Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Now that sensors have stabilised, will lenses be the next area of focus?  (Read 16905 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9389

Corvus,
That's an excellent example of the sensationalised reporting that I mentioned in my previous post. It's alarmist to the point where one cannot separate the metaphor and rethtoric from the facts. The following BBC News item gives some insight into the problem. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17826898

It's a great pity really that such major issues are treated in such a sensationalized manner, because what then tends to happen is that those who have some understanding of scientific processes become skeptical, and the people promoting the issues tend to lose credibility.

The current fiasco with regard to human induced global warming is a great example. It seems, in my opinion, that in order to get public acceptance of a possible problem, distortions, inaccuracies and sensationalism have prevailed. I get a sense of a significant 'selection bias' occurring in the reportage, which of course all good scientists should be fine-tuned to detect.
An example of 'selection bias' would be the initial graphs of global warming that were presented in such a way as to obscure the fact that around a 1,000 years ago we had a similar period of warming known as the Medieval Warming Period. The graph has become notoriously known as the Hockey Stick, which I suspect may be just one glaring example like the tip of the iceberg, to use a metaphor.

I've heard claims from certain Climate Scientists that it is not known whether the MWP was a global phenomenon, or mainly a regional phenomenon. Other scientists claim that the current warming is more rapid than at any time during the past 20 million years.

Do you see the problem? If we are not sure to what extent the MWP was a global phenomenon, then are we not likely to be even less sure how our current warming period stacks up against the 200,000 segments of 100 year periods stretching back into the past?

If we are to solve a problem, it must be clearly defined in an unbiased way. Confusion reigns when people are the subject of a natural disaster, such as a major flood or cyclone, and are told that such disasters can be blamed on global warming. The real reaon why people lose their houses in floods is because the house was unwittingly built in a flood plain, and the authorities who approved the plans, no doubt in the interests of economic development, were perhaps not even aware of the history of flooding in the area.

I'm led to believe that a far greater number of species exist below the the soil surface than above it. I've heard reports that a mere handful of good soil contains more DNA than the entire human body.
Logged

Corvus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28

"That's an excellent example of sensationalised reporting "

Clearly we hold radically different value systems with very different perceptions of reality.
Let's leave it at that and spare ourselves and others on the forum all the sturm und drang of yet another long, extended, sterile debate that will go nowhere.

Let's get back to discussing something we are, apparently, good at like how many pixels can dance on the head of a pin?

 
Logged

Corvus

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28

"And where more strongly than in photography, where the reality is that a photograph is either good or it sucks; there is no middle ground. But, if you accept that truth, then what's left to say about the thing, and when the saying becomes the point of the interchange of opinions, the truth, the worth of the picture becomes secondary.

Rob C"

Sounds like you are talking more about opinion than criticism.
Good thoughtful criticism can be an art form in it's own right getting close to that middle ground where the "truth and worth" of a image is found.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14704

"And where more strongly than in photography, where the reality is that a photograph is either good or it sucks; there is no middle ground. But, if you accept that truth, then what's left to say about the thing, and when the saying becomes the point of the interchange of opinions, the truth, the worth of the picture becomes secondary.

Rob C"

Sounds like you are talking more about opinion than criticism.
Good thoughtful criticism can be an art form in it's own right getting close to that middle ground where the "truth and worth" of a image is found.



Can't buy into that, I'm afraid. "Good, thoughtful criticism" is opinion - it can't be anything else because it stems from the mind of someone who thinks he knows better than the person who made the image. At best, it's second-guessing, pure and simple, and any fool can do it, even I. In some other applications than in art it's known as being wise after the event.

If anything, the professional sayer of sooths, the critique-monger, is but another hurdle in the way of the struggling artist. But, could that same person be brought on-side, he becomes a great selling aid to the 'artist'...

Were Jesus walking the streets today, I think he'd throw them all into the pit along with the money-changers.

Rob C

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618

And the question that is now popping up in my head is what will Leica and the makers of other "premium" lens brands do to counter the increase in IQ from Sigma/Tamron?

Some of the newer Sigma/Tamron lenses are proving to deliver higher IQ than Zeiss, etc, so while there is still a certain amount of cachet with those premium brands, is that all that they have going for them considering that they pretty much never do auto-focus and a lack of new models with competitive IQ?
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14704

And the question that is now popping up in my head is what will Leica and the makers of other "premium" lens brands do to counter the increase in IQ from Sigma/Tamron?

Some of the newer Sigma/Tamron lenses are proving to deliver higher IQ than Zeiss, etc, so while there is still a certain amount of cachet with those premium brands, is that all that they have going for them considering that they pretty much never do auto-focus and a lack of new models with competitive IQ?


I, for one, studiously avoid 'auto' anything that I can, other than two 'autos' that are wonderful: auto ISO and auto diaphragm.

;-)

Rob C

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618


I, for one, studiously avoid 'auto' anything that I can, other than two 'autos' that are wonderful: auto ISO and auto diaphragm.

;-)

What about auto-beating? ;)
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14704

What about auto-beating? ;)


Must be something I eat: right over my head.

;-)

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14704

Auto-beating

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeEHQzyUdC0&playnext=1&list=PLB8BCBE8957E817F3&feature=results_main


That poor guy always had my deepest sympathy! Imagine waking up to this: BASIL!!! shrieked into your ear... Shit, imagine being called Basil!

Rob C

dreed

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1618


Must be something I eat: right over my head.

;-)

diaphragm = lungs
beating = heart

don't know if you meant diaphragm in that context but having an automatic one definitely helps :)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up