Why I (gasp) pixel peep

It finally sunk in, thanks Jeff. But why does my lens do that.
In this group you have seen the best and the worse, why the variability?

See my signature.

I think we put far too much faith in AF.

AF like any other system that must adjust itself, it has tolerances in its accuracy. Canon even specifies AF as being within the tolerance range (they call it depth of focus, not quite the same as depth of field). They don't guarantee perfect accuracy every time, so when we pixel peep, we are seeing the variability. Tolerances exist in essentially everything - no two cars that come off an assembly line are identical - even identical twins are not perfectly identical.

It's possible that a lens or body can be out of spec.

Point taken and thanks guys!

I hope you haven't spent all ya cash on tripod/head based on these shots? Spend most (time and effort) on learning how to use decent gear rather than researching to be sure you're buying the best. Decent and best is not that different.

We may all be wired left or right brain, or not, but if we are the way to get more right brained is to copy others you respect, practice and eventually learn to see/compose for yourself.

No, that decision was made before.

Gonna continue this in the Lens section.

Thanks for steering me in the correct direction.

Sorry, novice/newbie question: What is pixel peeping?

Thanks.
Samanax

Samanax wrote in post #5320109
Sorry, novice/newbie question: What is pixel peeping?

Thanks.
Samanax

Setting the image to 100% or larger on the monitor and looking for image quality. It's the equivalent to printing an image at 20"x30" and then looking at it from a few inches away.

The term has a negative connotation of a person who obsesses about their equipment and images and looks for defects that are too small to appear in any realistic prints that they might make.

JeffreyG wrote in post #5320169
The term has a negative connotation of a person who obsesses about their equipment and images and looks for defects that are too small to appear in any realistic prints that they might make.

I just have to remember this line. Classic.

If you have no interest in creating images, then pixel peep away. However, listening to words of wisdom like these will be of much more use if you actually do want to create images.

JeffreyG wrote in post #5313920
When I got started I thought every sharp picture I took was a keeper. Then I started wanting sharp and correctly exposed.

I've now moved on to wanting interesting subjects with creative composition and great light.

I've even come to realize that interesting subjects with creative composition and great light is more important than sharp. Too bad that 'sharp' is the easy part.

Pete wrote in post #5313860
Nice improvement in apparent IQ.

One of these days, however, you'll get tired of pixel peeping and have to get down to the really difficult part, which is taking good photographs.

Being a good photographer is something that we all aspire to, and something that transcends equipment or image quality.

There's plenty of people with an XT that'll whup your ass in any photo competition, simply because they have a better idea of composition and use of light.

They'll whup my ass too.

Great photos can be created on the world's crappiest camera phone or single use 35mm if your mind and creative ability allows you to. The most technically sophiosticated equipment in the world will not guarantee you images that captivate those who view them. The ability to create such images comes from places other than camera shops.

JeffreyG wrote in post #5320169
Setting the image to 100% or larger on the monitor and looking for image quality. It's the equivalent to printing an image at 20"x30" and then looking at it from a few inches away.

The term has a negative connotation of a person who obsesses about their equipment and images and looks for defects that are too small to appear in any realistic prints that they might make.

Brilliant!

Paul

Brilliant...brilliant, what is brilliant. I am anal about my equipment as a lot of people are, so what.

I ask for guidence and you question my motives. Why?

I shoot for personal pleasure and am trying to please myself.

In closing, would suggest you peruse this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/c​ameras-matter.shtml .

Take it easy everyone.

I stand by my comment which was not directed at anyone and was simply a statement of fact. The term "pixel peeper" does have a negative connotation. In fact, it can be a pejorative term.

Now, I think we all do look at tight crops on occasion. Perhaps we look to see if there is an error in our technique, or if our focussing performance has a problem (human or mechanical). For sure I will tend to request 100% crops from posters looking for help with sharpness, focus or sharpening issues (for whatever good my help may be).

The problem with pixel peeping is when we stop looking at the full sized image first and if that looks good we save it or print it and enjoy the shot. If you find yourself zoomed in right away on every single shot just looking to the nth degree of precision you should probably step back and take a moment to think.

One thing that I personally did was I had some good sized prints made of things I had really peeped to translate 100% crops into real world images. This helped me to calibrate what degree of sharpness in a crop really matters.

Final thought - Gear does matter and you can always pay more and get a lens or body that has higher resolution than what you are using. But a lot of people here at POTN have shown me that they can create stunning images from pretty pedestrian gear.

Gear does matter, but only if you know how to use it.

Someone who shoots with a Rebel and knows their stuff through and through will blow anybody armed with a 1DsII out of the water if they don't know their stuff.

I've had my 5D for months now, and I'm still getting used to it. I'm nowhere near the level of proficiency with it as I was with my Rebel, which I was lightning quick with and knew inside out.

That said, it's much cheaper to learn about composition, lighting, and technique than buying more gear. I spent my time with my Rebel obsessing about these kinds of things, and only then, when I felt comfortable enough with my photographic ability and knowledge, did I spring for the 5D.

I've made better photos with my Rebel + 28-105 combo than people armed with 1D and 1Ds series (and indeed than myself with a 5D) cameras and expensive L lenses when we were all shooting the same thing. Why? They obsessed more over gear than the important things, like their knowledge and ability.

You guys talk about keeper rate. That phrase is foreign to my left brain as it denotes/assumes a certain failure rate.

There are certain occupations that failure is not an option. I belonged to such an occupation and because of that am very obsessive about my equipment.
If it malfunctions I want to know why and do everything that I can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Anal, obsessive compulsive, absolutely 100%. I'm working my way into this hobby using my priorities and assembling satisfactory equipment ranks first.
The rest will come later. Hey, it's my hobby

To me, the journey is at least as enjoyable as the destination.

One of the first and hardest things I had to learn in photography was that some "non-keepers" were inevitable. I'm resigned to the fact that I'll never attain perfection.