Is good good enough?

[NancyP]

Hey people bemoaning the weight of all that kit - consider it exercise! Plus, you can't wimp out and throw it away if it gets too heavy mid-trip, unlike the traditional weights system (water bottles).

"Good enough" can be defined as "the camera and lens in my hands when the opportunity for a great photo arises". If you are sitting around not seeing good photos, no equipment is "good enough".

[amolitor]

My newest camera is a Moto X phone. The next oldest is a Nikon D3100. Next up we go back quite a few more years.

They're all good enough.

[HansKoot]

Not that long ago there was this review https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/ 
that if I remember well didn't make it to the forum. Maybe the message was too inconvenient, but it was on par with my own experience.
Having said that the naked truth is that I love those new toys too, dive into them, and make an effort to rationalize why I should buy them anyway. My more pragmatic inner voice says that next years new model will sure be the better one to buy, so maybe last years model has the better price quality relation.. it's just less sexy.

[MHMG]

I firmly believe "Good is good enough" is right up there in cosmic intellectual and emotional value with "the best camera is the one you have with you".  Of course, there are real truths in both axioms.  Yet there is also a lot to be said for choosing the "right" camera and lens for any specific photographic endeavor.  Would you really haul out an old 8x10 view camera to take pictures at a sporting event?  But that heavy old 8x10 View camera might very well inspire you to create one amazing image on a day trek along the Appalachian Trail.  And that's why we all want to know about other photographers' experiences with new photographic gear .  New product reviews help us refine our ever-changing assessment of what is the best camera to choose at the right time and the right place. Keep up the the good work Michael and Kevin.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Telecaster]

I would agree on the 8K, but I also see that it takes a big screen to make use of 8K television. Or, you need to sit very close. For me, 8K is most viable in projection. But 8K is a bit beyond the horizon.

Yep. I've now owned a 42.5" 4K TV for about a month. This is really about as large as I want to go…no interest in a home theater installation and definitely no interest in allowing the TV to dominate my rec room. (There are often consecutive days when the thing never gets turned on.) Anyway I've used it to view lots of photos taken at or cropped to 16:9 and then down-resed to both 3840x2160 and 1920x1080 pixels. From my normal viewing distance of ~2.5 meters it's sometimes hard to tell the higher- & lower-res versions apart. Usually I can tell but in no case does the lower-res version look subpar. It's just not—in direct comparison—quite as crisp or vibrant. Viewed on their own all the photos look fine & dandy from a technical standpoint. This suggests to me that 8K, whenever it comes, will be great for large-scale projection, like in a theater, but mostly unnecessary for home display. Thus I've abandoned any thoughts of "future proofing" for 8K…IMO not necessary.

-Dave-

[jjj]

Not that long ago there was this review https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/ 
that if I remember well didn't make it to the forum. Maybe the message was too inconvenient, but it was on par with my own experience.

Ta for the link Hans as I missed that article. A typically thorough and real world write up from Keith.

[jjj]

Yep. I've now owned a 42.5" 4K TV for about a month. This is really about as large as I want to go…no interest in a home theater installation and definitely no interest in allowing the TV to dominate my rec room. (There are often consecutive days when the thing never gets turned on.)

I can also go a week or so without watching TV, but I went from an 28" SD CRT to a projector than produces an 80" image. With a decent input it is wonderful and is far more immersive than a smaller screen. Size really does matter and is why cinema can be so impressive. I never saw a flat screen TV that I wanted to buy as the image always looked too digital for my taste. The projector has a far more natural 'filmic' look. With a decent input that is, like with Netflix or Amazon Prime. My expensive cable provider Virgin Media however has recently done something to their encoding and picture quality is now shocking. Really, really shocking. May be binning them and save some money.
I only go in that room to watch TV and do not faff on computer, eat my tea or read a newspaper if watching a programme. So having room set up like a cinema is just fine for me.  Though girlfriend will have side light on and computer on lap when she's watching her stuff, but then she's oblivious to good quality images or good sound. The cliched female disinterest in hifi/AV.

[MarkL]

The phrase 'Good enough' has little meaning without a specific reference to the end purpose. If the purpose is to make a print, then 'good enough' will vary in accordance with the size of the print that one might decide to make.

If one's printer is A3+ size, for example, and one has no intention or ambition to print larger, then one might consider almost any modern compact camera with walk-around zoom lens, to be good enough. However, some of us might consider such a view to be short-sighted.

I can only make a 24" x 16" print at 300dpi without manufacturing pixels and my mamiya 7 can deliver more resolution
The eye is estimated to deal with 20 stops of DR (albeit not simultaneously) and my camera has 14
I get out of focus pictures due to the focus errors by the af system
No accurate exposure preview is available in any viewfinder
I can still only sync with flash at 1/250s
etc.

We are a long way from 'good enough' but the future is promising with the advantages of ditching the mirror becoming available but we really need electronic shutters like the nikon 1-series to go with it though. Focus systems and EVFs also have some way to go.

I can't help but feel there is a pervasive laziness in photography these days: too heavy, can't be bothered, just use my iphone image quality be damned.

[jjj]

I can only make a 24" x 16" print at 300dpi without manufacturing pixels and my mamiya 7 can deliver more resolution

You simply do not need 300dpi for very large prints because you tend to view them from much further away than say a magazine or smaller prints. A double truck image in a magazine at about normal reading distance equates [field of view wise] to an image about 4.5 foot wide on wall of my office at 5 foot viewing distance, which would also be sensible/comfortable distance for such a big print. You only need very high res for folk who like to look at images from a few inches away. Magazines, especially larger format ones are where you need the highest quality dpi as that's when you tend to view images up the closest.
Apple are using very large shots taken on the recent iPhone to advertise the camera and they are nowhere near 300dpi. There's been some very careful selection of imagery it has to be said and some upscaling must have been done. But they do look pretty good considering the camera shots tend to look pretty mushy on a 26" monitor if you zoomit at all or are not taken in amazing lighting at it's lowest ISO.

[Ray]

Yep. I've now owned a 42.5" 4K TV for about a month. This is really about as large as I want to go…no interest in a home theater installation and definitely no interest in allowing the TV to dominate my rec room.

I could have advised you, Dave, that a 42 inch TV screen would be unsatisfyingly small for 4K.

My standard HDTV plasma screen is 65", and I've tested the required viewing distance for discerning the maximum detail in my downsized photographic images of 5-6mp. It's around 2 to 2.5 metres.

However, when viewing prints on a wall, they are usually viewed from a variety of distances. Those who are interested will often get closer to appreciate the finer detail, as one does with any object of interest, such as a wooden carving, decorative plate or vase sitting on a shelf.

Of course, if an image doesn't contain any fine detail, texture or small objects of interest, there's less motive to view from a closer distance.
The attraction of a large print, or a large viewing screen, is basically the opportunity to appreciate the image from a variety of perspectives and distances, and to be able to view subsets of the scene, as one does in the real world.

Another issue is this concept of the TV dominating the room. I hear this objection often and I assume it is a hangover from the days when TVs were big boxes that took up floor space. A modern OLED screen can be just a few millimetres thick and fixed to the wall. One does need wall space, of course, as one does to hang up any print. However, if you think the presence of a large screen on the wall is too dominating or obtrusive, try being a bit creative. Paint the wall a similar shade or color to the screen. 

[Telecaster]

I could have advised you, Dave, that a 42 inch TV screen would be unsatisfyingly small for 4K.

Oh no, it's not unsatisfyingly small at all. What it is…is high enough in res for its size that the res is no longer a factor. When it's on I'm watching the program or looking at the image, with no awareness of the screen. Which IMO is at it should be.

Another issue is this concept of the TV dominating the room. I hear this objection often and I assume it is a hangover from the days when TVs were big boxes that took up floor space. A modern OLED screen can be just a few millimetres thick and fixed to the wall. One does need wall space, of course, as one does to hang up any print. However, if you think the presence of a large screen on the wall is too dominating or obtrusive, try being a bit creative. Paint the wall a similar shade or color to the screen. 

No way. The TV is an adjunct object in my rec room, not at all the center of it. My walls contain a few (oft changed) prints of mine, paintings by my friend Kirsten, a couple music-related posters and some guitars. Amps and more guitars take up much of the floor space. The TV sits atop a table in a corner, where it belongs. 

-Dave-

[langier]

Good enough is 6 KG and a pair of M43 cameras shooting still and video versus 19 KG shooting still better and video better but at 3 times the weight and trouble. When the ink hits the paper, it's hard to tell the difference when good craft is used throughout the process. As I age, I want to pack that 19 KG boat anchor less and less when the 6 KG system is one third the weight and 1/4 the bulk. Best of all, I'm more mobile, and less conspicuous and can work longer hours with less exertion. Now, if only my iPhone had a 15-300mm f/2.8 lens and raw with ISO 6400. That would be ideal for the road!

[AlterEgo]

Another issue is this concept of the TV dominating the room.

why it is an issue - don't you have enough rooms to have one dedicated to TV actually ? unless you are in, sorry, Europe.

[Ray]

why it is an issue - don't you have enough rooms to have one dedicated to TV actually ? unless you are in, sorry, Europe.

It's not an issue for me, and I see no reason to have a dedicated room for the TV. I watch the news fairly regularly on TV, as well as discussion programs, comedy programs, historical programs, nature programs, operas from Blu-Ray discs, and slide presentations of my own photos.

I prefer to have the TV in the largest room in the house where I spend most of my time, awake that is.
When the price is right, I'll probably stick an 84" OLED 4k screen to a wall in that largest room. When the TV is switched off, it'll look like a closed window. When it's on, it'll be like an open window to a vast variety of scenery. 

[Paulo Bizarro]

Hey people bemoaning the weight of all that kit - consider it exercise! Plus, you can't wimp out and throw it away if it gets too heavy mid-trip, unlike the traditional weights system (water bottles).

"Good enough" can be defined as "the camera and lens in my hands when the opportunity for a great photo arises". If you are sitting around not seeing good photos, no equipment is "good enough".

I prefer other types of exercise. The point is, for many of us, there is no pint in continuing to carry heavy gear, when you can carry lighter gear without any compromise in image quality.

As for "good enough", I have seen opportunities for great photos, but I only had my smartphone with me. It happens, and I have learned to move on. And on those occasions, the camera and lens I had with me (said smartphone) was certainly not good enough...

[alexcarnes]

Good enough for what? It's certainly true that technical standards are very high with today's cameras and lenses. I think the vexed 'is it good enough' question boils down to a couple of questions that're more subtle though: can you see the difference, and if you can, does it matter?

I print up to A3+ size, and I can see the difference between the 16MP output of my Ricoh GR and X-Pro1, and the 36MP output of my D810. That said, the difference isn't mind blowing, and you it could be argued that if you're looking closely enough to see the difference, then you're too close to the image. On a computer screen, and 100%, of course you can see the difference, although in that case, it can CERTAINLY be argued that you're looking too closely.

All things being equal, though, why wouldn't you achieve the highest technical standard possible? The question really comes down to purchasing and upgrade decisions; there's no denying that 16MP APS-C is plenty good enough for most purposes, so unless you've got some specific requirement or money to burn, why buy new cameras?

[MarkL]

You simply do not need 300dpi for very large prints because you tend to view them from much further away than say a magazine or smaller prints. A double truck image in a magazine at about normal reading distance equates [field of view wise] to an image about 4.5 foot wide on wall of my office at 5 foot viewing distance, which would also be sensible/comfortable distance for such a big print. You only need very high res for folk who like to look at images from a few inches away.

I'm the latter and so don't describe to the viewing distance argument. Unless people are physically stopped from viewing a print anywhere near up-close many get drawn in and the magic quickly goes when the image falls apart even at exhibition viewing distances. The vast majority of prints I see at exhibition are way over enlarged for the quality of the file which is a major distraction imo and loses the sense of immersion.

At A3 size I can easily tell 36MP from 12MP and when I shot a D700 I'd stitch 9-12 frames together to get anything like adequate resolution. When we get to 100MP then perhaps I'd say resolution-wise it is good enough.

[vjbelle]

I'm the latter and so don't describe to the viewing distance argument. Unless people are physically stopped from viewing a print anywhere near up-close many get drawn in and the magic quickly goes when the image falls apart even at exhibition viewing distances. The vast majority of prints I see at exhibition are way over enlarged for the quality of the file which is a major distraction imo and loses the sense of immersion.

At A3 size I can easily tell 36MP from 12MP and when I shot a D700 I'd stitch 9-12 frames together to get anything like adequate resolution. When we get to 100MP then perhaps I'd say resolution-wise it is good enough.

Am in complete agreement.  My usual print is 40 X 30 or 48 X 27 mostly shot with an IQ180 or Leaf Credo 50.  I have lots of wall space in my large home and I have yet to have a single person simply view at a distance...... they all want to walk into the print.  So..... I  need and want the most DPI I can get my hands on. 

Victor

[alexcarnes]

Am in complete agreement.  My usual print is 40 X 30 or 48 X 27 mostly shot with an IQ180 or Leaf Credo 50.  I have lots of wall space in my large home and I have yet to have a single person simply view at a distance...... they all want to walk into the print.  So..... I  need and want the most DPI I can get my hands on. 

Victor

Fair enough, but it could still be argued that people are looking too closely [because if you're looking closely enough to see the pixels, then you can't take in the whole composition/image].

Appropriate scales of analysis need to come into this. Take audio DAC performance. If you play a recorded pianissimo passage, then crank the gain up such that it's deafening, then DAC noise may be a problem, as might other artefacts or distortions that would be inaudible at an appropriate gain. But they're only audible because the gain (volume) is inappropriate. At such a gain setting, a full scale ff would be deafening and might damage the equipment!

Ask yourself, what is the point of huge prints? The reason is, so that the image can be viewed from a considerable distance. If you're viewing from a considerable distance, then you won't be able to see the pixels. If you stand very close to such a print, then of course you'll see technical 'problems' that would be invisible at more appropriate print sizes/viewing distances.

All that aside, I would make two points. First, I don't see how any professional photographer could really justify living in ignorance of technical image quality. I'll grant that the number of scenarios in which ultimate image quality might matter may be limited; but if you hire a pro, then you have a right to expect the practitioner to be capable of the best technical standards of the time. Second, and in contradiction to my last point, how many times have you heard of people standing with their noses pressed up against a great painting and moaned that they can see the brushstrokes?

In sum, I don't really see how anyone could complain that camera manufacturers and photographers are trying to do better with respect of technical image quality; but at the same time, it's clear to a pig that such technical quality doesn't make a photo worth seeing. If you look too closely at ANYTHING you'll find 'problems'; but they're only problems if you can perceive them at appropriate levels of analysis.

[jjj]

Nicely said Alex.

People on here unsurprisingly tend to be pixel peepers and are the sort who do want to view images from a few centimeters away.
I prefer to look at the whole image myself.