Is sharpness and IQ overrated?

[kevinparis]

Its interesting this photography lark... people come at it from such different directions... aesthetic, technical, emotional and personal... it still kind of baffles me that so many people get tied up in the technical aspects, especially as we live in a golden age of superior tools at lower real costs than ever before. Go out with an average weeks wages in your pocket and I will guarantee you will be able to buy a 'better' camera than your parents could... heck your will buy a better camera than you would have bought 10 years ago

I recognise that I am fortunate to be able indulge my hobby and acquire the 'best' lenses as i feel I need them. But this isn't what drives or even defines my photography.. a shot taken 11 years ago on a 2 megapixel Canon ixus is still in the top 5 of my most interesting photos on Flickr.

I recognise the value of a camera or a lens as being as being as good as it can be... I have Canon L glass and the use of enough Leica gear to probably buy a new BMW (its her bank account and she spends it as she wishes)... bottom line is that my photography isn't defined by the camera or the lenses.

K

 

[flash]

That's a good point, but I think tripods also fall into the category of 'seriously overrated' for most photographers. Yes, there are places where they are helpful and even indispensable - when the light is particularly limited or you need to position the camera in an unusual way - but 9 times out of 10 when I see a tripod it's for a near-eye-level shot in good lighting

You are obviously not drinking as much coffee as I am. :smile:

Gordon

 

[Phoque]

I have the 12-50mm kit lens and a few others... all inexpensive primes from Oly.

From reviews, all these lenses are "fair to mediocre". None are sharp, fast or distortion free.

But reviewers are doing 100% crops, running the lenses through electronic analyzers and basically comparing them to $4000 Leica glass by expecting so much.

But most of us post pictures on the web and aren't blowing the photos up to 36" x 48" movie posters.

Anyone agree?

I doubt none are sharp, especially your primes.

Anyways, if you feel the lens is good enough for you, why care at all?

 

[mnhoj]

I think there is so much emphasis because they are more easily quantified than the things that express artistic value.

 

[kevinparis]

what i have found from many years of forum browsing is that those who obsess over IQ and sharpness tend not to be the ones who actually ever post pictures other than those that demonstrate how good or bad a lens is..... which are often brick walls

none of them ever post an interesting photograph


maybe its just me... but the reason for having a camera is to take photos


K

 

[GaryAyala]

I have the 12-50mm kit lens and a few others... all inexpensive primes from Oly.

From reviews, all these lenses are "fair to mediocre". None are sharp, fast or distortion free.

But reviewers are doing 100% crops, running the lenses through electronic analyzers and basically comparing them to $4000 Leica glass by expecting so much.

But most of us post pictures on the web and aren't blowing the photos up to 36" x 48" movie posters.

Anyone agree?

To answer the OP. Yes, I agree.

 

[jloden]

what i have found from many years of forum browsing is that those who obsess over IQ and sharpness tend not to be the ones who actually ever post pictures other than those that demonstrate how good or bad a lens is..... which are often brick walls

none of them ever post an interesting photograph

maybe its just me... but the reason for having a camera is to take photos

I'd say that's a pretty heavy-handed generalization (and yes, I know you said "tend not to be") . I know what you're saying and I do agree that cameras are for taking pictures and none of it matters if you don't actually go out and use the gear.

However, if your generalization were true the best of the pro and amateur photographers wouldn't care about sharpness and IQ. And that's clearly not the case, since a large percentage of them use the best bodies and lenses they can afford, regardless of format.

I'm a self-admitted gear hound, and I definitely like sharpness and IQ. But, I also have 10,000 photos (not counting discarded/deleted frames) in my LR library for the last 6 months - not photos of brick walls, though their artistic merit may be debatable Fortunately obsession can be multi-faceted, so I'm happy to obsess over both sharpness/IQ AND taking lots of photos

 

[GaryAyala]

what i have found from many years of forum browsing is that those who obsess over IQ and sharpness tend not to be the ones who actually ever post pictures other than those that demonstrate how good or bad a lens is..... which are often brick walls

none of them ever post an interesting photograph


maybe its just me... but the reason for having a camera is to take photos


K

Kevin, there are many who are collectors. Some collect old stuff, some collect new stuff. What the collectors collect they wish to discuss. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I shoot.

I shoot with one system because it is my desire to have my camera as an extension of my eyes and my hands. It is my desire to able to manipulate the camera automatically, so what little brain I have remaining, I can focus to create the image I see in the viewfinder into the final image I see in my head.

Collecting new camera and new camera systems dilutes and extends the learning curve from my goal of automation and of improving my photography. Many collectors shoot and many shooters collect, hopefully both groups will find a balance between collecting and shooting. Every piece of equipment I collect I use for shooting. Every time I raise a camera to my eye, I try to improve upon the last time I raised a camera to my eye.

So I shoot and when I think I'm done ... I'll shoot some more.

Gary