First of all, experience has shown me that some folks on the net(but not exclusively) provide some awesome information .. and that other's really can't decide on whether they think one way .. or another.
We all have particular prejudices that sway our own beliefs and opinions to a degree, and the result is that some folks will praise some information as gospel, where other folks will deride that same information as utter crap.
This will no doubt be a product of our own specific prejudices .. and trying to achieve consensus is difficult, if not impossible.
But a comment made it perfectly clear(at least to me) that some people simply aren't worth listening too at all, if it sounds like BS. (most likely if it sounds like it .. then it most likely is).
I don't have any other info on the small excerpt I'm going to provide other than this is what was posted.
ie. it could simply be another bad case of terrible reporting.
A chap high up in a camera company management team said this on another site:
"He said that users of sensors with a similar number of pixels to 40 million had to use a tripod all the time to make their images look sharp... "
Now I have a camera with a pixel count similar to this 40Mp figure .. and I can tell you with 100% certainty .. that I don't use a tripod all of the time to make my images look sharp!
Even taking away the point that some of those users he refers too, also have access to lenses with image stabilisation .. but add that into the equation and this comment smells of cow manure 100%.
Basically what this guy has said,is that without a tripod us D800/810 Sony A7r users can't get sharp images without the use of a tripod.
It must be clearly stated here that this fellow is head of a product and marketing planning division from a major, well known camera brand.
I'm wondering what his background actually is.
if it's purely a marketing one .. then it explains everything about his comment. It's meaningless based on zero knowledge of actual usage of any products.
if he came from a product division of some kind .. say manufacturing .. you'd think he'd have the capacity to try one of those products for himself just to see if his comments make sense.
I know from my images alone .. not to mention the vast amount of images created by others and shared on this WWW .. that cameras with similar pixel counts of up to 40Mp CAN produce sharp images without the use of a tripod.
This is not just a fact .. but a well known fact backed up by evidence.
So I'm wondering .... what chemical is this guy using to get so obviously cranially distorted to produce such a comment that may(or may not) get him laughed out of the industry.
The other aspect of this reportage that got me thinking is one of editorial ability.
Now I've never worked in any way shape or form, in a reportage environment of any sort(no interest in it), but I did study media in later high school, and part of those studies touched on the topics of editorial filtering.
That is, we were studying how an ill considered editorial misjudgement affects the story's ability to portray the truth.
(FWIW: one of my favourite shows on TV is Media Watch .. very funny show).
So what idiot on this very well known website, which I'm sure many have been too for some info at one point in their online/photography travels .. allowed such terrible reportage to go on unhindered?
(if I were the editor)I'd have asked the question to the reporter "what were you thinking not pushing this guy on what he'd just said .. you're fired you idiot!"
So then the question I now pose .. what 'affiliations' does this site have to this company for them to not ask questions that may embarrass this company in question! :rolleye:
I forsake this specific website years ago for other reasons .. and now it's the second last nail in the coffin.
Some of their resources were good to have access too, but now the question is begged .. how unbiased are those resources?
Another subject he touched on, which makes absolutely no sense to me .. and a lot of people seem to think it's an issue as well .. this notion that a purely mechanical shutter will affect an image's sharpness whilst handholding!
That is via the use of an EFC or fully electronic shutter you can get sharper images whilst handholding the camera.
I have to say (and excuse the terminology) but this notion sounds completely retarded to me.
If you're handholding the camera, the least of your sharpness worries are due to a mechanical shutter's operation .. you're handholding for christ sake!
On a tripod .. yes! it makes perfectly good sense, and has been proven to be effective to have the use of at least an EFC.
But handholding? .. seriously .. you're that rock solid in your technique that there is no possible way the handholding technique is affecting sharpness.
It amazes me what people are lead to believe once some hilariously silly internet myth takes hold.