Technobabble versus real gear evaluation

[GerrySiegel]

It gets easy to overwhelm discussions with slick pseudo science. Does anyone really use metrics like the below

commenter makes. as new models change, and the mysterious ingredients of processing. When we de construct a

model, where all of them yield good results, are we into marginial differentiation. And scientific sounding

babble as oneupmanship. Do most of us here in enlightened PN , look past a pretext of knowledge. We could as

easily query ourhair stylist I mean. Kind of fun in a way: I quote from a long give and take on a popular mirrorless forum elsewhere:

---------

 

 

"From what I've seen, the FF Sony sensors are better, but it's not impossible that Olympus or Panasonic will get

a better sensor in the next model.

 

I think the size is irrelevant - pixel size and pitch may be significant, but since larger sensors tend to have

more pixels, then this balances out.

 

I'm prepared to accept that Sony may have the best sensor on the market ... but until very recently their RAW

compression imposed different limits on post processing.

 

Bottom line - sensor size has no direct bearing on PP (aside from cropability). It is the characteristics which

are independent of size that matter.

 

As an aside, I would take a little more noise which is predictable and manageable over compression artifacts

(which aren't) any day. But hopefully, Sony have addressed this now. You have to wonder what they were thinking -

there they were with potentially the highest IQ this side of medium format, and they chose to compromise it... "

----------

 

 

 

In fairness, probably is something useful there that insidedopesters we appreciate. Do adults just understand and accept the implications of 'comparative pixel pitch How about 'pixel size.' Have not seen one lately even under my electron microscope.:-) Not to mention that wonderful thing, the arcane 'algorithm.' Al Gorithm. Medieval math

 

 

Conclusion or take away..My car power plant can beat yours because it has a flux converter and uses titanium over molybenum powder in the emission control exhaust system. So there..

[GerrySiegel]

Can the above be a variant of this three sentences: All of the mirrorless cameras yield great results in a small package. If you are making very large prints or shooting in very low light then you will see a measurable improvement by looking into Sony's full frame models. All the major companies are improving the ability of their image sensors to squeeze as much useful informational as possible. They all want your business. ( This is the bottom line. All else is commentary, paraphrasing a Talmudic sage)

[andylynn]

I'm not sure what you mean by sensor size having no direct bearing on PP but it certainly does relate to some aspects of

image quality that many people find important. High ISO quality and DR for example. These Sonies have some faults but

the full frame sensors have a lot of advantages over an M4/3 sensor and that's not going to change.

[GerrySiegel]

Andy, that line was a quote from the text I cut and pasted. I think I clarified my view on that at the end. No I do not understand the quotation sentence...that is my point. Larger is better, and can't be denied, but not always to be celebrated.....

 

If one needs the "aspects of image quality that many people find important." to use your words.

 

My post was a kind of meditation about insider language that presumes technical knowledge beyond obvious verification or consensus. Seek a for instance useful evaluation of a micro 43 camera ( of the latest sensor generation,) I found one.

 

Note the lack of any technobabble. Not even a snippet of sensor schmensor. No spurious comparison of larger formats, except for sizes and shapes in same lineup for us to get a feel for... That the reviewer likes the camera is a taken for granted. But why is what counts. As well as what the shortcomings are..

 

(Though one review called the camera derogiterally a brick, ooh a brick, not svelte enough for government work... Kind of like bricks, always thought the Leica M was a nice looking brick, form and function wise.....).

 

 

I am not one to restart the tired sensor size argument. It is a dumbth argument lately. If my post strikes no chords, ignore the whole business . And be well...and enjoy what works.

 

[GerrySiegel]

I trust that the creators of PN version 2.0 will enable a way for quotations to show up in a highlighted manner. That would sure be nice. I will mention it to Glenn.

[Bill C]

Hi Gerry, I think you are trying to sort of force the issues into your personal level of knowledge. Keep in mind that many people here have

vastly more AND less knowledge than you. So everyone tries to find what fits them.

 

If I were considering that particular camera (in the link) for my personal use, I'd probably find the video interesting. But in business, not so.

You mentioned an electron microscope, I've spent time sitting beside an operator while we examine debris found on the sensor. We had

business interests in doing that, but for my personal use, forget it!

 

I sort of detest the technobabble myself - if you want to say technical things, try to say them at the level where other posters can follow. (If

someone can't do this, I am skeptical of their actual expertise.). But I wouldn't want to disparage someone's search for deeper technical

understanding (I think you're doing this in an offhanded way). Unfortunately, I think that a great deal of photo.net's onetime tech know-how

has left the site. But I guess it is what it is, and the technobabble "sells" a lot of people.

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>It's a brave new world, Gerry. For better or worse that is the way image making tools are discussed now. And frankly the quote you posted is fairly pedestrian and would be understood my many advanced camera enthusiasts today. There are plenty of sites and blogs that do get <em>deeply</em> technical where an E.E. degree would come in handy. It's just the nature of the beast. Back in the day, the tech fans discussed film granularity and layered construction and the effects of various PH levels of chemicals on the latent image. Some just bought cameras on sale a Sears and got their film processed at the drug stores and still enjoyed the hobby.</p>

<p>We have electronic media now and with it comes unique nomenclature but the stratification of interest from casual user to techno geek still remain with many levels in-between. Like the old days, the tech side is of interest to some but not required to buy gear and make pictures.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Get away from web forums and hang out with photographers and almost nobody is discussing this stuff. Although it's anecdotal, I've never heard any of the pros I shoot alongside talk about sensor size or pixel pitch or anything like that. What I usually hear is "I like this lens" or "This is great at high ISO." That's about it. Then it's on to why there's no barrier for photographers or the light is too low or something like that.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Sorry, it was late here when I read that :) And I agree, it's not a very sensible topic for discussion.</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>Another take on what Jeff says, and in another medium. Someone said recently, "Art critics discuss 'art'; artists discuss the price of turpentine".</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I am agree with Jeff and others on this one. Technobabble is very popular and yet most of those spouting it have very little idea of what they are talking about, or make extrapolations based on what they do know, much of which is out of context. Also these reviews and statements are often shot through with all kinds of prejudices that they seem to be barely aware of. I also agree with Louis, though, that Gerry's quotes are really quite low level these days, unfortunately. The relevance of all this to actually making good photos is highly debatable.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Technobabble has always been popular and is part of membership in a presumed insider club. You know, the secret handshake...Remember the talk about audio and multi channel, high fidelity to some amorphous goal. Oh yeah, concert hall sound,even as home audio meant you did not sit perfectly still in the same chair for two hours...I digress. I can accept techobabble, and sift it for any value in a discussion. I like to know what Wired says about this new gizmo...they digest and pre masticate it for m. Forum chatter often is just blather, and does not inform even as it gives the appearance of informing. Not brushing all tech talk. Just technobabble flavor of the day variety. If you dig it , bravo. If not, a minor vice.. It does not disturb my digestion. Really. Fin.

[Sanford]

<p>I've seen this play out with wine experts, movie buffs, music experts, cigars aficionados and on and on. There is always someone willing to elevate the conversation to a level beyond the understanding of mere mortals. Gerry, this doesn't by any chance have anything to do your impending purchase of the GX8 does it?</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I must respond to your comment, Bill before I leave off.

. ...

 

 

I quote". But I wouldn't want to disparage someone's search for deeper technical understanding

(I think you're doing this in an offhanded way)....."

unquote.

 

--------

 

 

If that is the impression, whoah, sorry, I was unclear. To be informed is to know something technical about features and functions in specific terminology, we all agree that far. Photography being a medium that now relies on electronics, computers, magnetic storage. Terms like 'compression artifacts' for example. I suppose this refers to what the unwashed used to call the jaggies. Am I misinformed? If one takes away data, you loses something and that loss may be visible or have an effect on what can be done with the remainder....

 

If one compresses music,-which is standard for transmission on the internet or on a CD or even SACD one loses something. Almost a given if we do not have unlimited storage. If the loss can be SEEN or HEARD it is important when evaluating a product or a brand or a process.

 

Lately I have not seen many jaggies..though my eyes are indeed weaker and tolerance stronger. Or w fill in the missing data from the cortex.

Could it be we Oly and Sony and Panny and Fuji have solved the jaggie challenge in our laboratories. Just like Dolby solved the magnetic tape noise problem by sort of side stepping it in an audio tour de force?

 

Yes, Bill, I confess. I do indeed have a light hearted approach to some of the technophile talk. I have to laugh... LIke the sample which is not the most laughable,granted.

 

It could be my personal squint. But I been around a while as they say.

 

Facebook forums, the focused ones, get technical too, but they usually wind up getting into demonstrations where the image is the thing. That is why they are gaining adherents. For those who still need to learn stuff. And are careful about spending good money on gear.

[GerrySiegel]

Sanford, you devil you. I am taken with this camera. But no, I decided I can use the money for about 25 dinners at Cattle company, or six or seven sessions with a professional model, a yoga retreat on Maui...that kind of thing.,,,with photo ops... Nah, I am going to hang on to the GX 7 which is a fine camera I got for $700.00. Kind of wish the GX 7 had a mic input. I want to mess with video one of these days. Why not, I mean it stimulates the phagocytes:-) (What is a phagocyte, beats me...but I know they need stimulation at my age)

 

I did however order a new ThinkTank bag yesterday. Think Thinktank. Called Mirrorless Mover 30i. Holds a mirrorless, two lenses and an iPAD. A new bag will suffice for this calendar year. Be well, or Sei Gesuhnt, as they say in Morocco.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Traditional, one manufacture may pull ahead of others in some respects, but the others generally catch up in a few weeks and set a new benchmark. Recently, however, Sony seems to have broken the mold and everybody else is playing catchup. </p>

<p>A large sensor makes it easier to find wide angle lenses without going to extremes. They also tend to have more pixels, but not all pixels are equal. A camera either meets your needs and expectations or it doesn't. One review cannot be taken seriously, but a series of good reviews and a modicum of personal experience helps you make the best personal decision.</p>

<p>It is more fruitful to look at the lenses available for a given system. Fuji and Olympus have an excellent reputation and extensive choices. Sony is no slouch, with or without joint ventures with Zeiss. Zeiss seems to feel Sony will continue to be a leader and have introduced two superb lines, Loxia manual and Batis autofocus lenses.</p>

<p>Sony lossy compression in their A7 lineup is soon to become history, except as an option. Even so, artifacts only appear under extreme circumstances, and I have not personally had any issues with Sony compression. I will, however, embrace its elimination, just in case.</p>

<p>Sei gesund, as they say a little north of Morroco and south of Stockholm.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

" It is more fruitful to look at the lenses available for a given system. Fuji and Olympus have an excellent reputation and extensive choices. Sony is no slouch, with or without joint ventures with Zeiss. Zeiss seems to feel Sony will continue to be a leader and have introduced two superb lines, "

 

True enough Edwards. Not only by reputation. I own both Olympus and Panasonic and fully agree. No Fuji camera lenses here but they sure make one super duper Fujinon Polaris waterproff binoculars I use to scan the night sky..

 

Sony company I just love to love. Glad Sony joined the party...

 

 

Manufacturer lenses, and this is cogent as you say, still exceed the capabilities of imaging sensor and software. To exploit full quality. Great ones cost. But last a lifetime. Once one is wedded to a format, nothing prevents dual allegiance if you can affford it. Which kind of makes X vs Y academic in a way.

[eric_arnold]

<p>Honestly? hardly any words ever keystroked onto Internet fora ever made a real difference in one's photographic experience, including these words. What makes a difference is actually learning whatever camera you have in your possession inside and out, front to back. The laws of physics explain this as potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential energy might seem vast and unlimited, but it's all theoretical and speculative. Kinetic energy is what is actually manifested. So, you could have a Sony medium format mirrorless backside illuminated frontside whoopity whoop whoo body with a Zeiss Anus lens sitting on a shelf somewhere, and it would be far worse than having a 4mp 1st-generation Olympus cammedia p&s from 2003 deployed in the field. Why? because potential energy is just that and only kinetic energy actually counts. To put this another way, does sensor envy really matter? Is technolust even real, or just a symptom of neurosis and 1st-world problems? For the reality checkup, go to any developing nation and see what press photographers are using: entry-level DSLRs, some of them from 2 or 3 generations ago. <strong>It literally does not matter</strong> what you use to get your images as long as you are capable of making good images. </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Talk about technobabble ;)</p>

<p>I agree with Eric to the extent it is what you do with your equipment that counts. But it is also true that some things are made better and work better than others. Some equipment has the flexibility to handle situations you had not considered up front.</p>

<p>For that matter, potential energy is there when you need it. Kinetic energy is there for the moment and gone once you stop using it.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I am sure Eric would agree on one footnote to the manifesto that it is knowledge and skill with the tool that counts. And application of same....but there is an opportunity for refinement I suggest. What do I mean: A feeling for subject. An awareness for the direction and substance of light. Enough experience with the controls on a device so they are instinctive when opportunity presents. What are the opportunities with this tool and what are the know limits...how can they be surmounted....

 

What is problematic about technobabble is that it may hide the value that can be derived from this thing called the internet. I have gained much information on line from real people who test out tools and techniques and have the moxie to explain and explore them. Call it a sharing writ big time...No I rarely pay for it. Yet I search out a great book on my gear, absent a great how it works manual from the companies. I know a lower case genius that writes thus " I just spend a couple weekends with a new camera and some trial shots, and I am a master." Were it only so for most of us. If forum talk has any value it is spreading discovery over a broad canvas of users. A camera base. Kickstarting ideas and new things. Even leads to firmware updates I am thinking. Anyway, no biggie, see no obstacles" so just relax and hang out..

 

Aloha..gs

[GerrySiegel]

What is funny is the heartfelt kind of comment which reads somewhat as follows. ' It is all in the end about technique and mastery of your tools. Different horses for different courses and tracks. All cameras nowadays are thorouhgbreds and can do great sprints. Lenses have all reached an equisite amount of perfection. Pick any competitive brand name and you will be happy. They all have to be competitive and offer WiFi and video and long battery life and a stable of lenses, and so on. Technical nits are just nits. Avoid getting lost in the nits.' ...that kind of refrain make sense.

 

And finally, ho ho, at the end we may get advice which sounds like so- that if you are investing person, 'Go Long on Fuji! Go Long on Sony!'

 

Me, I too went long on m4/3. Which makes me a fanboy,Sanford:-) Ha.

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>it is also true that some things are made better and work better than others. Some equipment has the flexibility to handle situations you had not considered up front.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>sure; there's a baseline for usability with all cameras. But i would posit that if you haven't considered a photographic situation before, you probably wont be able to troubleshoot your way through it in the midst of that situation, even if you have capable gear. Also, there are workarounds for most if not all challenges which arise, in many cases. What i'm getting at is all the technical aspects of cameras only matter if one is able to make use of that technology. A casual Nikon D810 or Sony A7r purchaser who wants the "best" might not be as skilled photographically as a Canon Rebel owner who has learned their camera inside an out and through dedicated use and practice, developed their own aesthetic style which stands out. It doesnt matter what gear you are using if the end result is generic photographs. </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>

<p>Some people have lots of excuses and explanations and some just do it.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>In the recording business, every job has some aspect I never encountered before. The same with photography. Is every shot from the same angle or the same background? Do you meter every shot, use exposure comp, or manual mode? Not every photograph is a work of art. Most of the time it's something someone else needs, and it has to meet those needs, or its strictly personal.</p>

<p>In the course of a year, I will probably use 80% of the features on my camera. I may never use the remaining 20% (e.g., picture styles), but then too, I might. My gear, my choice. Facing challenges is nothing new, you just have to do it and not make excuses.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

Edward,lately I think I have so far been using 25% of the features on my EM-1 and still waiting to snuggle up to the other 75%. And guess what. I am not intimidated by the features. I got a good book with a good index and the time to play around.

 

Jeff, I watched most of the You tube clip from the buoyant young Mr iPhone. Well, what can I say... That is not too unkind... But really, if I had a death row choice a) lethal injection or b) be strapped to a chair for a month and watch box- opening videos by this lad with Liverpool accent filmed handheld in their flat..I donknow, would need time to decide a fate:-). Sorry, unboxing stuff unnerves me ..

 

New subject: I tried a rainbow shot with my iPAD this afternoon. Could not see the screen hardly at all with sun at my back. Tablet downside i think. Amart phone, is that better, more easily shaded?Just wondering, No biggie.