You are saying "all I need to do is know whats better - and I can do that by looking at the results", and others are saying "I want to know whats better, and I want to know why"I can honestly say I couldn't agree with you less.
The day I draw a line diagram instead of looking at a photo to decide which is better is the day I'll sell my camera!!
)
true,
but I would be willing to bet the majority of people who care about the science is lower than the majority of people who just want to look at and talk photography (by that i mean the results not the aspects off
true,
but I would be willing to bet the majority of people who care about the science is lower than the majority of people who just want to look at and talk photography (by that i mean the results not the aspects off
The only time that would make any difference is if you were looking to use the item for something other than it's intended use. I agree with you there. it doesn't really apply here though?
To bring it back to the specifics above (which is where this all started after all) if you are swapping one full frame body for another, you are likely to get more noisy images on the one with the smaller pixels due to the (very well understood) physics involved. Additionally, if you have very good lenses, you might also expect an improvement in resolving power. It wouldn't tell you if the camera produced a better quality (where quality is defined in terms of clarity, nosiness, sharpness) image as that will be dependent on the situation.
If you understand how it works, you'll be able to ensure you find the right bit of the subject to focus on... I.e. it'll help you get focus more accurately in more cases than if you didn't understand it. You might also understand it's limitations too, and know how to work around them. Clearly you could get this knowledge from trial and error....
no arrogance meant or infered, apologies if it came across that way, but by the same count, implying there is an arrogance about wanting to know why these things happen, instead if just accepting them, and the somewhat daft example in your post you exhibt as much arrogance yourself
G'day chaps!
The importance of some scientific knowldege, and understanding the why as well as the what, is inescapable if your are to get anywhere in photography. It is a science applied to an art.
When you look at a great photograph, if you are content to simply say that's nice and leave it at that, then fine. But if you look at it and would like to try something similar yourself, then you need to identify the key elements and understand how they were created.
If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of the marketing and sales people whose distortion of the truth and pure ignorance is breathtaking. If you are spending a grand or two on a new camera, it is important to have the right information before you buy.
think we'll just disagree then - I say knowing how things work is a big plus, you don't think it important. I don't understand your prespective, you don't get mine, too nice a day to go round in circles on it
It will HELP you make the decision. I've just bought a 5Dm2 over a 7D because I want the low light performance of the 5Dm2 over that of the 7D. I understand why it performs better and I also understand why FF is helpful in other aspects for the sorts of shots I want to do (portraits and landscapes). Having the understanding helped me make the decision without having to buy a 7D and then sell it on when it didn't quite match my expectations.
The only time that would make any difference is if you were looking to use the item for something other than it's intended use. I agree with you there. it doesn't really apply here though?
I think I do understand your perspective, I did say I agree that knowing technically how something works opens up alternatives for expanded use of an item. Is that what you're saying, or I have I missed it completely?
*snip*
I do actually like to know how things work, and I don't think we're poles apart here. Maybe just talking at slightly crossed purposes?
You are right though, it IS a lovely day
it does sounds like we're saying the same, but maybe at slghtly cross purposes. That was exactly what I'm saying - and I understand completely what you mean, especially having read the last couple of posts in the thread, things are getting bogged down in mindless, and not relevant detail now ;-)
Please don't presume to know how I make my decisions
YOU may not have needed to understand it, but I did - and it helped me in my buying decision.
Thats exactly where I am coming from. In this instance we are looking at the relitive merits of 2 systems. A science minded (like me) person will never switch off the scientific approach, and will allways look at the figures and make sure things stack out. Most of us then pop our art hat on, and look at the results in terms of photographs tooG'day chaps!
The importance of some scientific knowldege, and understanding the why as well as the what, is inescapable if your are to get anywhere in photography. It is a science applied to an art.
When you look at a great photograph, if you are content to simply say that's nice and leave it at that, then fine. But if you look at it and would like to try something similar yourself, then you need to identify the key elements and understand how they were created.
If you don't do this, you are at the mercy of the marketing and sales people whose distortion of the truth and pure ignorance is breathtaking. If you are spending a grand or two on a new camera, it is important to have the right information before you buy.
)
Please don't presume to know how I make my decisions
Anyway this off topic stuff has gone even further off topic than the original off topic... which was that magnification is a meaningless concept and doesn't help describe why images are better or worse from a FF sensor than APS-C
