
...
[]
Resampling to a monitors native resolution and "comparing" at full
screen size is NO comparison at all.

If you are producing images for the monitor, then it's the ultimate test.

Then you might as well use a 2.3Mp camera. All those extra pixels are
a waste of time.

Might as well compare 6"x4" prints.

If what you use are 6 x 4 prints, then it's what's on those prints which
matters.

Now you are down to 21.6K pixels

I'm amazed at the people who are so stupid as to deride any real
comparison as "pixel peeping", the same idiots who call checking a
camera image or histogram "chimping" I suppose. I guess it makes them
feel superior when obviously they don't have a clue.

Trevor.

Knowing exactly how your kit is performing is important of course, but
it's also important to understand the limitations of the output medium you
are using. No point in paying grossly excessive amounts for optics or a
camera when you're never going to use its full resolution capabilities.
You may need 36 MP, I don't for what I do.

From what you have written above, I doubt if you understand the
relevance of 36 MP.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 04:59:48 -0000, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

Surely you only need to resample if you want to retain the original
image size? Otherwise it's pixel to pixel and damn the image size.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

If you want to pixel peep, then don't resample. If you want to compare
the 10 MP and 16 MP images Rich was talking about when displayed as an
image - on a monitor or when printed out - then for use on the monitor
for
fair comparison (with the whole image occupying the screen), you need to
resample to the monitor's native resolution.

Which immediately destroys the purpose of trying to make comparisons
at the pixel level.

I was trying to get an answer from Rich as to how the two cameras
compared
on real-world images - those displayed on a computer monitor, HD TV, or
or
a print viewed at normal viewing distance, without a magnifying loupe.

Cheers,
David

Regards,

Eric Stevens

I'm not against making pixel-level comparisons, but it's also important to
know how those comparisons relate to the images you create - the end
result of your photography. I' hope to hear from Rich whether going from
10 MP to 16 MP resulted in an improvement with his images.

Cheers,
David

"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
...
[]
Then you might as well use a 2.3Mp camera. All those extra pixels are
a waste of time.

No, cropping may allow you greater compositional freedom. Crop after
taking.

If what you use are 6 x 4 prints, then it's what's on those prints which
matters.

Now you are down to 21.6K pixels

I make it 2.16 MP at 300 pixels per inch.

From what you have written above, I doubt if you understand the
relevance of 36 MP.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Having 36 MP will not help my photography per se, as I don't use
high-resolution output devices. However, I do regularly process 124 MP
images, albeit not from a digital camera. To benefit from 36 MP will
require good technique, and really isn't applicable to the type of images
I take. If it will benefit you, that's great. I would benefit from a
larger sensor for higher sensitivity, but I'm not prepared to take the
size, weight and cost penalty. My compromise is currently an APS-C DSLR.

Cheers,
Daivd

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"David J Taylor" wrote:
[]
My compromise is currently an APS-C DSLR.


... with a particularly nasty 11X superzoom consumer-grade lens.

It's a great lens for my needs - a compromise of course, but one which
works very well with my equipment size and weight constraints, and for the
output devices I use.

David

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
In other words, it's junk.

It's a very well engineered, and near optimal solution for my purposes.
Were it junk, I'm sure your stores wouldn't be selling it.

David

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
[]
It is most certainly junk. Only one lens manufacturer has ever made a
decent superzoom lens and it has not been available for many years.

Not junk based on the results that I've seen.

Unfortunately, too many people demand junk lenses because they are
"convenient". They buy a DSLR, one of whose major features is that it
takes interchangeable lenses, then they want a lens that they will
never have to change. It makes no sense at all.

At the moment, if they want the higher sensitivity of a larger sensor,
they have little other choice. People will buy what they believe best
suits their needs, and super-high resolution at full aperture may not be
that important if they never need to make large prints. They may use the
wide-range zoom as a carry-round lens, but have other lenses for different
occasions.

But 90% of DSLRs are sold to people who don't have a clue how to use
them. These clueless people buy junk lenses because they are too lazy
to change them and too lazy to learn that there exist vastly better
choices that they could have made - one of those vastly better choices
being not to buy a DSLR in the first place.

Naturally, as a retailer, we do our best to satisfy the needs and
demands of all our customers. We don't exclude clueless people from
that. We offer free tutorials for all buyers of DSLRs and mirrorless
cameras, and many of those who attend change their buying habits as a
result. But we aren't going to turn away profitable business just
because buyers are clueless.

As I'm not in retail, I can't dispute your 90% figure. Most people
actually want to take photos, and wonder about the finer points of whether
one lens has a 5% higher MTF or whatever. I would be reluctant to lose
the viewfinder I have, even though I know there are better in higher-end
DSLRs, but I would quite happily lose some of the weight.

A pity that you have to call a lens "junk" even when is it quite
satisfactory for many purposes, even if not for your needs.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
"David J Taylor" wrote:
A pity that you have to call a lens "junk" even when is it quite
satisfactory for many purposes, even if not for your needs.


Junk is as good as most people need, related to their ability and
expectations, both being extremely low.


LOL!

On 2012-03-22 11:02 , Bruce wrote:
"David J wrote:
A pity that you have to call a lens "junk" even when is it quite
satisfactory for many purposes, even if not for your needs.


Junk is as good as most people need, related to their ability and
expectations, both being extremely low.

Then it's good that all that junk is out there to meet your needs.


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.