Beware of Hollow Arguments!

Fort Worth, Texas Stockyards

I read a lot about photography.  I read about 30 blogs a day and listen to 18 podcasts a week.  That is just my photography reading.  I read many other general knowledge articles/news items/magazines/journals, etc. in addition.  I try diligently to keep up, both technically and artistically, with the photographic industry and world, in general. Photography has been the one thing that has been a constant throughout my adult life. I still have the same passion for it as I did when I first started photographing in 1970.

Quite often, I read or hear podcasters and writers put forth arguments that really sound good on the surface, but when you dive deeply into them, the arguments become hollow. This makes me want to write rebuttal comments, which may or may not be meaningful to you, but it makes me feel better that I put another view out there for consumption by readers.  More information from multiple sources is better than less information in order make wise and satisfying choices.

My undergraduate degree is in one of the natural sciences, so I learned early on, that one puts forth a hypothesis (a theory), creates a plan to test it objectively, derives the results of the test, then analyzes the outcome to understand whether or not the hypothesis is true or false.  If the results support the hypothesis, good.  If not, change the assumptions and retest.  One learns not to accept "opinions" or "statements" as facts unless they have been objectively tested and proved.

When you here someone who you think knows what he or she is talking about say something, my advice is to listen carefully, then do your own investigation as to whether the argument has merit.  Draw your own conclusions rather than just accepting what someone else says.  Think logically.  If, after your own investigation, your research supports the argument, good.  If not, you are now better equipped to make your own sound decisions.  Take things with a "grain of salt," so to speak, and be skeptical about what others say—even me!  Opinions are just that--opinions.  They are neither right nor wrong, just opinions.  Draw your conclusions only from supportable facts, not opinions nor emotion.

For example, here is the gist of a comment I heard a professional photographer make, which I believe, is hollow.

When the Nikon D800 (E) was first introduced, as well as subsequent to it being in the market place, the photographer disparaged the fact that the camera had 36mp which, in his view, were detrimental to image quality as the pixel density was too high and the pixels were too small.  It couldn't possibly be good. Later, this same photographer moved entirely to mirrorless M4/3 and, often times spoke highly of the fact that he now uses 16mp M4/3 format cameras and how great they are.  Think about that?  Does it hold water?  Are the Nikon D800 (E)'s pixels too small and too dense that the image quality suffers and is M4/3 good and better?

Let's look at some statistics relating to some of the best camera sensors out there today.

Camera Model              Pixel Pitch                   Pixel Area                    Pixel Density

Nikon D800 (E)                 4.88 µm                        23.72 µm                         4.22 MP/cm²

Sony A7r                         4.86 µm                        23.62 µm                         4.24 MP/cm²

Fuji X-Cameras                 4.76 µm                        22.66 µm                         4.42 MP/cm²

Canon 7D                         4.33 µm                       18.40 µm                          5.43 MP/cm²

Canon 70D                       4.09 µm                       16.13 µm                          5.99 MP/cm²

Nikon D7100                     3.90 µm                       15.21 µm                          6.59 MP/cm²

Olympus M4/3                  3.74 µm                       13.99 µm                          7.15 MP/cm²

Panasonic M4/3                3.74 µm                       13.99 µm                          7.15 MP/cm²

                                                                                                Source: Digicam Database

(Pixel Pitch is the distance from the center of one pixel to the center of the next.)

(Pixel Area is the surface area of a pixel.)

(Pixel Density is a measure of how many pixels there are per square centimeter.) 

The surface area of each pixel of the M4/3 cameras is 58.9% of the Nikon D800 (E) and 59.22% of the Sony A7r, just over half the area.  Light gathering in the M4/3 should be much less and noise should be much greater! 

The surface area of each pixel of the Fujifilm X-cameras is 95.5% of the Nikon D800 (E) and 95.9% of the Sony A7r, almost the same area, but still smaller.

The pixel density of the Nikon D800 (E) is 59.0% of the M4/3 cameras and 59.5% of the Sony A7r, just over half as crowded together.

The pixel density of the Canon 7D is 28% higher (closer together) than the Nikon D800 (E) and the Sony A7r, more than a quarter more closely packed.

The pixel density of the Fujifilm X-cameras is 4.7% higher than the Nikon D800 (E) and 4.2% or the Sony A7r, almost the same, but slightly more packed together.

In spite of the actual characteristics of the sensors of some of the most popular and highly regarded cameras out today, some experts and professional photographers say that 36mp full frame cameras can’t be good since there are too many pixels for the sensor.  But every camera listed above has a higher pixel density and smaller pixels than the D800 (E). Some of those same experts and professional photographers even tout how much they love and how great the M4/3 cameras are and they have switched to M4/3!  Can you see that what they are saying isn’t backed up by the numbers and evidence?  Maybe they are talking with emotion and using a psychological defense mechanism to back up their own choices?

All of the statistics above indicate that the D800E should have the best image quality, based upon what we have been told about pixel size and pixel density, not the worst.  But pixel density and pixel size isn't the only factor in image quality.

Lesson:  it is not only the sensor that is important, but the engineering and algorithms that process the data that make a huge difference also.  They work together.  For example, two companies using the same Sony sensor, for example, can have different image file characteristics.  Once can be much better than the other. We see that regularly in the reputable testing of cameras.

So why does a professional photographer soundly criticize the Nikon D800 (E), say nothing about the Sony A7r, which in practical respects is identical (same sensor also), and tout the M4/3 format as being the best thing since sliced bread.  (By the way, I own and use both formats, so I don't have a dog in this fight).

I have seen other things put forth on the web about photography that also don't hold water.  But I just wanted to give you one illustrative case so you can see how you can be unduly influenced by conscious or unconscious motivations from others—in any field.

I wanted you to be aware of these types of statements people, who we look to for good information, make. Check things out for yourself.  Don't take anyone's word on anything without you conducting your own due diligence.  If you do, you may be lead down a path you didn't intend to travel.

                                                                                                

Thanks for looking.  Enjoy!

Dennis Mook

Many of my images can be found at www.dennismook.com.  Please pay it a visit.  I add new images regularly.  Thank you.


All content on this blog is © 2014 Dennis A. Mook.  All Rights Reserved.  Feel free to point to this blog from your website with full attribution.  Permission may be granted for commercial use.  Please contact Mr. Mook to discuss permission to reproduce the blog posts and/or images.