Image 'quality' vs. Usability

[pgk]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As ever the release of a new camera seems to herald yet another series of debates concerning the absolute 'image quality' of the new model versus all contenders. Unfortunately I have yet to determine exactly what this catch all phrase 'image quality' actually refers to - precise definitions seem rather thin on the ground, and there is a preponderance to rely on complex test procedures which yield such detailed and extensive results as to make them uninterpretable. (Caveat - I used to MTF test lenses myself).

 

Have the common sense approaches of equipment being both 'fit for purpose' and suitable for the task to be undertaken with it, finally disappeared I wonder? Should all photographers besotted with 'image quality' actually be using the latest and greatest medium format, ultimate resolution back? Or has the digital age merely left us with a technical desire to strive to own something unattainable - the ultimate do-everything camera?

 

I use Leica dRFs because I enjoy doing so, they produce results which fulfill my expectations and needs, give me access to superb fixed focal length optics which are my preferred way of working, are of relative small size and so on. New models mean potentially even better results but I don't see them as being in competition with dSLRs because that's not why I bought into the M system.

 

So have too many photographers/camera owners become too fixated on minor improvements in 'image quality' at the expense of appreciating usability?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tappan]

Paul,

You pose very good questions/observations. My main concern is that I want to get the most out of the beautiful M lenses that I have worked hard to obtain. Yesterday, while testing a 50mm Summicron type 1V with a Type 1 collapsible, I decided to go further. I tested my M9 with my Canon Eos1dx. I put amazing lenses on my M9 and I put a Canon 16-35mm type2 and a 14mm 2.8 old Canon on the 1dx. The differences were not as much as I thought. I was disappointed. It used to be that when one bought equipment, it was thought that the money should go into the lens, Remember the old adage? "Put your money into your glass." So, at this point, my concern(s) are that I want my lenses to SING, and I'm not sure they are "being all they can be" with the M9.

Mark

[250swb]

 

So have too many photographers/camera owners become too fixated on minor improvements in 'image quality' at the expense of appreciating usability?

 

Photographers have always been fixated by equipment. But there was a time, not so long ago, when improvements in equipment, and especially those involving image rendering, were so minor and over a long timeframe that the only way 'up' was to become a better photographer. That was of course in the days of film, when the last big thing that everybody had access to was Velvia, so even then you didn't need to jump ship from one system to another to compete with other photographers. And photographers accepted the natural differences between using 35mm or medium format, they knew one system was for one type of photography, the other for another. Whichever playground you were in it was the photographer that made the difference, and everybody knew it.

 

But now it is far less clear. People who take photographs, a lot of them at least, wait for the next new camera to improve their pictures, to get one step ahead, and becoming a better photographer is neatly sidestepped, it isn't necessary in the world of megapixels. It is easily proven, because we don't see photographs getting better with new cameras, but instead more and more demonstrations of high ISO or resolution, but they aren't being photographers, the people using them are being technicians. Reading the spec sheet and understanding the manual have taken over in bragging rights from the simple 'look at this great photograph I just took'. But there are still a lot of photographers who can determine if a new camera can actually help them improve as photographers, or a camera or lens that fills a need or gives them a new idea, but they are now outnumbered by people who just buy cameras.

 

But the bottom line is that you are more likely to see exciting, inventive and adventurous photography from somebody with a Holga that from the people who buy the latest Sony RX1 (well, not all of them), and that is sad.

 

Steve

[earleygallery]

But the bottom line is that you are more likely to see exciting, inventive and adventurous photography from somebody with a Holga that from the people who buy the latest Sony RX1 (well, not all of them), and that is sad.

 

Steve

 

Excellent post Steve, but why is it sad that a Holga user or 'Lomographer' takes better photos than someone with the lastest new gadget?

 

I used to wonder why people bothered with the LOMO thing, why didn't they buy a half decent camera? But I get it now (and even have a couple of low-fi cameras myself!).

 

Browse the photos on Flickr or on the Lomography sites, and you will see some superb images, despite their lack of edge to edge sharpness. The deficiencies of the equipment are being used as benefits.

 

I think a lot of people here would benefit from putting their Leica down for a while and using a 'lomo' type camera to get back to basics of image making.

[alun]

I have thought for a long time that digital has introduced so many technical/software/firmware/computing variables that many have come to regard image quality as infinitely more important than image content.

 

The technical excellence of the images and of the equipment used to produce them have for some entirely replaced any real concern with what is in the pictures, why they may be worth looking at, whether they work as photographs, and their impact.

 

And yet on the other hand, I bet there has always been this tendency in photography -- gear vs aesthetics, if you like -- and that the only thing that is really different is that thanks to computing and the internet we can now see this illustrated a million times a day on websites and forums...

[hepcat]

This is an equipment-centric forum. In fact most forums are equipment-centric. There are very few "photography" forums, and even those tend to wander into being equipment-centric.

 

The truth of the matter is that the equipment remains less important in making images than the images themselves, so long as you're comfortable with your equipment, the quality of the images you produce are adequate to suit YOU and you can reliably operate your equipment with consistent results.

 

Many people who own cameras today consider themselves photographers. I'd argue that camera ownership does not a photographer make. Many gearheads who endlessly argue image quality and whether highlights are blown or shadows are muddy are at a complete loss to understand why stunning images are stunning... and that "stunning" can't be explained in technical terms, line charts and graphs related to image quality and dynamic range.

 

Usability, ergonomics, and comfort continue to be the reasons to buy and use a specific brand of equipment. Image quality, while important, is discussed far more frequently than is appropriate or necessary. I love the quote: "Image quality is NOT a quality image."

 

In drag racing, it boils down to the driver's ability to hook the tires up, feather the clutch and get the power to the tarmac in time with the lights. The brand of engine, tires, and fuel really isn't all that important as long as they're all there and working and the driver manipulates them to the best effect. Photography is no different.

[jdlaing]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is an equipment-centric forum. In fact most forums are equipment-centric. There are very few "photography" forums, and even those tend to wander into being equipment-centric.

 

The truth of the matter is that the equipment remains less important in making images than the images themselves, so long as you're comfortable with your equipment, the quality of the images you produce are adequate to suit YOU and you can reliably operate your equipment with consistent results.

 

Many people who own cameras today consider themselves photographers. I'd argue that camera ownership does not a photographer make. Many gearheads who endlessly argue image quality and whether highlights are blown or shadows are muddy are at a complete loss to understand why stunning images are stunning... and that "stunning" can't be explained in technical terms, line charts and graphs related to image quality and dynamic range.

 

Usability, ergonomics, and comfort continue to be the reasons to buy and use a specific brand of equipment. Image quality, while important, is discussed far more frequently than is appropriate or necessary. I love the quote: "Image quality is NOT a quality image."

 

In drag racing, it boils down to the driver's ability to hook the tires up, feather the clutch and get the power to the tarmac in time with the lights. The brand of engine, tires, and fuel really isn't all that important as long as they're all there and working and the driver manipulates them to the best effect. Photography is no different.

 

You keep talking reason like that and there's a few here that will have you thrown in the street and stoned.

 

:D:D

[250swb]

Excellent post Steve, but why is it sad that a Holga user or 'Lomographer' takes better photos than someone with the lastest new gadget?

 

All power to the Lomographers!

 

I was thinking it sad because the new camera's come ready loaded with a tool called 'peer pressure'. It limits any new camera to being used to photograph at the perfect and optimum images settings.

 

This is why the Sobol images from the MM caused such a discontented stir on the camera's release. They went beyond showing the camera in its most refined envelope, and he introduced contrast (not to mention considerable photographic skill). This isn't what people want from a new camera.

 

Its Springtime in the Northern Hemisphere! And as Nostradamus could have predicted, 'there will be a lot of daffodils photographed with the M'.

 

Steve

[peter_n]

People who take photographs, a lot of them at least, wait for the next new camera to improve their pictures, to get one step ahead, and becoming a better photographer is neatly sidestepped, it isn't necessary in the world of megapixels. It is easily proven, because we don't see photographs getting better with new cameras, but instead more and more demonstrations of high ISO or resolution, but they aren't being photographers, the people using them are being technicians. Reading the spec sheet and understanding the manual have taken over in bragging rights from the simple 'look at this great photograph I just took'.

This is very accurate. I belong to two DSLR forums because of their tripod/ballhead sections but don't own their cameras/lenses. They are just constantly changing lenses and cameras and never settle down with anything and get to know it really well. The culture is to take pictures (super sharp & high resolution of course) of all the boxes neatly stacked up when the new toys arrive so members can drool over them. It reminds me of the behavior in the geek forums where everyone is constantly upgrading to the latest hardware and software. Steve is correct, they are techies and photography doesn't come into it.

[thighslapper]

Image quality is irrelevant if:

 

the camera is too heavy to lug about and has cumbersome bulky accessories

 

too complicated to switch on and even use without a degree in computer science

 

hard to hold steady and avoid camera shake because of weight and size

 

innaccurate in allowing you to assess and set correct exposure

 

difficult to focus accurately on your main subject

 

produces odd colour balance that you spend hours trying to correct

 

the camera is such a pain to use you would prefer to leave it at home

 

....... which are all basically ignored by the pixel peepers and 'quality' tresters....

 

....... and as I have said before, current prosumer camera output exceeds the resolving power of the media the images are viewed on........

 

and until we all have ultra HDTV and 90" screens at home or habitually print to A2 or bigger we are never going to realise the benefit of these 'quality' improvements....

[Ivan Muller]

Paul,

You pose very good questions/observations. My main concern is that I want to get the most out of the beautiful M lenses that I have worked hard to obtain. Yesterday, while testing a 50mm Summicron type 1V with a Type 1 collapsible, I decided to go further. I tested my M9 with my Canon Eos1dx. I put amazing lenses on my M9 and I put a Canon 16-35mm type2 and a 14mm 2.8 old Canon on the 1dx. The differences were not as much as I thought. I was disappointed. It used to be that when one bought equipment, it was thought that the money should go into the lens, Remember the old adage? "Put your money into your glass." So, at this point, my concern(s) are that I want my lenses to SING, and I'm not sure they are "being all they can be" with the M9.

Mark

 

I suppose what we all want is the max image quality from our chosen tools. Thats what I strive for, but my 'look', achieved in PP, sometimes degrades the image quality a bit. So I am not after the 'ultimate' image quality but the best that can be achieved within my parameters. That's why I don't have an M, but rather an X, because even though the M promises the 'ultimate' image quality I am not prepared to achieve that through, what is in my opinion only, a slow and difficult to use rangefinder and viewing system. So I have to compromise by getting a third best, but at least with af, that is where I draw the line, that and IS. This is of course also greatly determined by the very small size of my purse.. Each of us will have a line drawn somewhere, and for some that line is a Leica rangefinder with Leica glass....

 

Of course if you wanted ultimate image quality only 8x10 or medium format gazillion pixel camera will do...but most of us I presume are constrained by the size of our purse or other requirements of size, brand, ease of use etc etc.

 

There is some very interesting articles on Roger Cicala's blog. One of them is a 50mm lens resolution comparison and test. Here the Leica's 'best', wide open, were easily matched by 'inferior' and cheaper Japanese lenses. Now I can already hear the chorus of disbelief and indignation but imo Roger has no axe to grind and is actually quite impartial but more importantly has access to huge batches of lenses where trends can much more readily be established than by testing one lens only, unlike most reviewers out there. Of course as one stopped down the Leica's pulled ahead and were clearly the best lenses overall.

 

The bottom line line is that most system will give more quality than most of us need or can produce right now. What separates the systems is what we personally want or want to believe, Canon or Nikon, RF or AF, plastic or metal, huge budgets and small budgets. There is a solution for everyone regardless of taste and budget, but more importantly even a modest budget can buy something that will give superb image quality.

 

So please don't be disappointed Mark, rather be astonished that your Japanese plastic was only just pipped at the post by German metal.

 

It is a good time to be a photographer:)

[Ivan Muller]

Image quality is irrelevant if:

 

the camera is too heavy to lug about and has cumbersome bulky accessories

 

....

 

Not sure I can agree with you. For many years I lugged a big and heavy and ugly Sinar C around because that gave the best image quality and that's what I wanted.

[philipus]

Maybe I shouldn't post here since I use film cameras only and they are what they are.

 

So I am not after the 'ultimate' image quality but the best that can be achieved within my parameters. That's why I don't have an M, but rather an X, because even though the M promises the 'ultimate' image quality I am not prepared to achieve that through, what is in my opinion only, a slow and difficult to use rangefinder and viewing system.

 

I fully agree that what is important is to feel comfortable with the equipment one uses.

 

And as Ivan says, that may or may not be a rangefinder. But seeing the above comment, though, I am wondering if you've actually used a rangefinder?

[Ivan Muller]

Maybe I shouldn't post here since I use film cameras only and they are what they are.

 

 

 

I fully agree that what is important is to feel comfortable with the equipment one uses.

 

And as Ivan says, that may or may not be a rangefinder. But seeing the above comment, though, I am wondering if you've actually used a rangefinder?

 

Way back in the days of film, even before af, I had an M 2 with one of those goggle 35mm lenses and also a 90mm f4, I think. I just loved the 'feel' of the camera and the shutter sound was Devine. I thought the film changing was a joke, in fact I still do. ( I had another look at my pre- M Leica yesterday to show my son and film loading was even worse! ) But I was prepared to overlook that, because after all it was a Leica. Tried as I might I just couldn't get used to it nor the tiny 90mm focus block...I tried for 18months. My Canon mf F1 was just so much easier and I couldnt see the difference in image quality. When I got my G1 I immediately felt 'this is for me' and I still have my Konica Hexar, which incidentally has an almost silent shutter. So to answer your question, yes I have used a mf rangefinder.

[skinnfell]

Heres my thoughts.

 

If you think of it in audio lingo, quality can mean that it should have:

Highest fidelity - Ability to transmit information and details. We like images that have a lot of things visible in them. Sharpness is an aid to this, but not the whole picture. Resolution is a measure of how much information is present, but not to how much detail is present. (Remember the 36 mpx camera phone?) Some might thing accurate colors are important, some think that aestetically pleasing colors are more important, and others are willing to forgo color altogether if the trade off is higher detail fidelity.

 

Freedom of -unwanted- jitter and distortions. Blooming, banding, streaking, jpg artefacts, moire, etc. etc. These all get in the way of the transmission of whatever we are interested in. Most would rather have an as clean image as possible, with the option to add our own "personal" distortions.

 

So to sum it up, to me it means maximum richness of "good" information, and a minimum of unwanted distortions.

 

Right now, the files from the Monochrom contain enough resolution to make the print sizes I am after, and the quality per pixel (acutity?) is the best I have ever seen. (within the limitation of the gray scale, obviously).

[pgk]

I suppose what we all want is the max image quality from our chosen tools.

 

Here the Leica's 'best', wide open, were easily matched by 'inferior' and cheaper Japanese lenses.

Well I actually want 'relevant' image quality - I want my images to be fit for purpose. Exces data is pointless and my Leica M9 delivers more than adequate images for 99.99% of my requirements.

 

My actual experience of Leica 50mm f/1.4 asph. and other manufacturer's fast 50mm lenses is the exact opposite. Wide-open the Leica shows its strength whilst stopping down evens things up.

[Ivan Muller]

Well I actually want 'relevant' image quality - I want my images to be fit for purpose. Exces data is pointless and my Leica M9 delivers more than adequate images for 99.99% of my requirements.

 

My actual experience of Leica 50mm f/1.4 asph. and other manufacturer's fast 50mm lenses is the exact opposite. Wide-open the Leica shows its strength whilst stopping down evens things up.

 

 

Paul, Re your first paragraph, I think every single photographer will express the same sentiments, and if you replace the 'M9' in the second sentence, with any other brand you will find a photographer that will claim that of his camera too.. So your statement is true for me too, I just achieve it with another tool.

 

Re your second paragraph. for me the whole debate around wide open sharpness for standard and wide lenses is of passing interest only as I hardly ever have had the need or want to photograph with those type of lenses wide open. I am mostly a sort of F5,6 to f11 guy. But go and read his article, its quite interesting....

[Ivan Muller]

Heres my thoughts.

 

If you think of it in audio lingo, quality can mean that it should have:

Highest fidelity - Ability to transmit information and details. We like images that have a lot of things visible in them. Sharpness is an aid to this, but not the whole picture. Resolution is a measure of how much information is present, but not to how much detail is present. (Remember the 36 mpx camera phone?) Some might thing accurate colors are important, some think that aestetically pleasing colors are more important, and others are willing to forgo color altogether if the trade off is higher detail fidelity.

 

Freedom of -unwanted- jitter and distortions. Blooming, banding, streaking, jpg artefacts, moire, etc. etc. These all get in the way of the transmission of whatever we are interested in. Most would rather have an as clean image as possible, with the option to add our own "personal" distortions.

 

So to sum it up, to me it means maximum richness of "good" information, and a minimum of unwanted distortions.

 

Right now, the files from the Monochrom contain enough resolution to make the print sizes I am after, and the quality per pixel (acutity?) is the best I have ever seen. (within the limitation of the gray scale, obviously).

 

For many years I photographed high end hifi, and know all about the golden ear brigade, so I hear where you are coming from. But how do you explain the guy with a ghetto blaster on his shoulder, at its full distorted volume, walking jauntily down the street having the time of his life?

[pgk]

Re your second paragraph. for me the whole debate around wide open sharpness for standard and wide lenses is of passing interest only as I hardly ever have had the need or want to photograph with those type of lenses wide open. I am mostly a sort of F5,6 to f11 guy. But go and read his article, its quite interesting....

Well, you can save an awful lot of money by getting slow lenses. I do use lenses wide open though so wide open performance is important......

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[nick.edwards1]

But how do you explain the guy with a ghetto blaster on his shoulder, at its full distorted volume, walking jauntily down the street having the time of his life?

 

After Radio Luxembourg - searched for the highest-fi - hated distortion.

Sat on 4th row at the Albert Hall - guy in front of me had a Nagra - was this the ultimate?

Then this guy walked on stage - his name was Hendrix - love distortion - game over.

Didn't have a camera - couldn't afford a Nikon - spent too much on hi-fi.

If only... any camera would have done.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Nick.

 

PS - still had the time of my life.