Dan, I give up. Your saying "So the “more light” business doesn’t accomplish anything other than greater resolution and smaller noise grain" means that we would not be able to understand each other, as the only thing that matters is the total amount of light that has been captured in a photo. More light in one photo than in another that is equivalent in every respect except the amount of light means better shadows recovery. The exposure, that is light per unit sensor surface area determines the ISO which is not directly comparable between sensors of different sizes (one must use the square of the crop factor to compare the ISO values then).
Are you familiar with the concepts of photographic equivalence, and the definition of dynamic range?
Geoff D F wrote:
No you are not missing anything assuming you are interested in taking photos.
This discussion has veered off into questions of how many angels can dance on the heads of pins. For all the esoteric talk about sensor size, there is no mention of the generation of sensor. My X-T5 (APS-C) outperforms by a mile my old Canon 5D (FF). Needless to say if you can't take a compelling photo with even an APS-c camera it's not the fault of the gear.
As for needing sharpness at the pixel level for areas that are not the main subject, I was watching a video with Joe Cornish and Colin Prior, and Joe was often shooting landscapes at F5.6- F8 because he wanted the areas away from the main subject to be just slightly softer than the main subject to help guide the viewer's eyes to rest on the subject....Show more →
If we can't compare to same generation of tech, this talk become a moot point and totally meaningless. I hope everyone assume that is a given baseline. Good thing about this is really, sensor per pixel performance hasn't improved much since A7R/D800 area. So all these discussion is still relevant 1st order for any gear in past 10 years or so.
One thing I found interesting is whenever people talk about gear or tech, the argument is always drift to if you can't take a good photo with gear X, it is not the gear but you. I find this kind of argument meaningless really. There is a sub forum for art or image talking if people prefer and we all know this is gear forum, no? Just saying.
zhangyue wrote:
Hi Jack, if this is related to my post, I can explain and to simplify: even we do the same exposure, large sensor capture more photon. The equation related to SNR: N/SquareR(N) is still valid. (N is area ratio)
Okay, fine re SNR, but it still assumes the same total noise per pixel, which isn’t necessarily the case. If they did, and if you enlarged from both to the same size output, then yes the larger sensor image will theoretically show less noise. But this really doesn’t affect final IQ or “look” all that much, especially given today’s excellent sensors and post noise tools.
zhangyue wrote:
If we can't compare to same generation of tech, this talk become a moot point and totally meaningless. I hope everyone assume that is a given baseline. Good thing about this is really, sensor per pixel performance hasn't improved much since A7R/D800 area. So all these discussion is still relevant 1st order for any gear in past 10 years or so.
One thing I found interesting is whenever people talk about gear or tech, the argument is always drift to if you can't take a good photo with gear X, it is not the gear but you. I find this kind of argument meaningless really. There is a sub forum for art or image talking if people prefer and we all know this is gear forum, no? Just saying. ...Show more →
I would think this discussion has gotten to the point of being close to meaningless anyway. If people want to discuss the technical aspects of sensor size and technology on a gear forum for fun then that is fine. But lets not pretend that in the end the things we are talking about will make anything other than a very small difference to image quality, verses other aspects such as how a camera handles, how engaging it is to use, whether it is simple enough to avoid making mistakes when operating, and the lenses we might use.
Jack Flesher wrote:
it still assumes the same total noise per pixel, which isn’t necessarily the case.
Can you elaborate this?
Jack Flesher wrote:
If they did, and if you enlarged from both to the same size output, then yes the larger sensor image will theoretically show less noise. But this really doesn’t affect final IQ or “look” all that much, especially given today’s excellent sensors and post noise tools.
SNR is intrinsic property. talk about individual pixel SNR is really not that helpful for digital camera we are talking here.
Geoff D F wrote:
I would think this discussion has gotten to the point of being close to meaningless anyway. If people want to discuss the technical aspects of sensor size and technology on a gear forum for fun then that is fine. But lets not pretend that in the end the things we are talking about will make anything other than a very small difference to image quality, verses other aspects such as how a camera handles, how engaging it is to use, whether it is simple enough to avoid making mistakes when operating, and the lenses we might use.
can you define "small" or "big" difference?
Do you think to clear misconception meaningless?
The reason I am chiming in here is I saw there are mis conceptions floating here regarding fundamental understandings of digital sensor, noise, signal or "IQ".
It likes in discussion about which car's engine has more horse power, you chime in talk about improving your driving skill or horse power doesn't matter for you to commute in city.
gyoung143 wrote:
What magnification or crop is spe Ifield for the so called digital version? It's nonsensense, there is a spec for DoF to do the calculations. The so called digital is really none, which simply proves tge point. If you stray from tge standard definition you need a separate scale for any magnification or crop. To quote one 'alternative' to the 'standard' definition is pointless.
Gerry
Pixel Based DoF on Fuji cameras shows you exactly where critical focus lies when viewing an image at 100%. Most useful! In fact, when cropping it is the only tool to show where to put focus.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Pixel Based DoF on Fuji cameras shows you exactly where critical focus lies when viewing an image at 100%. Most useful! In fact, when cropping it is the only tool to show where to put focus.
But you don't need the pixel based 'DoF' scale for that, just the knowledge that there is only one critically sharp plane of focus no matter what aperture, and that focus falls off in front of and behind that plane more slowly as you use smaller apertures. That is immediately obvious, as you say, if you magnify part of the image, and always has been whether you're looking at pixels or grain. DoF phenomenon is an illusion based on the failings of the human eye to determine sharpness beyond a fairly coarse limit, and the 'film' based scale gives you that reality, within its prescribed parameters.
Pixel based D9F is just some modern invention probably by a YouTube that states the bleedin' obvious, useless in the world of actually taking anf viewing photos.
Even Pixel based there is a DoF - it is only much narrower than image based. The DoF indicator is a useful tool to make use of that. Works well for me with focal lengths 23mm and wider.
zhangyue wrote:
can you define "small" or "big" difference?
Do you think to clear misconception meaningless?
The reason I am chiming in here is I saw there are mis conceptions floating here regarding fundamental understandings of digital sensor, noise, signal or "IQ".
It likes in discussion about which car's engine has more horse power, you chime in talk about improving your driving skill or horse power doesn't matter for you to commute in city.
Nielk Mike wrote:
Even Pixel based there is a DoF - it is only much narrower than image based. The DoF indicator is a useful tool to make use of that. Works well for me with focal lengths 23mm and wider.
But what is the scientific basis for these calculations, and how is it useful. How is it more useful than the 'normal' calculations. Why is it useful for wide angles.
The phenomenon has nothing whatever to do with focal length, or field of view. It is about human perception of sharpness.
gyoung143 wrote:
But what is the scientific basis for these calculations, and how is it useful. How is it more useful than the 'normal' calculations. Why is it useful for wide angles.
The phenomenon has nothing whatever to do with focal length, or field of view. It is about human perception of sharpness.
Gerry
No need for me to try and explain. If it doesn't work for you, or doesn't make sense, no problem. You are happy without it, I am happy to use it. End of story.
“Technical” image quality, for sensor: resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity. that is in my mind for this discussion.
For photography I enjoy to see, depends on content or image field, for certain images such as street, reportage, I would say above contribute small weight. For large print on wall gallery such as landscape, architecture, it will be weighted more. Again, this is a subjective term. I won’t debate or challenge anyone on their opinion.
zhangyue wrote:
One thing I found interesting is whenever people talk about gear or tech, the argument is always drift to if you can't take a good photo with gear X, it is not the gear but you. I find this kind of argument meaningless really. There is a sub forum for art or image talking if people prefer and we all know this is gear forum, no? Just saying.
There is a fascinating essay about perfection in creative art in today’s issue of the New York Times. It is written by a concert pianist (my academic training and career were in the music field), though it can be extrapolated to most other arts and beyond.
It is about the problem with the obsession with supposed technical perfection in creative work, something that ultimately is a distraction from what we actually value in it. We might hear a performance (or see a photographic print) and remark, “that is technically perfect!” But who cares? What we really care about is responses like, “That is beautiful!” or “I’m moved by that!” or “it brought me to tears.”
Perfection in artistic expression does not exist. Excellence does. And excellence does not require perfection.
Excellence (particularly in vision and expression) is a big deal. Excellence in the technical media has value, of course, but fetisizing small differences in technical specs (or the perfection of hitting keys on the piano) is to miss the point. It is a distraction.
It really does matter whether or not one can make a good photograph with any gear —iPhone, GFX100sii, Instamatic, Rollei TLR. The “argument is always drifts to” what you’do with the gear, what you create with it, because that IS the fundamental purpose for making photographs.
It is certainly possible to discuss technical specs without reference to the point of making photographs. But discussing them in the context of what the medium is actually used for and how it affects viewers seems not irrelevant, but as relevant as it can possibly be.
I’m not saying that the quality of gear is irrelevant. That would be nonsensical. But some perspective on what role it actually plays in the effectiveness of the work is critical. I think about gear, how it works, what makes it better or worse… but that is not the point of photography, and when we obsess over small technical things to the point that they seem to be the most important thing about photographs, we are missing the entire point of the medium.
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
Are you familiar with the concepts of photographic equivalence, and the definition of dynamic range?
zhangyue wrote:
“Technical” image quality, for sensor: resolution, dynamic range, color fidelity. that is in my mind for this discussion.
For photography I enjoy to see, depends on content or image field, for certain images such as street, reportage, I would say above contribute small weight. For large print on wall gallery such as landscape, architecture, it will be weighted more. Again, this is a subjective term. I won’t debate or challenge anyone on their opinion.
You have asked me to define small vs big difference, yet here you are saying for street the difference will be small, while for big prints the difference will be larger. FWIW, I have printed 12mp 5D files up to 30 inches, and GFX files up to 40 inches. You can see a difference but mainly when viewed close. Sometimes this matters as viewers will often move in close to examine detail, and the GFX does make it easier to get a file that will hold up to large printing - for example 800 ISO is still fine for large prints. But I find myself in agreement with Dan that we shouldn't lose sight of what makes a compelling image and the things we are debating here are very much at the margins.
The attraction of the GFX system for me is that in certain situations it makes it easier to get the images I want and it challenges me to use the camera in a certain way. On the other hand, I'll happily admit that there are many situations that it makes it harder to get the images I want, so it is really a case of what is the preferred tool for a particular job.
gdanmitchell wrote:
There is a fascinating essay about perfection in creative art in today’s issue of the New York Times. It is written by a concert pianist (my academic training and career were in the music field), though it can be extrapolated to most other arts and beyond.
It is about the problem with the obsession with supposed technical perfection in creative work, something that ultimately is a distraction from what we actually value in it. We might hear a performance (or see a photographic print) and remark, “that is technically perfect!” But who cares? What we really care about is responses like, “That is beautiful!” or “I’m moved by that!” or “it brought me to tears.”
Perfection in artistic expression does not exist. Excellence does. And excellence does not require perfection.
Excellence (particularly in vision and expression) is a big deal. Excellence in the technical media has value, of course, but fetisizing small differences in technical specs (or the perfection of hitting keys on the piano) is to miss the point. It is a distraction.
It really does matter whether or not one can make a good photograph with any gear —iPhone, GFX100sii, Instamatic, Rollei TLR. The “argument is always drifts to” what you’do with the gear, what you create with it, because that IS the fundamental purpose for making photographs.
It is certainly possible to discuss technical specs without reference to the point of making photographs. But discussing them in the context of what the medium is actually used for and how it affects viewers seems not irrelevant, but as relevant as it can possibly be.
I’m not saying that the quality of gear is irrelevant. That would be nonsensical. But some perspective on what role it actually plays in the effectiveness of the work is critical. I think about gear, how it works, what makes it better or worse… but that is not the point of photography, and when we obsess over small technical things to the point that they seem to be the most important thing about photographs, we are missing the entire point of the medium.
Ok, pick one out of three
1) This work is excellent/beautiful, but not perfect technically
2) This work is technically perfect but not excellent/beautiful
3) This work is both technically perfect and excellent/beautiful
ruthenium wrote:
Ok, pick one out of three
1) This work is excellent/beautiful, but not perfect technically
2) This work is technically perfect but not excellent/beautiful
3) This work is both technically perfect and excellent/beautiful
One and three are really the same. If the work is excellent and beautiful, the technical imperfections won't be distracting and therefore don't matter.
gdanmitchell wrote:
There is a fascinating essay about perfection in creative art in today’s issue of the New York Times. It is written by a concert pianist (my academic training and career were in the music field), though it can be extrapolated to most other arts and beyond.
- - -
Oh, c’mon! :-(
I read the article and find it interesting though the title kind of puts me off. I see no evidence that "the quest for perfection is stunting society". I feel that reducing standards of excellence is a far more dangerous trend in today's world. I absolutely get his point that his training makes it hard for him to be creative. Yet he does not come to the conclusion that he regrets his training. And it certainly is possible for classically trained musicians to learn to write music or improvise. It could be argued that situation is ideal. Moving to photography, I find it hard to imagine that minding the technical details has a negative impact on how we compose our photos. Are you suggesting that we are wasting our energy online when we should be out living life and making photos? That's certainly true at times, these threads have motivated me to get out at times, . I think another thing to consider is that paying to much attention to the technical details cause people to make poor gear choices for themselves leading to frequent brand changes. I've often suggested that look and feel are as important as tech details but never seems to draw much agreement.
Geoff D F wrote:
One and three are really the same. If the work is excellent and beautiful, the technical imperfections won't be distracting and therefore don't matter.
I understand your point, and what you suggested isn't impossible. Nevertheless, isn't this true that generally (commonly?) the technical skills of an artist correlate with the appreciation of this artist's work? The following examples may or may not be suitable, yet I cannot help thinking that few people should be prepared to say,for example,
"I like this musical composition, so the technical imperfections of the musicians haven't been distracting and didn't matter"
"I like this ballet, so the technical imperfections of the dancers haven't been distracting and didn't matter."
"I like this story, so the technical imperfections of the actors who played it haven't been distracting and didn't matter."
In my imperfect way, I am arguing that the technical perfection in art is essential. This technical perfection isn't a guarantee of artistic success, yet my belief is that the success in art is rarely achieved by those who haven't invested their time and effort in perfecting their technical skills.
ruthenium wrote:
I understand your point, and what you suggested isn't impossible. Nevertheless, isn't this true that generally (commonly?) the technical skills of an artist correlate with the appreciation of this artist's work? The following examples may or may not be suitable, yet I cannot help thinking that few people should be prepared to say,for example,
"I like this musical composition, so the technical imperfections of the musicians haven't been distracting and didn't matter"
"I like this ballet, so the technical imperfections of the dancers haven't been distracting and didn't matter."
"I like this story, so the technical imperfections of the actors who played it haven't been distracting and didn't matter."
In my imperfect way, I am arguing that the technical perfection in art is essential. This technical perfection isn't a guarantee of artistic success, yet my belief is that the success in art is rarely achieved by those who haven't invested their time and effort in perfecting their technical skills.
In the past I might have agreed with you. The Japanese have a concept of beauty in imperfection. They apply it to things like Japanese gardens, hand made pottery, and paintings among other things. In photography it might be thought of as imperfections adding character. I'm increasingly moving to that viewpoint. To use a musical analogy, Herbert Von Karajan was meticulous in the way he conducted the Berlin Philharmonica. He managed to eek out every nuance in Symphonies. But as a consequence, his conducting was slow and some would regard the performances as lacking excitement and emotion compared to other more energetic conductors. Going back to photography, a lot of what we see today is technically extremely impressive and shows great technical skill. Though at an emotional level it often does very little for me.
. I think another thing to consider is that paying to much attention to the technical details cause people to make poor gear choices for themselves leading to frequent brand changes. I've often suggested that look and feel are as important as tech details but never seems to draw much agreement.