I just found http://www.pixel-peeper.com/ for the first time. I'm finding it to be incredibly cool, and terrifying. It's very cool for finally, definitively, show how a given lens behaves across a large sample of lenses.
Frightening because now I want to buy more lenses.
What do you all think? Is this too much a distraction from actually taking photos? Do you love it? Has pixel peeping helped you find your perfect lens?
Sometimes, I use 100% crops to compare different lenses. Other times, I might use a 100% crop because I want to get in as close as I can, to an existing photo. Most times, it doesn't matter at all, because the image that you're putting on display is not at 100%.
I haven't yet found a perfect lens, although the EF 200/1.8L and Mamiya A 200/2.8 APO aren't far off. The eight lenses in my top five favourites were recently listed here, https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/952469/0#9010795
I think it is good to understand technical stuff about photography, to the extent that this knowledge actually improves your photography. Understanding how the performance characteristics of one lens can differ from the characteristics of another can be useful.
But "pixel peeping" is referring to something different than this. The association of the term is with an obsession with minute technical differences between pieces of equipment that have little or no photographic significance, an obsession with "perfect" gear that can easily distract your attention from photography.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The association of the term is with an obsession with minute technical differences between pieces of equipment that have little or no photographic significance, an obsession with "perfect" gear that can easily distract your attention from photography.
I like to pixel peep partly because I like the skill that goes into making a lens which is able to represent reality well. I appreciate the craftsmanship which goes into making exceptionally nice lenses, and so appreciating the image itself is appreciating the work that went into design and manufacturing
Sure, when we print a 23+ MP 8x10 or show a web-sized image a lot of data is lost, but the data is still neat. Try taking a gigantic panorama, stitch it together, and then look at all the detail in buildings, in cars, in hills... Sure it's often lost in print but the format is digital, enjoy the data!
Those who do not pixel peep are satisfied with the original SDTV broadcast of Star Trek TOS. Those who do pixel peep would prefer to watch the remastered HDTV broadcast of Star Trek TOS.
It really depends on what you want to do with your photography. Do you want a high production value image with a compelling story or just a lower production value image with a compelling story?
A recent photo contest hosted by Canon Philippines was produced by a 400D + 50/1.8 II. Because the judges liked the story more than the image quality.
For me it is as simple as this. Newer L glass generally produces better images especially on high pixel density digital sensors.
dolina wrote:
Those who do not pixel peep are satisfied with the original SDTV broadcast of Star Trek TOS. Those who do pixel peep would prefer to watch the remastered HDTV broadcast of Star Trek TOS.
Or... Those that do not pixel peep sit a reasonable distance away from their HDTV and enjoy Star Trek for a variety of reasons. While those that do pixel peep watch their HDTV with their noses on the screen and are impressed with the clarity of the screen, but never see all of the elements in the show.
In truth I do like the pixelpeep website because it proves a point for me. When I look through the resized images I find images that look extremely sharp and clear, but when I look at the full sized image I realize that viewing poster sized images from a few feet away will never be as impressive.
This set of posts makes me wonder what the correlation might be, if any, between Star Trek fanatics and pixel peepers. Just sayin'...
Dan
jwp721 wrote:
Or... Those that do not pixel peep sit a reasonable distance away from their HDTV and enjoy Star Trek for a variety of reasons. While those that do pixel peep watch their HDTV with their noses on the screen and are impressed with the clarity of the screen, but never see all of the elements in the show.
In truth I do like the pixelpeep website because it proves a point for me. When I look through the resized images I find images that look extremely sharp and clear, but when I look at the full sized image I realize that viewing poster sized images from a few feet away will never be as impressive.
Pixel peepers have a function in society, even if it's just so you can see what the lens you want to buy or have just bought is capable of and making sure it's not defective. Any more than that and it becomes a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.
All that numbers and charts are only good for making sure the lens design is not flawed, not really an absolute measure on how this lens is THAT much better than that lens.
There are those wo think every pixel counts, for a variety of reasons (a.o. editors of e.g. stock sites, ability to crop, large-ish prints at high dpi (if you ever saw prints from 8*13 inch LF you know why/immersion factor).
And there are those who view on screen from a reasonable distance and/or print relativelty small, for a variety of reasons (a.o. what they normally sell, what they can store, what they can afford to print, it's the mood that counts - not the afforementioned immersion factor).
And never the twain shall meet, except on forums in flame wars of course (thank God for hide lists).
So choose your style depending on what best suits your subject matter and artistic vision and optimize for that.
Mike V wrote:
If you don't care about image quality, why not just use a Superzoom like a 28-200mm or a point and shoot for that matter?
If you aren't viewing at 100, you are seeing an interpolated image, so little can be judged.
There's a difference in picture quality, and being able to get the shot at all. You can't generalize the issue that much.
I do hear what you're saying though, and partially agree. I think photographers tend to be perfectionists, and once they know what they need, they'll try to get and use the best lens that fits those needs.
I really see both sides here. I do want the best resolution, great color, low aberration, good flare control (depending on what the subject is), etc... but there's a point where the only people seeing the difference will be me on my computer with the raw file... and you guys if I post something at 100%
I think of it a lot like my conscience. It's good not to be too lax so as not to let things fall apart and let the technicals negatively affect your vision, but one can easily get too scrupulous as well.
And yes, I zoom in often to 400%, but that's to make sure I knock out CA, touching things up very carefully, etc.
