# Beliefs and myths.



## sanj (May 29, 2012)

These are some ‘concepts’ I am living with a photographer. Would like it if you educate me where I am wrong or right. THX!! 
You can add your own beliefs and myths for me to learn as well... 

* With all other factors being equal, more megapixels will give better IQ except in high ISO. 

* Raw files opened in Adobe or in DPP will have identical IQ.

* In real life situations the result from Zeiss lenses will be mostly indistinguishable from Canon lenses, all other factors being equal.

* The 5d3 is the camera to grab when getting the photo is of utmost importance rather than D800.

* Nikon makes better wide-angle lenses including wide-angle zooms than Canon.

* If the user understands Photoshop properly then Nik softwares are redundant. 

* Film has lost the battle and digital rules and even looks better. 

* Chromatic aberrations and lens vignette characteristics of a lens do not matter as these things can be fixed easily in Photoshop. 

* The IQ of 1dx and 5d3 at ISO 100 will be same. 

* Cropping in camera (1.6 factor) is not the same as cropping equal amount in post on a full frame camera.

* Mac computers have no real advantage over PC when it comes to processing photos. 

* 99.9 percent of equipment complaints are user errors including the 5d3 criticisms. 

* Canon will announce a high megapixel camera within six months.

* 1Dx will ship in reasonable quantities and will fill in the initial demand mostly. 

* 5d3 will not eat into the sales of 1Dx.

* New equipment may not make better pictures but certainly do help in making better pictures and people should stop criticizing people who want to buy new gear.

* People who regularly visit photo forums or for that matter ‘pixel peep’ can also be wonderful photographers. 

* Manuel focusing can be learned with practice and once second nature, it is almost as fast as shooting with auto focus for subjects not moving so fast. 

* It is ok to use auto exposure modes available in camera and that does not make anyone a lesser photographer.


----------



## sanj (May 29, 2012)

Another addition:
* The partial blur effect created by lens baby or tilt/shift lenses looks better than what is possible in photoshop.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 29, 2012)

OK, I'll take the challenge. Tell me if I pass.


* With all other factors being equal, more megapixels will give better IQ except in high ISO. True.

* Raw files opened in Adobe or in DPP will have identical IQ. Essentially True. They might have a slightly different look, but I wouldn't say one would be better.

* In real life situations the result from Zeiss lenses will be mostly indistinguishable from Canon lenses, all other factors being equal. True. There are minor differences, but mosty indistinguishable.

* The 5d3 is the camera to grab when getting the photo is of utmost importance rather than D800. True

* Nikon makes better wide-angle lenses including wide-angle zooms than Canon. Difficult one. Possibly True, but the 10-22 EF-S is probably better than the Nikon alternatives. Our WA tilt shifts are ok. Same with the 14mm and 24mm. It would be difficult to say Nikon is "Better".

* If the user understands Photoshop properly then Nik softwares are redundant. Probably True

* Film has lost the battle and digital rules and even looks better. False. Film is very niche but has its proponents and benefits.

* Chromatic aberrations and lens vignette characteristics of a lens do not matter as these things can be fixed easily in Photoshop. Possibly False. I suspect that it would be better to just get it right in camera rather than relying on software corrections.

* The IQ of 1dx and 5d3 at ISO 100 will be same. Probably True. Maybe not the same but not much difference.

* Cropping in camera (1.6 factor) is not the same as cropping equal amount in post on a full frame camera. Not sure, but I think this is False

* Mac computers have no real advantage over PC when it comes to processing photos. Very contentious. I'll say True  

* 99.9 percent of equipment complaints are user errors including the 5d3 criticisms. False - Its 99.6%

* Canon will announce a high megapixel camera within six months. False

* 1Dx will ship in reasonable quantities and will fill in the initial demand mostly. False

* 5d3 will not eat into the sales of 1Dx.False

* New equipment may not make better pictures but certainly do help in making better pictures and people should stop criticizing people who want to buy new gear. True. Buying new stuff is fun

* People who regularly visit photo forums or for that matter ‘pixel peep’ can also be wonderful photographers. True  

* Manuel focusing can be learned with practice and once second nature, it is almost as fast as shooting with auto focus for subjects not moving so fast. True. Faster in some situations

* It is ok to use auto exposure modes available in camera and that does not make anyone a lesser photographer. True

* The partial blur effect created by lens baby or tilt/shift lenses looks better than what is possible in photoshop.Maybe, but you have more post production possibilities in Photoshop.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2012)

Mostly agree, except:

* Nikon makes better wide-angle lenses including wide-angle zooms than Canon. Difficult one. Possibly True, but the 10-22 EF-S is probably better than the Nikon alternatives. Our WA tilt shifts are ok. Same with the 14mm and 24mm. It would be difficult to say Nikon is "Better".

I'd definitely say the Nikon 14-24 beats the Canon 16-35 II, but otherwise similar lenses are a wash. But...Nikon has no counterpart to the TS-E 17mm f/4L.

* Chromatic aberrations and lens vignette characteristics of a lens do not matter as these things can be fixed easily in Photoshop. Possibly False. I suspect that it would be better to just get it right in camera rather than relying on software corrections.

Definitely false. Yes, most aberrations can be fixed in post, but there are consequences - vignetting correction boosts noise, distortion correction reduces sharpness, etc. 

* Cropping in camera (1.6 factor) is not the same as cropping equal amount in post on a full frame camera. Not sure, but I think this is False

True - not the same. While there is no difference in terms of DoF and probably not much in IQ (cropping in post increases perceived noise, etc.), in practical terms with current sensors (i.e. not comparing 5DII with 20D) the 1.6x sensor puts more pixels on target, meaning more resolution, ability to crop even further, but also the effect of diffraction at wider apertures.

* Mac computers have no real advantage over PC when it comes to processing photos. Very contentious. I'll say True  

Macs do have some advantages (the multitouch trackpad is a big one, IMO), but then PCs have some advantages, too - so really a wash.

* Manuel focusing can be learned with practice and once second nature, it is almost as fast as shooting with auto focus for subjects not moving so fast. True. Faster in some situations

Perhaps as fast, but not necessarily as accurate - stock focus screens show the DoF of ~f/2.8 even with faster lenses, so for accurate MF you should replace the standard screen with a high-precision one (difficult and not supported on the 5DIII, simple on the 5DII and 1D X). 

* The partial blur effect created by lens baby or tilt/shift lenses looks better than what is possible in photoshop.Maybe, but you have more post production possibilities in Photoshop.
[/quote]

With work, I suppose the Photoshop version could come close. But there's no way to replicate the increased DoF you can achieve with tilt.


----------



## BillyBean (May 29, 2012)

sanj said:


> * If the user understands Photoshop properly then Nik softwares are redundant.



A quick comment on this point. I would say 'false' to this, though it has some value as a point of view.

Understanding Photoshop is not the same as wanting to use it, or wanting to pay for it. Photoshop is remarkably expensive, remarkably powerful, and remarkably complex. Nik plug-ins are generally cheaper, even for the full set, especially if you get the Lightroom variants, and are pretty quick and easy to use. Photoshop was never designed for photographers - it is a general graphics package which is showing its age.

So in conclusion, I would recommend Nik plug-ins over Photoshop for users who do not work as professionals, or for professionals who value their time, and do not require the flexibility of Photoshop. Looking at a (not very) professional wedding shoot recently, where it would seem no post production was done at all and the results were distinctly average, I would say the latter is a pretty big category...

My 2 cents anyhow.


----------



## bycostello (May 29, 2012)

certainly true for film...


----------



## KeithR (May 29, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> * With all other factors being equal, more megapixels will give better IQ except in high ISO. True.



Completely, demonstrably false. As pixel density increases, so does high ISO noise performance, unless the sensor designers drop the ball.


----------



## lola (May 29, 2012)

Interesting topic!  Here's my take...

* With all other factors being equal, more megapixels will give better IQ except in high ISO. 
True, but I'm not sure about the high ISO exception anymore... The D800 surprised my with it's high ISO performance. I guess we'll have to wait and see some more new models.

* Raw files opened in Adobe or in DPP will have identical IQ.
Honestly, I have absolutely no idea on this... Probably I've ignored the topic all this time to keep my blind faith in Adobe applications intact... 

* In real life situations the result from Zeiss lenses will be mostly indistinguishable from Canon lenses, all other factors being equal.
Looking at the MTF values of Zeiss lenses, I gotta think the above statement is false. It's gotta matter somewhere!

* The 5d3 is the camera to grab when getting the photo is of utmost importance rather than D800.
I don't think using the D800 is any trickier... I'd have to assume the above statement is wrong.

* Nikon makes better wide-angle lenses including wide-angle zooms than Canon.
I know some friends who are a little disappointed with the 16-35 but I personally have no experience on this...

* If the user understands Photoshop properly then Nik softwares are redundant. 
True, but Nik and similar software also make life a lot easier, so I can't say they're totally useless.

* Film has lost the battle and digital rules and even looks better. 
Defiantly true.

* Chromatic aberrations and lens vignette characteristics of a lens do not matter as these things can be fixed easily in Photoshop. 
To some extent, true... As a general statement, false!

* The IQ of 1dx and 5d3 at ISO 100 will be same. 
I doubt it... Two different sensors there and that's gotta mean some difference in IQ one way or another...

* Cropping in camera (1.6 factor) is not the same as cropping equal amount in post on a full frame camera.
If the FF camera has 1.6x more pixels than the crop camera, then it's the same thing. If not, see Neuro's explanation.

* Mac computers have no real advantage over PC when it comes to processing photos. 
True. I happen to find PCs to be more powerful and versatile.

* 99.9 percent of equipment complaints are user errors including the 5d3 criticisms. 
False. I've had my hands on many defected gear.

* Canon will announce a high megapixel camera within six months.
I believe so... Maybe a year if not 6 months.

* 1Dx will ship in reasonable quantities and will fill in the initial demand mostly. 
Doubtful...

* 5d3 will not eat into the sales of 1Dx.
True. 10fps and war-proof body is a must for some photographers and they will use nothing but a 1 series camera.

* New equipment may not make better pictures but certainly do help in making better pictures and people should stop criticizing people who want to buy new gear.
Hell yeah! 

* People who regularly visit photo forums or for that matter ‘pixel peep’ can also be wonderful photographers. 
Most probably! I believe there are many amateurs here who are more knowledgeable than many pros...

* Manuel focusing can be learned with practice and once second nature, it is almost as fast as shooting with auto focus for subjects not moving so fast. 
I doubt it...

* It is ok to use auto exposure modes available in camera and that does not make anyone a lesser photographer.
Probably ture...


----------



## Dylan777 (May 29, 2012)

I LOVE this topic...


----------



## spinworkxroy (May 29, 2012)

With all other factors being equal, more megapixels will give better IQ except in high ISO
Since you mentioned all factors being equal, will a camera with 20MP be better at one with 30MP taking the exact same photo and uploading it to an online photo album at 1024x768 resolution? Assuming both cameras take at full resolution and upload directly leaving the rescaling to the website..


----------



## Neeneko (May 29, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > * With all other factors being equal, more megapixels will give better IQ except in high ISO. True.
> ...



Wouldn't that violate 'all other factors being equal' or for that matter 'except in high ISO'? 

Modern high MP sensors have superior high ISO noise performance to the previous generation, so it is not safe to say 'higher MP, worse high ISO noise' if the two sensors are designed to have identical ISO performance.


----------



## awinphoto (May 29, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> KeithR said:
> 
> 
> > Hillsilly said:
> ...



I believe there is a sweet spot in terms on pixel density... In crop sensors, the 12MP was it's sweet spot. The 50D and 7D crossed that sweet spot so you got lots of detail but lots of noise, even at ISO 100 in some cases if you were not careful. Full frame you are looking at a sweetspot of around 30MP give or take... The d800 isn't so far past it that it falls apart but any more than 36 and you may run into more noise at low ISO.


----------



## SuperCrazySamurai (May 29, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> OK, I'll take the challenge. Tell me if I pass.
> 
> * 99.9 percent of equipment complaints are user errors including the 5d3 criticisms. False - Its 99.6%



LOL!


----------

