Mike Johnston wrote:
<snip> > > And this is precisely what I have ALWAYS thought is total bullshit. To > decide which lens is of "higher quality," we have to decide what parameters > we're going to value. But scoring better in certain chosen parameters, > whatever they are, DOESN'T help the lens make better pictures. It merely > give it different qualities, which may be better for certain pictures and > worse for others. > <snip> Please read all the below in the most respectful and reverent of tone. Seriously. <g> Sure, but those reviews are written for many people, myself included, who don't totally understand the measurements. So to rate a lens on a scale and to give it a qualitative assesment is helpful. Seeing the actual images and how the measurements relate is even better. - But - I understand your point totally, and even mostly agree. MOST things in life ARE subjective. So I guess I'm really talking about MY parameters and not anyone elses. I'm probably talking in a general sense about products, that I feel have a margin of difference larger than what you're referring to. Who would argue that a 4mp (camera) is not better than a 3mp, that a 3mp is not better than a 2mp, that a 2mp is not better then a 1mp, that a 1mp is not better than a <1mp? I don't think it's wrong to make judgements based on such parameters and to refer to those differences as a difference in quality (unfortunately that was a pathetically bad example, it also being a difference in quantity, well maybe not). No one will argue that all other things the same, a 1mp camera would deliver as good of an image as a 4mp camera. But you could say you like the 1mp image better. If so, I have a 640 X 480 Mavica that only uses 307,200 pixels to record an image. I will gladly sell it to the highest bidder. <G> Back to the lens test scenario... I agree with you pretty much. The tests are making quantitative measurements. The human brain must make the qualitative assessment. <snip> > It's because I value a variety of the qualities of that lens differently > than the testers do, that's all. It's really all a matter of taste. That you are certainly allowed. Just remember, Starkist likes tuna that tastes good, not tuna with good taste! <g> <snip> > > > > The point I'm making (or attempting to make <g>) probably boils down to > > this. Correct me if I'm wrong. A 35mm film frame has the ability to record > > more information than the same size CCD, given that one exists . The "data > > density" is higher, among other things. > > And what metaphysics do you propose to demonstrate that more information > makes for better pictures? I could make a very good case for the opposite > being true (and if I did, neither of us would be entirely right). > > My own! Only I understand it! And since it's all subjective... <g>. I would ask you, to demonstrate that it doesn't. Or to demonstrate that less information makes for just as good of an image, or that less information makes for a better image. Again we are talking matters of degree. I think it's pretty easy to prove that a 35mm frame, having more capacity to record a scene, will deliver a better image than 110 film, all other things being equal. Unless one says they like the 110 look, and how it looks when blown up. And THEN I'd say the person is just trying to be difficult, UNLESS it was specifically that effect they were looking for. If I took a digital file down to the lab and a 35mm transparency of the same subject, and asked them to give me a 20 X 30 print from each, I'm pretty sure there would be a difference. I would assess it qualitatively, you may not. > > As a general consumer item, as used by most consumers, digital cameras may > > produce images that are just as good as film, in the eye of the one taking > > the photos. But try to do those things that most consumers don't do, and > > that I believe is where film wins out. > > Hmm. Purely playing devil's advocate, I might respond, "Is that why > professional photographers are switching to digital in droves?" Penetration > by digital is higher in the professional market than anywhere else. True, > none of them are using 3-megapixel point-and-shoot digicams. > > Of course, to that response, you might simply say that I'm being > argumentative, and you may be right. <s> > > I am sure you would know better than I regarding the pro market for digital cameras. Which pros, in what profession, and where will the images be displayed and at what size? > > Same argument can be made for 35mm vs. MF vs. LF. The reason for using the > > larger format is to record more information, to produce a better image at a > > given print size. That's mostly what I was meaning by the word quality. > > Uh-huh. So does it always work? Are medium format pictures always better > than small-format pictures? Are large format pictures always "better images" > than medium format pictures? No, obviously not. > > Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren't. I would say it depends, as does > everything else, on how well each photographer is able to apply his visual > and artistic sensibilities, technical sensitivity, and shooting skills to > create any given picture. Certainly that's true. But I'm not talking about about giving the same/or any camera to X number of photographers. I'm talking about 1 pathetic photographer, namely myself. If I had the different cameras, recorded the same scene, in the same light, exposed the same way, then would I see a difference? I think yes. Whether one wants to assess it qualitatively or quantitatively is a matter of choice. I have to be somewhat of a smart-alec and kindly ask. You have expressed an interest in the Pentax 67II medium format camera. For what purpose? The very same purposes as you would use a 35mm or digital camera? If not, then I may not have a point. If so, then why? Even if not, than why? What's the advantage to the larger format? Respectfully and anticipatively(?), Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
