One Reason to Pixel-Peep (many others not to)

^The kids are peeping in an oil lamp in which a bug has gone. 

Just because something is good, doesn't mean that it has to be invented or used.  MS PowerPoint is one (boring for your viewers, painstaking to prepare for your boss), pixel peeping is another.

With due respect to the testers contributing their time to analyse the pixel peeping results with meticulosity, I again wonder what we are driving at with the comparison result after the latest online encounter with another tester doing the same for Canon S90 and Ricoh GRD III.

Comparing shots taken by different cameras is one thing, but comparing them through pixel peeping is quite another.

Do we look at a winning photo and say, inter alia, "Oh, this is a great photo for I have just pixel-peeped how crisp and clear the fifth tile counting from the bottom of the wall of the second last building perching on the highest hill in the background where the palm trees are, thanks to pixel peeping, suffering from bug infestation" ?

Do we think a photo weak because of a negative pixel peeping result?

Do we look at a camera and say, "Hey, this is good for producing good pixel peeping results" ?

If not, what is the point of doing it?

We can as well ask a computer geek to test the two CPUs of different brands and tell us which CPU in how many nanoseconds does a space science arithmetic slower, so that we can decide which CPU to buy for word processing.  This is as absurd as factoring in the pixel peeping results to judge a camera for general shooting purpose.

  
The saving grace of pixel peeping is that you may know the optical performance of the lenses.  But I still wonder how the result is really definitive for digital cameras because, unlike the film era, the final image is a combined product of the lens and the imaging sensor.

At least, a test to tell the optical performance of a lens has to be done in a lab with the right software and hardware for some objective statistical signs like here, not by pixel-peeing casual shots.

So, surely, pixel-peeping at a casually shot photo does not afford the viewers much possibility to differentiate where represents the optical performance of a lens and where represents tampering by the imaging sensor.  Surely, the exceptions are pincushion and barrel distortions of a lens which will tell in any photo of some uniformly square subjects.

A mind-boggling thing is some pixel-peeping testers tell of the contrast performance of the lens basing on the peeping results.  Photozone, which is the linked site above, says this very well:

"The most important aspect that cannot be tested at the moment is contrast. Subjectively a lens with great contrast but rather mediocre resolution looks more snappy."

If there is one legitimate reason to continue doing pixel peeping, it should be for tackling your curiosity.

Otherwise, if you need to know the optical performance of a lens, read a lab test result.

If you need to compare the characters of the images by different cameras, just compare the images at maybe full screen size.  Make your own subjective conclusions because this is primarily a matter of taste.  You don't really have to listen to what most other people say.

If you need to decide which camera to buy, pixel-peeping doesn't help.  Rather, how a camera conforms to your photographic style matters much.  So, read something about a camera's material aspects like ergonomics, flash performance, focusing performance, white balance correctness, RAW writing speed and the pricing.

Better still, go and try it out before you make your final decision.  Once you've bought one, practise your photographer's eye as often as you can.

If the name of photo is the bare Godiva, pixel-peeping is an act which Peeping Tom regrets having done.