Will resolution always win?

[enzodm]

Anyone have an suggestions for getting around the lack of manual focus with the SX50? It is advertised as having a manual focus available but, in reality, the viewfinder/LCD are not sufficient for good MF. The control for the MF is very broad so not really useful for fine tuning. And the camera has what Canon calls "Safety MF" which uses its auto focus system to reselect the "correct" focus after MF has been used to get the camera in the general area. So the auto foucs appears to be undefeatable and shots will be taken with the camera always selecting where to focus.

Check CHDK, which is an unofficial firmware that adds many features on most Canon P&S, maybe also focus peaking that helps in manual focus.
However, DOF on such a small sensor is so large that fine manual focus is not so crucial in most cases.

 

[soufiej]

I've got my eye on a Rioch GR as a wee carry around camera. The idea of it really appeals to me though it is still on the dear side.

Reading through this thread though I think you are trying to get a small camera that is cheap and will do a bit of everything which is confusing you further. I think for the type of small camera you are talking about you need to decide on one particular type and get one that does that well.

Sorry, I don't understand "you need to decide on one particular type and get one that does that well."

Does "what" well? As I see this thread progressing, one of my wishes for this camera would be that it does not limit me. And I say that realizing any camera will limit me in some way. I know what sort of photography I was interested in when I had my old Rebels. IMO the Rebel bodies gave me 85-90% of what I (not a professional) could get from the more expensive Canons. The Rebel body worked in the widest settings I shot in. I put my money into the lenses and so forth after I had what I considered to be a decent and mostly usable body. Therefore, lens and equipment selections were made in accordance with those desires.

I don't, at least didn't, shoot stop action sports of any kind. Low light shots are pretty rare so not of great weight to my decision on which camera to choose. (Besides, I don't quite understand the fixation on what a digital camera turns out at ISO 800-1600 and above. When I shot film I expected grainier images with 400 ASA.) Normally, I can get up close to the subject so macro is somewhat important to me. Sometimes I can't get close so some zoom or sufficient "resolution" is desired to allow for cropping. Formal portraits are minimal in my shots. Candid shots where I have no ability to "set up" the shot are far more common. I've found lots of equipment to be restraining at times and at times frightening to young subjects. Available light then is where I take a lot of shots. Obviously, I think, I prefer sufficient sharpness over insufficient sharpness though the latter has its place. I am not, however, as lovemycam stated, obssessed with "hi res".

Mostly in this purchase I want a camera I can have with me, carry around, toss into the Fiat and not worry about losing a bunch of money if the worst occurs and simply take photos when I see something of interest. I do not want to be overly concerned about the technical aspects of capturing the best image. I do want to use manual controls rather than simply aiming the lens in the general direction of a subject and using auto to have what the camera gathers in as an image. I want some creative (manual, for the most part) control but beyond, maybe a ND or polarizing filter, I don't want gear.

The title of the thread refers to whether those who are primarily, I think the current term is, "pixel peepers" have cameras they can live with that get them out of the critical stage of resolution "uber alles". I'm not concerned over pixels. The G-1X though has such a larger sensor and the resolution from it is so different even on my tablet when compared to the SX50 that I am still deciding which I would be most content using. No doubt, I think I know what a "very good" photo looks like. Yet the thread I linked to in my op shows just what is important in a photo as do my shots taken by my aunt with rather rudimentary equipment. Creating a desire to look more deeply into the image is, in my mind, what photography is all about when it is not strictly commercial work. Though once you begin looking, if you start thinking, "Boy, that would have been so much better if only the resolution was there ... "

That's what the thread is about to me.



Yes, bebulamar, I believe we covered pixel count early on in this thread. Thanks though for your input.

 

[soufiej]

Thanks, I was unaware of CDHK. How many cookies do I get for going there?


Focus peaking? Can you explain? I just the other day found out I should be shooting more at f22 (which, I think, is impossible with the SX50) than I ever had.

 

[dennybeall]

Do you remember when cameras advertised optical zoom and digital zoom. If you think about it more pixels yields the same result as optical zoom without the pixilation of digital zoom.

 

[enzodm]

Thanks, I was unaware of CDHK. How many cookies do I get for going there?


Focus peaking? Can you explain? I just the other day found out I should be shooting more at f22 (which, I think, is impossible with the SX50) than I ever had.

Well, I deserve cookies for having directed you to CHDK
It is a safe, widely used, well done and non destructive hack. I have it on a A1200 (the cheap one I bring with me in the work bag) and on wife's SX110. On my 60D I have Magic Lantern, which is the version for DSLR.

Focus peaking is a way of evidentiating in-focus zones with overlays on high-contrast lines. Default on many mirrorless systems, it really helps in manual focus.
On SX50 minimum aperture is f/8. However f/22 can be a bad idea due to diffraction, just use hyperfocal distance.

 

[weepete]

I've got my eye on a Rioch GR as a wee carry around camera. The idea of it really appeals to me though it is still on the dear side.

Reading through this thread though I think you are trying to get a small camera that is cheap and will do a bit of everything which is confusing you further. I think for the type of small camera you are talking about you need to decide on one particular type and get one that does that well.

Sorry, I don't understand "you need to decide on one particular type and get one that does that well."

Does "what" well? As I see this thread progressing, one of my wishes for this camera would be that it does not limit me. And I say that realizing any camera will limit me in some way. I know what sort of photography I was interested in when I had my old Rebels. IMO the Rebel bodies gave me 85-90% of what I (not a professional) could get from the more expensive Canons. The Rebel body worked in the widest settings I shot in. I put my money into the lenses and so forth after I had what I considered to be a decent and mostly usable body. Therefore, lens and equipment selections were made in accordance with those desires.

I don't, at least didn't, shoot stop action sports of any kind. Low light shots are pretty rare so not of great weight to my decision on which camera to choose. (Besides, I don't quite understand the fixation on what a digital camera turns out at ISO 800-1600 and above. When I shot film I expected grainier images with 400 ASA.) Normally, I can get up close to the subject so macro is somewhat important to me. Sometimes I can't get close so some zoom or sufficient "resolution" is desired to allow for cropping. Formal portraits are minimal in my shots. Candid shots where I have no ability to "set up" the shot are far more common. I've found lots of equipment to be restraining at times and at times frightening to young subjects. Available light then is where I take a lot of shots. Obviously, I think, I prefer sufficient sharpness over insufficient sharpness though the latter has its place. I am not, however, as lovemycam stated, obssessed with "hi res".

Mostly in this purchase I want a camera I can have with me, carry around, toss into the Fiat and not worry about losing a bunch of money if the worst occurs and simply take photos when I see something of interest. I do not want to be overly concerned about the technical aspects of capturing the best image. I do want to use manual controls rather than simply aiming the lens in the general direction of a subject and using auto to have what the camera gathers in as an image. I want some creative (manual, for the most part) control but beyond, maybe a ND or polarizing filter, I don't want gear.

The title of the thread refers to whether those who are primarily, I think the current term is, "pixel peepers" have cameras they can live with that get them out of the critical stage of resolution "uber alles". I'm not concerned over pixels. The G-1X though has such a larger sensor and the resolution from it is so different even on my tablet when compared to the SX50 that I am still deciding which I would be most content using. No doubt, I think I know what a "very good" photo looks like. Yet the thread I linked to in my op shows just what is important in a photo as do my shots taken by my aunt with rather rudimentary equipment. Creating a desire to look more deeply into the image is, in my mind, what photography is all about when it is not strictly commercial work. Though once you begin looking, if you start thinking, "Boy, that would have been so much better if only the resolution was there ... "

That's what the thread is about to me.



Yes, bebulamar, I believe we covered pixel count early on in this thread. Thanks though for your input.

Yeah, I didn't phrase that well. I just meant that the type of photography you want to concentrate on will define what you need in a camera. If you can decide where you want your camera to perform best it's easier to pick a suitable small system as looking for a camera that will provide you with the most flexibility will inevitibly lead back to a DSLR and a multiple lens system

 

[sashbar]

Between a powerful zoom and a larger sensor I choose sensor any time. My favourite camera has no zoom at all.

If you want to shoot everything and end up with lots of mediocre images, go for a zoom. If you are more selective in what you are shooting, if you care about the IQ and have legs, go for a better sensor.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

Every knows about the constant race between manufactures to make the highest resolution mobile/cell photo display , But apple realised that above a certain resolution and viewing distance the human eye could not make out the individual pixels anyway, so any resolution above this is really as waste.

The link below is for a Retina Calculator could this be used for photography?

John.

Is This Retina? - DPI/PPI Display Calculator

What is a Retina display?
Retina is Apple's trademark for a display so sharp that the human eye is unable to distinguish between pixels at a typical viewing distance. As Steve Jobs said: "It turns out there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels." Given a large enough viewing distance, all displays eventually become "retina."

 

[soufiej]

Thanks, I was unaware of CDHK. How many cookies do I get for going there?


Focus peaking? Can you explain? I just the other day found out I should be shooting more at f22 (which, I think, is impossible with the SX50) than I ever had.

Well, I deserve cookies for having directed you to CHDK
It is a safe, widely used, well done and non destructive hack. I have it on a A1200 (the cheap one I bring with me in the work bag) and on wife's SX110. On my 60D I have Magic Lantern, which is the version for DSLR.

Focus peaking is a way of evidentiating in-focus zones with overlays on high-contrast lines. Default on many mirrorless systems, it really helps in manual focus.
On SX50 minimum aperture is f/8. However f/22 can be a bad idea due to diffraction, just use hyperfocal distance.

Thanks.

 

[soufiej]

Between a powerful zoom and a larger sensor I choose sensor any time. My favourite camera has no zoom at all.

If you want to shoot everything and end up with lots of mediocre images, go for a zoom. If you are more selective in what you are shooting, if you care about the IQ and have legs, go for a better sensor.

I can't argue with the logic, only with the fact I have two workable legs but no wings at all. Your point is taken tough and is being stirred into the pot.

My question for you would be, do you do a lot of cropping?

 

[D-B-J]

Id rather have more dynamic range, better ISO sensitivity, etc. than some huge megapixel camera. I do a lot of printing so resolution matters, I wouldn't be able to do much with say, 10mp, but resolution is only one factor of many when deciding on a camera.

THIS. Dynamic Range is hugely important to about 85% of what I shoot. The 36.3 megapixels of the D800 also give me a lot of options for printing and cropping. Those two in combination are killer.

Jake

 

[soufiej]

Every knows about the constant race between manufactures to make the highest resolution mobile/cell photo display , But apple realised that above a certain resolution and viewing distance the human eye could not make out the individual pixels anyway, so any resolution above this is really as waste.

The link below is for a Retina Calculator could this be used for photography?

John.

Is This Retina? - DPI/PPI Display Calculator

What is a Retina display?
Retina is Apple's trademark for a display so sharp that the human eye is unable to distinguish between pixels at a typical viewing distance. As Steve Jobs said: "It turns out there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels." Given a large enough viewing distance, all displays eventually become "retina."

Seems to me Apple was simply trying to use one on paper number to justify not providing higher quality cameras in their phones. One single number does not fully explain the function of any electronic device I can think of. I first became aware of "pixels" when I was a small child reading "Beetle Bailey" in the Sunday comics section. My aunt, the one who took the photos of Cuba, held a magnifying glass to the newsprint to show me the "resolution" of the press was about 60-80 dots per inch. Up to that point, I was perfectly satisfied to see Sarge as a perfectly solid image. Reading "Prince Valiant", with its dramatic high contrast illustrations, began to show the limitations of "pixel" count.

"Digital" television gives another good example, IMO, of a static on paper spec being far from adequate to explain why we take in different images from what would appear to be identical displays. The power supply in one television is superior to the power supply in another which typically would indicate one manufacturer cares a bit more about the rest of their product than does the other. Power supplies are still, even in the digital age, of prime importance since most everything that happens in any electronic device is a modulation of the power supply. They are one of the most expensive parts for a manufacturer to invest in. A good power supply gives the product latitude and head room. And the superior power supply wins in terms of "definition". It has dimensionality not seen in the flatter, less dynamically capable alternative. A good power supply coupled to a good monitoring system provides a three dimensional image with a convincing depth of field without the gimmics. There's no doubt manufacturers have invested as much money in the study of how our cognitive, perceptive systems operate and how to fool those systems as they have in actually improving their products. The in focus edges with a good power supply are sharp without being lined in a solid black rim to make them appear to pop - to look more and more like those old comic pages. It has the ability to simultaneously display a wider range of color variations and most importantly hues. Motion is shown as a smooth change in position rather than a jerky flip card display of not being in the same location 1/100 second later. The superior power supply is in part responsible for the detail retained in shadows along with the controlled saturation of colors so the image doesn't "glow" at points. When I was selling high definition video systems, the average buyer was looking for screen size, paid little attention to "resolution", was only vaguely aware of lines of resolution or pixel count and paid absolutely none to whether the newscaster's shirt was subsequently displayed as white, yellow or blue. A few fell back on the advice from the early days of color television and looked at skin tones but few could tell me what skin tone they believed was accurate. I could easily have pointed to specs which showed pixel counts but that wasn't what made the difference between the images or the selling price.

I've always wished audio/video manufacturer's would give specs on their power supplies, a few dance around the facts, but none really do or ever will I suppose. When asked which audio amplifier to buy, I often have answered, "All things equal, buy the heavier amp, it has the better power supply."

D-J-B, agreed but as I state above, one static number - no matter the number - does not inform the buyer as to the real world use of any electronics product IMO.

 

[photoguy99]

The power supply discussion is mostly wrong.

Power supplies are generally one of the cheaper subassemblies in anything like a TV and they have no effect at all on digital systems if they work. If they do not work the system fails. The quality does not degrade, the entire system fails.

It is one of the properties of digital systems.

 

[soufiej]

The power supply discussion is mostly wrong.

Power supplies are generally one of the cheaper subassemblies in anything like a TV and they have no effect at all on digital systems if they work. If they do not work the system fails. The quality does not degrade, the entire system fails.

It is one of the properties of digital systems.

Not in my opinion. However, how you look and how you listen, what you look for and what you listen to, will tell a lot about your opinion of power supplies and specs. Work or not work is similar to "bits is bits". If you believe bits is bits, you don't have much use for any other spec or the results of those numbers put together as a system. Subjective vs objective, Aristotle vs Plato. I don't see this thread as a place for that discussion.

 

[D-B-J]

Every knows about the constant race between manufactures to make the highest resolution mobile/cell photo display , But apple realised that above a certain resolution and viewing distance the human eye could not make out the individual pixels anyway, so any resolution above this is really as waste.

The link below is for a Retina Calculator could this be used for photography?

John.

Is This Retina? - DPI/PPI Display Calculator

What is a Retina display?
Retina is Apple's trademark for a display so sharp that the human eye is unable to distinguish between pixels at a typical viewing distance. As Steve Jobs said: "It turns out there’s a magic number right around 300 pixels per inch, that when you hold something around to 10 to 12 inches away from your eyes, is the limit of the human retina to differentiate the pixels." Given a large enough viewing distance, all displays eventually become "retina."

D-J-B, agreed but as I state above, one static number - no matter the number - does not inform the buyer as to the real world use of any electronics product IMO.

Oh I agree. DR is important. ISO is important. Image processor is important. Ergonomics are important.

It's one thing to read a number, but the combination of that when out in the field is what matters.


Jake