| Photocracy |
| (The Great Pretender) |
| 02/07/2008 12:36 |
|
Re: Miniaturised 4/3rds lenses.
|
Quote:
Indeed: it's at best a grey area. And anyway, if the content is unique or interesting enough, the quality isn't a factor. Personally, I've always liked Roger Hicks' idea of "acceptable quality", but that definition varies from individual to individual, according to usage, and probably also varies with time; in short I simply don't think it's possible to define a quality threshold that's universally acceptable below which a camera is classed as no good and above which no improvement in quality is considered worthwhile, because that's just not how the world is - and anyway, far from levelling the playing field, it seems to me that it's simply a way of artificially minimising the disadvantages of 4/3 in camera tests, which at the end of the day is of no benefit to end users, is it? The choice of camera is always a compromise, and each individual needs to decide for themselves what weight to give to each aspect. Trying to hide one aspect to me seems pretty daft, TBH, and entirely unhelpful. Where do you go next - say that as all cameras are under 5 kg they're all of acceptable weight, so that's not an issue? Or that as all cameras can focus in under 10 seconds, AF speed isn't an issue? I know I've exagerated both of these examples, but my point is that on ALL such issues, people's requirements differ and it's really not the place of a review to impose standards of acceptability; they're for the individual to determine according to his/her own requirements.
It would not work in the way that you sugggest, nor would it artificially minimise or hide the maximum image size (disadvantage if you insist) of any camera. As an appraisal threshold it would have to be linked to a size, such as the A series paper format. The range is A10, A9, A8, A7, A6, A5, A4, A3, A2, A1, A0, 2A0, 4A0 with A10 being about the size of a large stamp, and 4A0 being about 1.6 metres x 2.4 metres.
This would cater for everything from the lowest resolution camera phone, to Canon's 'medium format killer'. It would be an easy way of telling the buying public what a camera is capable of (e.g. capable of publishable quality up to A6 - postcard size) instead of labelling it a failure for not winning a present method IQ test.
The maximum image size capability of larger format Nikons and Canons would be easily observed, not hidden, (e.g. perhaps - capable of PQ up to A2 or A1).
It would helpfully aid comparison, not thwart it, by enabling buyers to apply their requirements to a meaningful statement of output delivery. Those who need an image size of 1.6 metres x 2.4 metres would quickly spot the camera for them. And as an appraisal method it would cast a whole new light on all the compacts out there too.