Why do we obsess over image 'quality'?

[Paul Kay 65]

Today we have never had it so good with regards to the photographic equipment we have available, even for underwater use. I no longer bother upgrading gear because, to be blunt, it has been extremely good for a long time (my current equipment has met my 'needs' for moving towards a decade, and is likely to continue to do so). So what exactly is it about wanting ever better 'quality'? Is it genuinely because we want/need 'better' imagery? Or is it because we enjoy having the latest, greatest gear? I've asked this on other forums and there is a curious hesitancy among many to admit that the latest is probably, to some degree at least, overkill. Especially if you are a low ISO shooter.

[Interceptor121 842]

31 minutes ago, Paul Kay said:

Today we have never had it so good with regards to the photographic equipment we have available, even for underwater use. I no longer bother upgrading gear because, to be blunt, it has been extremely good for a long time (my current equipment has met my 'needs' for moving towards a decade, and is likely to continue to do so). So what exactly is it about wanting ever better 'quality'? Is it genuinely because we want/need 'better' imagery? Or is it because we enjoy having the latest, greatest gear? I've asked this on other forums and there is a curious hesitancy among many to admit that the latest is probably, to some degree at least, overkill. Especially if you are a low ISO shooter.

The camera before the current one last me 4 years. In between I went for a mark II upgrade because the body was the same

November last year I bought into the Sony E-mount system. To be frank underwater was one of many reasons why I moved format from MFT to Full frame. To be honest some of the use cases have not improved but majority have

In general terms I look at underwater gear on a 4-5 years cycle which corresponds to my camera cycle

In my case I wanted something that would be an improvement on both photos and video and this was not an easy task, many cameras where better for photos, although underwater the gap is much smaller, but to have also the video part I ended up buying a Sony A1

When I read things like I have a Sony Mark IV should I get a V I think if the housing is the same why not. But I would not consider a complete change of underwater system in a 2-3 years cycle

Now the elephant in the room. Based on my experience of topside and underwater photography I believe that other than close up underwater images do not resolve even 30 megapixels due to the water itself.

If I was choosing a system for photography only and I was shooting underwater I would have probably bought a Sony A7 IV

I also believe that requirements to shoot underwater are fairly basic compared to some other topside disciplines 

It is very nice to have an A1 the thing is a monster but I would have not got that one if I was shooting only underwater unless I was @Alex_Mustard and guess what he just bought one

24-32 Megapixels and good choice of lenses are adequate. Cropped sensor APSC or MFT are fine and unless you are after the ultimate quality full frame is not even required by majority of people

EDIT: despite the camera may not be needing an upgrade I think that there is lot more work that can be done to optimise performance which in turn means IQ obsession but not necessarily latest gadget obsession

 

Edited April 4 by Interceptor121

[pooley 54]

I think we're pretty much near the end of the road as far as still image IQ is concerned, I really don't see - other than maybe printing huge for exhibitions - the need for any more megapixels. Dynamic range is maybe an area, but as far as AF is concerned I think most systems over the last 5 years provide most of what we need. 

To be honest, the constant debates about the minutest differences in extreme corner sharpness are to me at least, incredibly boring. If photographers spent half as much time debating strobe positions and composition rather than looking at charts for corner sharpness ( that often are cropped away or not important such as blue water backgrounds) then we'd all come away with much better results. 

I did 2 trips to Tiger Beach last year, first with a D500 and 8-15mm, second with an A1 and WWL-1, so was able to get an idea on the differences, if not a comprehensive test.  The A1 shots are technically a little better, but I don't think its night and day, and certainly nobody criticised my D500 IQ. I just wanted an A1 for topside so decided to go all in with a single camera for everything. 

Possibly a different story for video which I know the square root of nothing about, but I honestly can't see me needing to update the A1 in a few years time underwater - and that's the first time I've ever thought I have a good enough setup for me for the foreseeable future. 

[Alex_Mustard 0]

22 minutes ago, Paul Kay said:

So what exactly is it about wanting ever better 'quality'? Is it genuinely because we want/need 'better' imagery? Or is it because we enjoy having the latest, greatest gear? 

Something of an eternal question, Paul. 

A bit of all of them is my answer. There is definitely a pleasure in using high quality equipment - whatever your photographic goal. That can come from a very well engineered older piece of gear, or the feeling from using the latest cutting edge technology.

My justification in putting some dedication to selecting the optimum gear, setting it up in the correct way and using the correct settings is that these are the no-talent gains we can lock into our pictures. It often takes exactly the same effort to take a crappy IQ image as an exemplary IQ one. These are things you can get right out of the water that pay you back in every shot you take. Sadly (or perhaps luckily) people obsess far too much over cameras, when the real gains to images are in optics and lighting.

Every magazine editor has a pack of stories of the images that looked amazing on Instagram and just were unpublishable when the high res versions were sent through.  

That said, like many, I routinely have sales of older 6MP and 12MP digital files from 12-20 years ago. But I also sometimes have clients asking for higher or the full resolution version of these pictures, as they have got used to receiving 40+MP images. I feel that the higher resolution files are definitely more future proof in this regard, which was why having not bought a D800, I did get a D850 6 years ago.

Although I also have these high resolution photos printed at postage stamp sizes - where nobody can admire my perfect settings and the edge to edge image image quality from my large, expensive dome port or water corrected lenses! They even cropped the perfect corner sharpness off this one - there is no winning! 

 

[TimG 62]

Why indeed?

A new bit of equipment is always (usually?) fun to own. Will it produce better images? Maybe. Maybe not. But if it gives the user pleasure, what's there not to like about that? 

I often wonder though whether the endless discussions over edge quality or "better" IQ lead to better images. Isn't a better image about creating a wow factor? Isn't a photograph a technical skill which can lead to a piece of art - which, for whatever reason, resonates with the viewer? Does sharp-at-the-edges or more and more pixels have such an impact?

Like many of us, I have upgraded over the years through various iterations of Nikon from D100 to D500 - and a Z9 for topside. As Pooley sets out just how much "quality" do you need? Like Alex, I'm still selling lots of images from my D100 and D200 days. The reason has nothing to do with "quality" but because the images are unusual, or hard to get (which is/was the case) - or create some kind of wow factor. I'm never going to print anything - or likely sell anything - that requires mega-mega pixels.

For me what counts is the pleasure and satisfaction from creating the image. Did I enjoy creating it by using some bit of equipment that I lusted over? Sure! Do I get a buzz from someone buying my images - yep! 

But if readers get their buzz from owning the latest bit of kit; or the endless and often confusing discussions about "quality", edges, AF systems and their quirks, hey, go for it. Life is short. Enjoy it! 

 

[Interceptor121 842]

I would like to bring a different angle to the discussion
While the image quality may be sufficient there is no doubt that never camera have better ergonomics and features that allow you to take your shots more easily in certain situations
While years ago there were a limited number of cameras with decent autofocus or exposure aids now there are many more in almost all formats
Features are more important than image quality when people upgrade a camera


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul Kay 65]

4 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

I would like to bring a different angle to the discussion
While the image quality may be sufficient there is no doubt that never camera have better ergonomics and features that allow you to take your shots more easily in certain situations

Above water I use Leica M cameras which still have superb ergonomics. They feature manual focus and I cannot remember the last time that I used mine on anything other than manual exposure. I keep them pre-set to base ISO, f/8 and 1/250 so that I know which way to turn dials as lighting changes. I do not use the latest but the results are exquisite. In essence the ergonomics are very little differen from the first M cameras made in the 1950s abd similar to the 1920s cameras originally built by Leica.

Modern manufacturers woud do well to look at simple interfaces and offer a straightforward or more complex switchable interface on cameras IMO.

[Interceptor121 842]

1 hour ago, Paul Kay said:

Above water I use Leica M cameras which still have superb ergonomics. They feature manual focus and I cannot remember the last time that I used mine on anything other than manual exposure. I keep them pre-set to base ISO, f/8 and 1/250 so that I know which way to turn dials as lighting changes. I do not use the latest but the results are exquisite. In essence the ergonomics are very little differen from the first M cameras made in the 1950s abd similar to the 1920s cameras originally built by Leica.

Modern manufacturers woud do well to look at simple interfaces and offer a straightforward or more complex switchable interface on cameras IMO.

Topside there are many shots you will loose with only manual focus and looking at the comments here there are people that use caf tracking for wide angle (No idea why I don't) I have used also manual focus for macro for a long time and just for moving fish portraits I use caf

I think underwater requirements for auto focus are lower however topside is a totally different story unless you shoot landscape or studio you do need autofocus

[Paul Kay 65]

48 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Topside there are many shots you will loose with only manual focus.....

I think underwater requirements for auto focus are lower however topside is a totally different story unless you shoot landscape or studio you do need autofocus

Not really. It simply depends on knowing your equipment and being experienced in your technique. Leica M8 with 90/2.8. Perhaps not the ideal combination but it works.

[Interceptor121 842]

Just now, Paul Kay said:

Not really. It simply depends on knowing your equipment and being experienced in your technique. Leica M8 with 90/2.8. Perhaps not the ideal combination but it works.

Sorry but this is a drop in the ocean 

try a few birds in flight with manual focus or car coming on a track where you want to follow it not just get a single shot

[Paul Kay 65]

To illustrate my OP I'll post a set of images in several posts. They may have some interest.

First a very straight hermit crab taken on a Canon 5DII using the Canoon 100mm macro:

Second another straightforward Hermit Crab but this time taken using a Sony A7II and an 1865 Stereo Lens (a use which was probably inconceivable when it was made):

[Paul Kay 65]

And a couple of topside shots.

The first shot on a Leica digital with a 135mm lens:

And the second shot using an 1865 Doublet Lens:

I would say that today the subject, composition and lighting are far more important that the nuances of technicalities which we obsess about. Perhaps that is the area which should really concentrate on?

 

[Paul Kay 65]

19 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

..... try a few birds in flight with manual focus or car coming on a track where you want to follow it not just get a single shot

I remember talking to a sports photographer who had spent 25 years perfecting manual follow focus. He was infuriated that autofocus had caught up.

[Interceptor121 842]

1 hour ago, Paul Kay said:

I remember talking to a sports photographer who had spent 25 years perfecting manual follow focus. He was infuriated that autofocus had caught up.

You don't need to convince me I shoot most my my video in manual focus with a pull gear all my landscape and night photography and even wide angle 

More about the remaining hundreds of users here that say CAF with tracking is a must underwater to get a shot

[ehanauer 50]

With the imminent demise of print media, most of us are shooting for online presentation. Also, AI is the joker in the deck. It’s so easy to uprez images now, and quality will continue to improve. Even cropability and low light capability are no longer the crop sensor killers they used to be.

Therefore I’m still shooting my Panasonic GH5 II.

[dhaas 40]

I'll add this and not to stir the pot.....

I recently paid $149.00 USD for the Kelby One iPhone Photography Seminar of two days all online LIVE. There were several tracks and I'll have access to presentations online for a year.

To say the iPhone with AI plus innovations coming will be astounding is an understatement....

There were people using Apps to create not only online content as Eric Hanauer mentions but large archival gallery prints. One presenter stood next to a fine art piece 72" tall from an iPhone file and it looked fabulous. I personally have friends making incredibly beautiful coffee table books all shot with their iPhones.

As I mentioned in another thread I migrated to my iPhone 13 PRO Max and it's changed how I travel and dive. The newest iPhone 14 PRO series has 48MP files capability and for underwater all one needs is a video light (and not high power) as smartphones "see" in tremendously low light. 

I've used a red filter supplied with my housing but recently discovered the SeaReal free App in the Apple App store.  A nominal Paywall fee if you want to remove the SeaReal watermark is available but you can also simply crop it out.   It is mind blowing how it restores color (it's only a color slider adjustment)  than other Apps from the free Snapseed to Apple's own Photos App to further tweak your image. 

As of today I use both my iPhone underwater and a small Fantasea Canon G7X II housed compact camera. Maybe a single strobe but many times not. In bright typical tropical shooting most sport divers dive restoring color will become the norm and post processing editing will get faster and easier.

I like to "paint myself" in a corner taking less equipment to force myself to take "different" pictures than the thousands of well lit colorful images I already have only computers. But that's me, do whatever makes you happy!

I think the "one lens" and accessory WWL-1B, CMC or whatever is a direction housing manufacturers would be wise to explore at least as an option for those wanting larger crop capable files but not interested in large multi-port systems. Nauticam is already ahead with their water corrected optics.

The times are changing quickly and I predict it will be as large a change as film to digital conversion was especially in the tiny underwater market.  

I see it on my dive trips......People bring less but still want decent images and videos. They'll buy the tools that are easiest to use and travel with.

Just one old guy's opinion

David Haas

Edited April 6 by dhaas

[oneyellowtang 112]

Just to add a slightly different perspective...

A7II +90mm = almost a complete fail shooting blackwater and many macro subjects against low contrast backgrounds (and battery life was abysmal)
A7III + 90mm = still almost a complete fail shooting blackwater, significant hunting shooting macro, battery life better
A7IV + 90mm = still not great shooting blackwater, less hunting shooting macro
A7RV + 90mm = much better shooting blackwater (still not as good as a D500 or D850 with a 60mm), much less hunting shooting macro

Yes - we know a better lens would help, but given that's not much of a real option, the camera upgrades have gotten progressively better.

Sometimes the camera upgrade makes a real difference, depends on what you are shooting.

Edited April 8 by oneyellowtang

[Davide DB 589]

1 hour ago, oneyellowtang said:

A7II +90mm = almost a complete fail shooting blackwater and many macro subjects against low contrast backgorunds (and battery life was abysmal)
A7III + 90mm = still almost a complete fail shooting blackwater, significant hunting shooting macro, battery life better
A7IV + 90mm = still not great shooting blackwater, less hunting shooting macro
A7RV + 90mm = much better shooting blackwater (still not as good as a D500 or D850 with a 60mm), much less hunting shooting macro

Yes - we know a better lens would help, but given that's not much of a real option, the camera upgrades have gotten progressively better.

Sometimes the camera upgrade makes a real difference, depends on what you are shooting.

 

DSRL and mirrorless should be separated in this discussion.

The development of DSRLs had reached a limit by then, and manufacturers were already struggling for several years to convince customers that it was worth upgrading. We are not all Alex Mustard!
Quite different is the case with the mirrolesses, which as a new technology, have made great strides with each iteration. So those who had embraced this technology were in some ways forced to follow the upgrades.

Perhaps, perhaps, videomakers were the first to jump on mirrorless cameras. It must be said that for video features, each iteration has brought incredible improvements in all respects. So for video, it has been worth it almost every time. I say "almost" because development is partly held back by a patent war and partly by the so-called "crippled hammer" i.e., manufacturers are very careful not to cannibalize the dedicated cinema segments. That is, in video there is more aggressive segmentation than in the photographic buy.
But from a pure technical point of view, NOW it would be possible to have cinema-level features in absolutely mainstream models.

[phxazcraig 123]

I am a low ISO shooter, at least for macro.   Like many, I started out cheap.  My first camera was a disposable 400ISO film camera.  Terrible!

I moved on to a series of ever-slightly-better Canon point-n-shoots with matching Canon housings.  Those models disappeared from the market, unfortunately.   All of them had the same issues - slow AF, too few pixels, poor dynamic range. In 2014 I tried to address the faults by buying an RX100 II with Nauticam housing, a focus light, dual YS-D1 strobes and a wet macro and wet wide angle lens.  I thought the bigger sensor would help, but it only helped a little.  AF was still too slow, but the strobes were a revelation.

Being still unsatisfied with the results, in 2015 I finally took my best camera underwater, a D810.  Also had 105vr macro, and 16-35 wide angle with 230mm dome port.  FINALLY I had the IQ had been missing, BUT there were issues.   First, I only had the IQ I wanted for macro.  I did a lot of ISO 64 shooting.  I love it.  Have no complaints about the IQ, although a 150mm macro would be a better focal length for me.

Wide angle was a disappointment.   In a word: corners.  In 3 words: corners and edges.   Blurry.  Bad looking.  I ended up cropping almost 100% of the time to eliminate them.   Eventually I found the Sea and Sea Internal Corrections lens, and that turned the corner for me.  Even at only F8 I was getting corners I could at least live with.  I was much happier with the IQ then, just not the travel portion lugging that 230mm dome around.

OK - I shot the D810 in 2015 through 2018, much of which time I also had a D850 but no housing for it.  Let me summarize where I was then in terms of IQ:

1. Macro - no complaints on IQ.  Wish I had a bit longer lens so as not to have to crop so much.   This is entirely about stand-off distance needed.  With a 1.4TC on (150mm focal length) I was filling the frame at my usual "this is as close as I can generally get" distance.  I just didn't like the loss of sharpness and took it off after 2 dives.   36mp, 64 ISO - good stuff lives there.

Problems:  focal length, focus speed for tricky subjects

2. Wide angle - Wide angle is a lot harder than macro.  Besides finding the right subject, the right composition and the right focal length, you have to deal with ambient lighting, even if shooting flash.  Ambient lighting means white balance issues.  It can get very tedious trying to get the white balance 'right' or at least looking good.   Corners were definitely a huge issue until the S&S filter.

Problems: IQ not so good off center, much harder in post, dynamic range hugely reduced (ISO 400-1000) compared to base ISO.

Enter the D850... Also, about this time I started to have a bit of money left over after bills, so I was more able to spend money on new housings...

In 2019 my Nauticam housing had about 200 dives and 4 years on it.  It was supposed to go in for a service/maintenance procedure by now, but I had no idea the method or cost to do that.  I opted to just spend $3400 on a new Nauticam housing for my D850.  All other bits moved over to the new housing, except I now did not have TTL flash.  I learned manual flash.

What benefit did I get from this investment, besides a few more pixels?  In a word, autofocus!   Some subjects are quite tricky to capture, one of them being blennies at shallow depth in surge currents.  You know what I mean - the subject is tiny and stationary, but you are being swept back and forth 4 full feet every few seconds.  With the D810 it was a matter of trial and error.   I once took 31 shots to get 2 in focus.   With the same subject, my D850 got those shots pretty much every time, so I got 4 sharp shots out of 4 in the same conditions.

In summer of 2022, I bought a Z9, and seven Z-mount lenses, including the 14-30 and 105 macro for diving.   This was an extremely expensive change.  The Nauticam housing cost in particular, because the cost of the housing jumped from $3400 to $7500!  All in all, it cost me $18,000 to go from the D850, 16-35 and 105 to the Z9, 14-30 and 105.  The cost included a new 82mm S&S IRC (up to $800 now, from $400), and a new focus light.  (I flooded my Kraken 3500 on my last dive with the D850).

So - what improvements in IQ did I get with the Z9 change, over the D850?  Not a lot, but some.  The lenses are definitely a bit sharper, but optically that's pretty much it.    The EVF did end up making a difference in how I shoot, in terms of convenience.  I ended up not using my 180 degree viewfinder in favor of the back LCD monitor.  Eventually I just took the 180 viewfinder off entirely.  I also have a 45 degree viewfinder for macro, and I'm not sure if I'll use that or not.  My last dive trip was to Truk, and I only shot wide angle there.

There is really only one area to truly justify the D850 to Z9 swap, and that is video.  I liked the video from the D850, but you couldn't really use autofocus while shooting.  It was horrifically slow, and my lenses were noisy on the microphone.   No problem there with the Z9.  If only I knew how to shoot video...

One thing I've noticed on my journey to better IQ.  The better the IQ, the less convenient and more limited the lens selections, and the harder it is to travel.   Your lens choices get fewer and fewer (FX, Nikon in particular), and everything is big, heavy and expensive.   You have to really prioritize photography over everything else, perhaps even common sense.  You also need a lot of spare cash.

[TimG 62]

Some interesting lessons there, Craig, Thanks. 

A bit like you, I started with a disposable film camera in, I think, an Ikelite plastic housing. Then a Kodak digital point and shoot [insert bunch of numbers and letters] in a  polycarbonate Ikelite housing; then a Nikon Coolpix in a Subal housing..... and then DLSR route (D100, D200, D300, D800.... finally D500). As you say, steady increases in IQ, AF etc etc.

Whilst I still love the shiny new toys, I've come to realise that, for underwater shots, marginal increases in quality come at massive cost and, as you comment, serious inconvenience in terms of weight, volume and ease of travel.  And as I have commented before, to what eventual end? If they make the user happy, then great. But realistically? As David Haas said in another post, there are folks who can create stunning images on an iPhone. 

[phxazcraig 123]

Well, I shoot for myself, and the better the IQ of the image, the happier I am.  Even though most of my efforts are more for snapshots and memories.

But I also am trying to constantly raise the quality (technical) of my images, and I've been quite sensitive to sharpness.  I used a 1.4TC for a single day with my 105mm.  Loved the focal length.   And then I post-processed the images that night and saw a reduction in sharpness in my Christmas Tree Worm shots.  Probably the equivalent of see a smudging of a feather on a duck shot for a birder.

For interesting at much 'inferior' technology, I'm enjoying shooting some video on an Insta360 X3.   I like how I get to completely select the point of view and magnification in post.  Makes it easy to get shots framed the way you want, and the software seems easy to use.  Maybe when I get used to the novelty of it I'll start looking for more pixels, etc.