Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-18-2008, 08:31 AM   #16
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,435
Let's not get off track

QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Well, I don't think you have to have a microscope to SEE the difference -- to measure it, yes, but not to see it. There are a lot of situations in life where even relatively untrained persons can perceive something without being able to put their fingers on exactly what it is: really high quality steak tastes better than mediocre steak; a really good orchestra is more pleasing to listen to than a merely pretty good one; etc. Non-connoisseurs don't know how to explain their preferences, but they do observe them at some basic level. The conductor will be able to tell which chair in the second violin section is playing an out-of-tune instrument. The ordinary persons in the audience will simply have the feeling that this isn't the best performance of Beethoven's third symphony that they've ever heard -- but they will have that feeling.

Just as taste matters more than chemistry in cooking, LOOKING matters more than measuring in photography. And while you might want to hire an engineer to make measurements, you want to hire a photographic connoisseur to look. That's why reviews of the K10D like Sean Reid's are so valuable. Reid reviews the camera on its own terms and compares it to other cameras not the way an engineer does, but the way a photographer does.

Will
Digital is digital, film is film. As much as we like to think there similar, they are really not that similar. BUT since we seem to want to always do this:
FF sensors vs APS is a lot like comparing 35mm to 645 (or some larger substrate). Can't really be done fairly. And in digital (since it is different) is even worse.
Personally the lack of seperation (there is some) between APS and FF is more annoying. Personally FF should prove to be a LOT better than APS. It has not proven to be this. Better, yes but in a diminishing returns way. That can always change....

01-18-2008, 08:51 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Jodokast96's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Erial, NJ USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,133
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
There is no neutral source on Earth but it should be noted Dpreview Phil tells more or less the same thing regarding the "comparatively" less DR and the "soft edged" jpeg problems.
Yet funny that after Phil screwed the pooch with that review, he changed the way he tests the cameras, especially the jpegs. Troll on.
01-18-2008, 10:13 AM   #18
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,394
QuoteOriginally posted by WMBP Quote
Well, I don't think you have to have a microscope to SEE the difference -- to measure it, yes, but not to see it. There are a lot of situations in life where even relatively untrained persons can perceive something without being able to put their fingers on exactly what it is: really high quality steak tastes better than mediocre steak; a really good orchestra is more pleasing to listen to than a merely pretty good one; etc. Non-connoisseurs don't know how to explain their preferences, but they do observe them at some basic level. The conductor will be able to tell which chair in the second violin section is playing an out-of-tune instrument. The ordinary persons in the audience will simply have the feeling that this isn't the best performance of Beethoven's third symphony that they've ever heard -- but they will have that feeling.

Just as taste matters more than chemistry in cooking, LOOKING matters more than measuring in photography. And while you might want to hire an engineer to make measurements, you want to hire a photographic connoisseur to look. That's why reviews of the K10D like Sean Reid's are so valuable. Reid reviews the camera on its own terms and compares it to other cameras not the way an engineer does, but the way a photographer does.

Will
Good point Will.

In fact there are a lot of things that humans can see, hear, and smell MUCH better than machines can measure.
01-18-2008, 11:30 PM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
Good point Will.

In fact there are a lot of things that humans can see, hear, and smell MUCH better than machines can measure.
But without measuring *instrument*, we cannot even have a camera nor a single lens to be used with!

01-19-2008, 08:44 AM   #20
Veteran Member
WMBP's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Dallas, Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,496
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
But without measuring *instrument*, we cannot even have a camera nor a single lens to be used with!
Well, this is largely untrue. The kinds of measurement that are the subject of this thread weren't possible -- or at least weren't common -- until just a few years ago, and yet photography somehow managed to survive. Of course, the cameras used by the great early film photographers were no doubt made by folks using rulers and calipers and other tools, but that was to build the cameras. Thermometers and measuring cups were used in the darkroom, but that was to process the film. But once the print was produced, nobody was pixel-peeping, studying histograms, calculating dynamic range, etc. And THAT's what I'm talking about -- the end-product, the photograph.

Look, let me clarify. It would be absurd to declare oneself against measuring stuff, not just because the world wouldn't give a flip but also because measurements are sometimes useful. But measurements are inevitably limited in scope and thus very partial, and therefore they have to be interpreted judiciously. Engineers tend to be like those folks who know every technical spec about their expensive home sound systems -- but can't hear the difference between a violin and a viola. You might let someone like that help you buy a sound system but you would not let him help you buy a musical instrument. Now, the camera is a bit of a cross, technologically speaking, between the sound system and the musical instrument. Certainly, there's a lot of technology in digital cameras. And while Ken Rockwell's heuristic point that "your camera doesn't matter" has a lot to recommend it, still, there are no doubt somewhat better and somewhat worse cameras, especially in respect to particular features. But the point of cameras ultimately is not to produce image files in which every one of the 10.2 megapixels claimed by the manufacturer can be accounted for, or to generate photos with at least six stops of dynamic range, or to capture 6.1 frames per second of something! The value of a photograph is a Gestalt matter, an integrated experience. The engineer with his instruments is never interested in the whole story, the artist is -- and so is the connoisseur.

And if the connoisseur's or artist's evaluation seems to be at odds with the engineer's, well, the engineer might want to reconsider his methods. The engineer is the chemist who can tell you that exactly one-eighth of a teaspoon of dried ginger root was used in the making of this dish and that's exactly what the recipe calls for. But the connoisseur, knowing without measuring, will insist nonetheless that that's too much ginger root.

If the dynamic range of the Pentax K10D were significantly worse than that of other cameras in its class, the connoisseurs would be able to tell us without any input from the engineers. And if the engineer's measurements tell us that the K10D (or any other camera) has, say, one-third of a stop less DR than its competitors, yet the connoisseurs are telling us that the photos the camera takes photographs that do compete with the products of those other cameras very well, then the explanation is simple: the tests don't tell the whole story. But then, they never do. The truth is, the engineers and their tests step in here, in most cases, because the differences between the results produced by different cameras are often so close to negligible. If you absolutely need to know if the temp outside is within one degree of freezing, well, you'll look at a thermometer. Otherwise, it may be quite sufficient to look at the dog's water bowl and see if the water in it is frozen.

In short, don't put much trust in the comments about photography of people who themselves aren't photographers. Measurements are interesting, even amusing. But the proof isn't in the measuring spoons, it's in the pudding. And any evaluation of a camera that talks more about spoons than pudding is an evaluation written by someone who probably does not have a clue.

Will

P.S. RiceHigh, you know I'm not one of those who beats up on you. But -- and I bring this up only because it's pertinent to the point I'm making -- are you not aware that the word "measurbator", which you seem to use without embarrassment to describe yourself, is actually an echo of a word that no man would use of himself with pride? The joke is, 98% of all men do it, and other 2% are liars. But the truth is that 0% of men I've ever known say proudly, "Oh, sure, I could get a date with a real girl if I wanted to, but with so much free porn on the internet, why bother?" Really, I think you need to find another word.
01-19-2008, 11:47 AM   #21
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Woodinville, WA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,169
Sorry Will - but RH is not a measurebater - please go to the following site;
Seven Levels of Photographers 2005 KenRockwell.com
Go to the bottom - and you will find his discription, I mean who else could this describe?
"Online Expert or Armchair Photographer: Level 0 (these guys don't take pictures so they aren't a level of photographer.)" my emphasis.

The DR of Pentax cameras is close enough to slide film for me to "understand" what to do to maximize it. Shoot for the highlights, shoot to the right - get it as close to the final product you want IN the camera. Don't rely on PP to "fix" things. If you do not like the output of your camera, workflow PP software), printer, web page --- get another camera and stop complaining. Move on.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Last edited by PDL; 01-19-2008 at 11:53 AM.
01-19-2008, 12:27 PM   #22
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,394
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
But without measuring *instrument*, we cannot even have a camera nor a single lens to be used with!
actually this is not quite true. Ancient telescope lenses and mirrors were made with lenses ground by hand, and simple tests which could demonstrate even the slightest defect in lens manufacture optically.

True, instruments make the process easier, less time consuming and more repetitive, (usually), but are not an absolute requirement.

If you want a good example about how "accurate" instruments can be, just look at the hubble telescope, and the mess that reliance in instruments got the manufacturers
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, k10d, photography, resolution
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
k20d or k10d - which has better dynamic range Michael Barker Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 12-18-2008 10:47 AM
K10D dynamic range drwho9437 Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 07-15-2008 02:47 PM
K10D dynamic range...ISO100, single exposure HDR d.bradley Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 02-10-2008 06:11 PM
Impressed by Dynamic Range of K10D Avantphoto Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 05-25-2007 06:37 AM
K10D Resolution Question TMoore77 Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 02-21-2007 02:26 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top