Hardware Worship Religion

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com, Dec 28, 2008.

  1. Guest

    Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
    that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
    others because of some specific technical difference.

    That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
    difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
    bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
    world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
    the final intended use.

    It seems to me it is only the final product that is important.
     
    , Dec 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. wrote:
    > Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
    > that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
    > others because of some specific technical difference.
    >
    > That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
    > difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
    > bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
    > world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
    > the final intended use.
    >
    > It seems to me it is only the final product that is important.


    So no-one is allowed to take a technical interest to increase their
    understanding and discuss it here? Look at the threads where I've
    commented about the relevancy or otherwise if viewing images at 1:1 on the
    screen.

    You obviously wouldn't approve of people whose interest in vintage cards,
    because the cars aren't used for journeys!

    Room for both, don't you think?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Chris H Guest

    In message <>,
    writes
    > Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
    >that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
    >others because of some specific technical difference.


    Not at all.. I like Nikon because God uses one :)
    (that and the fact that Canon users are going to hell for being heretics
    and in league with the devil.)

    > That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
    >difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
    >bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
    >world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
    >the final intended use.


    That's torn it... you have brought reality in to it!

    You have to remember that there are people where who seem to have a far
    higher colour and resolution perception than mere mortals.......



    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Dec 28, 2008
    #3
  4. RustY © Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > .......... meaningless to most users.


    Too True.......
     
    RustY ©, Dec 28, 2008
    #4
  5. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:53:52 -0000, Alan Smithee wrote:

    >>>The part I can't understand though (and the part I think you were
    >>>referring
    >>>to) is why some people get so defensive over certain brands. Mind you, I
    >>>don't think there are many hardcore fanboys in here, just one hardcore P&S
    >>>fan.

    >
    >> Thus displaying your own bias.

    >
    > On the contrary.


    John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
    thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
    target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
    mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
    be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
    his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 28, 2008
    #5
  6. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:43:46 -0800, John Navas wrote:

    >> John (a moderately hardcore P&S camera user, IIRC) probably
    >> thought you were referring to a real person. I assume that your
    >> target was instead the sock puppet anti-DSLR troll, that's posted
    >> mostly drivel under hundreds of different names by now. He may also
    >> be overly sensitive to accusations of brand bias, as seen in some of
    >> his recent comments aggressively defending MS and Norton products.

    >
    > The display of bias is in accusing just the "P&S" side of the debate
    > (using the term loosely) of being hardcore, as well as the use of the
    > term itself. There is (too much) advocacy and bashing on both sides.
    > It would be nice to have a truce, but it ain't gonna happen here.


    If (as I suspect) Alan was referring to the troll, who is nothing
    if not hardcore, then your "Thus displaying your own bias." reply
    was unfortunate and wrong. But I agree that there's bias here, and
    more often than not it's pro-DSLR / anti-P&S, and this group is
    further divided into brand chauvinist fanatics, as opposed to the
    larger numbers that are just normal fans of their own brands and
    accept that cameras from other manufacturers are just as worthy for
    most purposes. The fanatics can also be more finely divided, and
    one such subgroup would be the Canon fanatics that greatly enjoy
    ridiculing Nikon's products. I'm sure that they don't believe much
    of what they say, and the hyperbolic disparagement is intentional,
    done more to tease the owners of the attacked products, akin to
    playing "the dozens". In my schooldays (whether in class or in the
    schoolyard) these insult competitions were known as ranking or
    sounding. If one insult resulted in a funnier, more insulting
    reply, someone listening in the background would often shout "Ooh,
    sound on the rebound!" It's not always lighthearted sport.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dozens
     
    ASAAR, Dec 28, 2008
    #6
  7. RustY © Guest

    "Mr. Strat" <> wrote in message
    news:281220082053528975%...
    >
    >.............The camera in my cell
    > phone, for example, will just about beat the performance of any digital
    > camera that Sigma has ever made.


    How true - How true........ And its mostly due to the plastic lens being
    better than Sigma glass.
     
    RustY ©, Dec 29, 2008
    #7
  8. Guest

    On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 18:31:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> Time and time again I see post after post of someone arguing
    >> that this or that camera - lens etc. is so much better than all the
    >> others because of some specific technical difference.
    >>
    >> That is all well and good, but how many consider that the
    >> difference is usually meaningless to most users. Further they seldom
    >> bother checking to see if there is any meaningful differences in real
    >> world results. Meaningful means a difference that would be noticed in
    >> the final intended use.
    >>
    >> It seems to me it is only the final product that is important.

    >
    >So no-one is allowed to take a technical interest to increase their
    >understanding and discuss it here? Look at the threads where I've
    >commented about the relevancy or otherwise if viewing images at 1:1 on the
    >screen.
    >
    >You obviously wouldn't approve of people whose interest in vintage cards,
    >because the cars aren't used for journeys!
    >
    >Room for both, don't you think?
    >
    >David


    Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
    should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
    are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
    obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.

    In real life, I see far more need for learning to use the
    tools at hand, then trying to find new tools when you don't understand
    how to best use what you have.

    In the" real world" I refereed to few people ever learn to use
    the tools they have. I am no exception to that rule. The stress
    placed on hardware, I believe leads most people to believe that the
    answer to how to get better results is better hardware, while in
    reality new hardware may make the situation worse.

    This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
    with film photography.

    When working in retail photography many years ago, I saw the
    results of many of my customers and it was not surprising to see
    someone with an Instamatic 104 do better than someone with a Lecia.
     
    , Dec 29, 2008
    #8
  9. Guest

    On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 21:25:01 -0000, "Alan Smithee" <>
    wrote:


    >
    >
    >I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before choosing
    >an item to buy, ..


    All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
    the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.

    However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
    the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
    difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
    a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.
     
    , Dec 29, 2008
    #9
  10. wrote:
    []
    > Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
    > should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
    > are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
    > obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.


    I think that immediately springs from the name of the group - it's
    concerned with those aspects which are "digital", and not those which are
    artistic. Perhaps if more people took an interest in the technical
    aspects of the appliances we use every day - TV, mobile phones, even
    cars - we would have a better-informed society?

    > In real life, I see far more need for learning to use the
    > tools at hand, then trying to find new tools when you don't understand
    > how to best use what you have.


    Agreed.

    > In the" real world" I refereed to few people ever learn to use
    > the tools they have. I am no exception to that rule. The stress
    > placed on hardware, I believe leads most people to believe that the
    > answer to how to get better results is better hardware, while in
    > reality new hardware may make the situation worse.


    Agreed. But I also blame the instruction manuals a little, as they are
    not as helpful as they could be. Oh, and perhaps I blame scene modes as
    well! <G>

    > This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
    > with film photography.
    >
    > When working in retail photography many years ago, I saw the
    > results of many of my customers and it was not surprising to see
    > someone with an Instamatic 104 do better than someone with a Lecia.


    Oh, yes, having an "eye" for a photo is a great gift.

    Perhaps the rec.photo.technique hierarchy contains the artistic
    discussions missing here?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 29, 2008
    #10
  11. ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:08:51 -0500,
    wrote:

    >> I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before choosing
    >> an item to buy, ..

    >
    > All very true. The artist is interested in his brushes and
    > the photographer is interested in his camera. That has not changed.
    >
    > However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
    > the camera than in the art. Maybe part of that is due to the
    > difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
    > a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.


    Other parts of it are that artists (painters) tend not to produce
    much that's really decent until after they put in the many hours
    required to learn their craft and develop the necessary skills.
    It's much easier for novice photographers, who don't need the same
    amount of practice and dedication to be able to occasionally produce
    a nice picture. So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
    small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
    beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
    good enough.

    Another difference is that brushes are simpler than cameras. They
    don't come with 500 page manuals. Much can be learned from teachers
    or from observing good painters at work, but most of all it takes
    practice, lots and lots of practice. And eventually the paintings
    really improve. Most photographers never RTFM, never learn more
    than a tiny subset of what their cameras can do, and are happy with
    that. Many of the photographers here are much more interested in
    the technical side of their cameras, partly because they're so
    complex, and partly because they're constantly evolving, unlike
    brushes. New paints and materials may surface from time to time,
    but the pace is much slower, and much less studying is required. To
    be really good, painters have to learn a lot of artistic theory,
    composition, etc. But that's not a difference. Good photographers
    have to learn that as well.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 29, 2008
    #11
  12. ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:50:13 -0800, John Navas wrote:

    >> So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
    >> small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
    >> beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
    >> good enough.

    >
    > With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
    > Ways too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
    > images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.


    I know that it didn't occur to you, but "good enough is good
    enough" wasn't intended to be a slur. It only recognizes that
    people have different preferences and priorities. In fact this was
    a phrase I first heard used in a business sense, where those
    companies striving to achieve perfection often ended up as big
    losers, while the ones that knew when their products were good
    enough to go into production were usually successful.

    There isn't enough time to become proficient in everything that
    might interest us, and if photography is chosen, other interests
    might have to suffer. There are many things other than photography
    where I feel that "good enough is good enough". My audio system is
    one. My TV is another. Same for my computer. I don't own any of
    the really top of the line DSLR bodies or lenses, and it doesn't
    bother me at all. Why did you assume what I didn't say or mean?
    Snapshot shooting isn't really what interests me, but it's fine for
    most people (the "them") and I see nothing wrong with their
    preference. You really seem to be going out of your way to find
    things to criticize and argue about.


    >> Another difference is that brushes are simpler than cameras. ...

    >
    > I'm pretty sure every serious painter I know would disagree with that.


    And I'm quite sure that they're wrong. But you didn't say whether
    you agree with what you assume is their opinion. I know that
    painters have a great interest in brushes, pigments, etc., and can
    spend an inordinate number of hours discussing them with other
    artists, just as some musicians talk about and spend much of their
    lives looking for the perfect mouthpiece, reed or the wood used for
    their guitars. The complexity might be a concern for luthiers and
    other craftsmen, but musicians don't deal with that kind of
    complexity. In camera terms, this might be like searching for a
    lens that has the elusive bokeh that you prefer, which may not be
    the bokeh that others prefer. But this is far from complex and
    doesn't require the kinds of study and practice that learning to
    become proficient using cameras requires.

    I recall recently reading some well known photographer (sorry,
    can't recall the name) who said that if he didn't use his camera for
    a period, maybe a month or so, he'd lose his "chops" and it would
    take at least several days of shooting to regain his former skill
    level. Musicians on the other hand usually lose less of their
    "chops" and gain more in creativity after a similar layoff, which
    I've experienced many times. This effect is probably similar for
    artists and writers. Give painters new brushes that are unfamiliar,
    and they will immediately be able to put them to good use, even if
    they have to adjust their style and technique. Replace a camera
    with another brand and photographers will at best be able to limp
    along using very basic modes. It could easily take days or weeks
    for them to approach their former shooting proficiency.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 29, 2008
    #12
  13. -hh Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    > > Stephen Bishop <> wrote:

    >
    > >>If you want the best image quality, go with a dslr.  If you want the
    > >>most stealth and portability, go with the p&s.  Period.   Don't even
    > >>waste time trying to justify how one camera type is as good as or
    > >>better than the other type when they are both designed for different
    > >>purposes.

    > ...
    >
    > Rubbish.
    >
    > Go with a compact digital if you care about:
    >  * Size


    That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.


    >  * Weight


    That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.

    >  * Handling ease


    That's "portability", John.

    >  * Super-zoom capability


    That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.

    >  * Very good to excellent results in most situations


    That falls short of "the best image quality", John.


    >  * Much lower cost


    That's a dependent variable.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Dec 30, 2008
    #13
  14. Mark Thomas Guest

    John Navas wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 19:03:35 -0800 (PST), -hh wrote:
    >> ...short of "the best image quality", John.

    > I couldn't care less.



    And that's ALL you need to know. As they say..

    'case closed'
     
    Mark Thomas, Dec 30, 2008
    #14
  15. -hh Guest

    John Navas <> wrote:
    > -hh<> wrote:
    > >John Navas <> wrote:
    > > >
    > >> Go with a compact digital if you care about:
    > >> * Size

    >
    > >That's "stealth" and/or "portability", John.

    >
    > More than that.


    So then Stephen was correct, just not to the full degree that you
    personally want. This means that Navas's claim of ' Rubbish' is
    functionally recanted.


    > >> * Weight
    > >> * Handling ease
    > >> * Super-zoom capability


    Ditto, ditto, ditto. Navas continues to recant.

    > >> * Very good to excellent results in most situations

    >
    > >That falls short of "the best image quality", John.

    >
    > I couldn't care less.


    We know.


    > >> * Much lower cost

    >
    > >That's a dependent variable.

    >
    > Nonsense.


    'Best' is only achieved through the application of greater efforts
    which invokes the laws of diminishing returns, which is invariably
    expensive. There's no such thing as a free lunch.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Dec 30, 2008
    #15
  16. ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:29:45 -0800, John Navas wrote:

    >> Snapshot shooting isn't really what interests me, but it's fine for
    >> most people (the "them") and I see nothing wrong with their
    >> preference. You really seem to be going out of your way to find
    >> things to criticize and argue about.

    >
    > You seem to be pretty sensitive on what was only a clarification.


    Really? You completely misunderstood and criticized what I said,
    implying that I intended it as a slur. That's NOT a clarification.

    >>> So many more "photographers" exist, and only a
    >>> small percentage of them will be sufficiently interested to progress
    >>> beyond the auto-everything snapshot phase. For them, good enough is
    >>> good enough.

    >>
    >> With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
    >> [Way] too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
    >> images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.


    and then excused your misinterpretation by saying

    > Because it's often a slur here, meant to suggest that someone's
    > standards are lower, a negative value judgment.


    An acceptable excuse, but then this excuse contradicts your
    previous claim that you hadn't criticized, but clarified. It's easy
    to see where this leads, which is that you're just another of those
    on the internet that will never admit error, no matter how much it
    damages their credibility. In this newsgroup you're not unique,
    although not yet as offensive as a couple of those that share some
    of your other attributes. I can imagine how you'll respond. Try to
    surprise me.
     
    ASAAR, Dec 30, 2008
    #16
  17. SneakyP Guest

    wrote in
    news:eek::

    > This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
    > with film photography.
    >

    In contrast...

    what was news to me was the fact that films will compress the dynamic range
    in the upper regions whereas digital will tend to white-out the saturated
    areas. Digital also has a non-logarithmic scale of discreet ranges
    whereas film will have a better picture that is smoother in the darker
    ranges.
    The more data a digital will capture, the better the picture is whereas the
    darker ranges in a film will capture the data better than the whiter areas
    because it isn't plagued with electronic noise interfering with the darker
    portion of the picture.
    Completely backwards, but nevertheless so much different.


    Just asking all here: have there been any DSLR cameras that can do what
    the film type have been shown to do?
    My perception is that those film cameras do a much better job of capturing
    pictures, but that was a little over a year ago.


    --
    SneakyP
    To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

    Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
    down :0)
     
    SneakyP, Dec 30, 2008
    #17
  18. SneakyP Guest

    John Navas <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:10:46 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote
    > in <q%36l.12397$>:
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>[]
    >>> Certainly there is not only room for both, but IMO there
    >>> should be a fusion of both. My original observation was that there
    >>> are many people who appear, from what they post here, to be far more
    >>> obsessed with the hardware than in the art of photography.

    >>
    >>I think that immediately springs from the name of the group - it's
    >>concerned with those aspects which are "digital", and not those which
    >>are artistic.

    >
    > I think the name just distinguishes digital from film without anything
    > non-artistic implied.
    >

    perhaps the name should have simply been rec.photo.

    ..digital, and .film, could have been sub-groups off of that.
    Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
    able to take those types of pictures.





    --
    SneakyP
    To reply: newsgroup only, what's posted in ng stays in ng.

    Some choose to swim in the potty bowl of nan-ae rather than flush it
    down :0)
     
    SneakyP, Dec 30, 2008
    #18
  19. SneakyP wrote:
    > wrote in
    > news:eek::
    >
    >> This is nothing new with digital. It was every bit the same
    >> with film photography.
    >>

    > In contrast...
    >
    > what was news to me was the fact that films will compress the dynamic
    > range in the upper regions whereas digital will tend to white-out the
    > saturated areas. Digital also has a non-logarithmic scale of
    > discreet ranges whereas film will have a better picture that is
    > smoother in the darker ranges.
    > The more data a digital will capture, the better the picture is
    > whereas the darker ranges in a film will capture the data better than
    > the whiter areas because it isn't plagued with electronic noise
    > interfering with the darker portion of the picture.
    > Completely backwards, but nevertheless so much different.


    Digital is linear when captured, only non-linear when converted to JPEG.
    You are correct about the white saturation. I am not so sure you are
    correct about the low-light or toe end of the film range. Why do
    astronomers now use digital? Is digital or film photon-limited at the low
    end?

    > Just asking all here: have there been any DSLR cameras that can do
    > what the film type have been shown to do?
    > My perception is that those film cameras do a much better job of
    > capturing pictures, but that was a little over a year ago.


    Fuji had some dual-pixel CCD cameras at one time - perhaps the Fuji S5 -
    designed for high-end range extension by adding in a less sensitive sensor
    pixel as well as the standard pixel.

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5pro/

    http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012202fujisuperccdsr.asp

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Dec 30, 2008
    #19
  20. Chris H Guest

    In message <Xns9B83E414AC0B8invalid@69.16.185.247>, SneakyP
    <> writes
    >John Navas <> wrote in
    >news::


    >Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
    >able to take those types of pictures.


    Most of them are now Digital Have been for some time 25-60MP backs on
    them.

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Dec 30, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mik the cyst-crusher

    Re: Religion vs. Faith

    Mik the cyst-crusher, Mar 30, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    673
    chrisv
    Mar 30, 2005
  2. Nomen Nescio

    UNIFIED THEORY OF RELIGION

    Nomen Nescio, Aug 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    576
    Bart van der Wolf
    Sep 14, 2003
  3. Mik the cyst-crusher

    Re: Religion vs. Faith

    Mik the cyst-crusher, Mar 30, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    438
    chrisv
    Mar 30, 2005
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    299
    Paul Heslop
    Sep 10, 2005
  5. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    603
    Michael Gray
    Sep 15, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page