Re: Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny?
Dawei Ye wrote:
If anything, a pixel peeper\'s opinion is more valid and useful to me when it comes to discussing the pros and cons of gear from a technical perspective. When I want to learn people management skills and aesthetics I will listen to the photographers whose work I admire, but when it comes to SNR or Megapixels or DR I will steer well clear from the \"professional\" photographers and welcome the pixel peepers with open arms.
A few responses.
First, who says that \"photographers\" are not knowledgable about technical matters and about the technical characteristics of their cameras? Virtually all of the photographers I know, a number of whom are far more successful than any of us posting here, are true experts at the technical aspects of photography. This is not an either/or thing where technical understanding renders one incapable of making photographs and photographic vision renders one incompetent on technical matters. (Not to beat a dead Ansel, but he is one of many examples of photographers who excelled at both. I would welcome his advice on both technical and aesthetic issues.)
Second, if the reason for selecting and purchasing photographic equipment is to, uh, make photographs, doesn\'t it make some sense to consider the opinions of photographers on the technical matters that are important when making photographs? You use the term \' \"professional\" photographers\' as if it is a badge of dishonor. Odd.
Third, unless ones goal is to own things that measure better on a test bench than the things owned by other people, the important thing is how the tool performs for making photographs. Let\'s say that someone comes out with a camera whose shutter speed is always accurate within a margin of error that is half that of other cameras. Must be the best camera, right? After all, it \"measures better\" than the other cameras in this regard. However, as I\'m sure is obvious to everyone reading this, that \"pixel peeper\" perspective is essentially completely irrelevant to real photography...
... as any real photographer can plainly see.
For my part, I\'m quite interested in understanding the technical aspects of photography. For what its worth, some people think that this does not prevent me from making decent photographs from time to time. YMMV.
Take care,
Dan
BTW: My understanding of the term \"pixel peeper\" is that it is not equivalent to a term like \"technical expert.\" A number of people who qualify as technical experts in photography are dismissive of those described as \"pixel peepers.\" The meaning of the term \"pixel peeper\" is essentially: A person who is obsessive about measurable but tiny differences among examples of photographic equipment and processes that are largely or completely irrelevant to the quality of photographs and is often more concerned about these trivial technical differences than about the things that make photographs great or not.
Trying to understand how aperture affects DOF and diffraction blur? Not a pixel peeper. Calculating DOF to the closest millimeter in landscape photos? Pixel peeper.
Selecting a lens that has good specs for your stopped down landscape photography? Not a pixel peeper. Choosing a less functional lens over another that has 1 lp/mm \"worse\" resolution at its idea aperture? Pixel peeper.
And so on...
Sep 27, 2010 at 05:48 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #8888297 « Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny? »
