Sensor size differences even out when it comes to IQ. Why?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Ttriple
Forum MemberPosts: 55Gear list
Like?
Re: Your standards...
In reply to Dave Sanders, 9 months ago

Dave Sanders wrote:

Ttriple wrote:

Dave Sanders wrote:

Ttriple wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53078392

No offense to Jose, but that is far from his best work. I've seen his posts in various forums for going on 10 years now...those are models in awkward poses with barely passable lighting. Most of it, ironically enough, fits the actual definition of 'flat' lighting. So, not overly impressive or indicative of anything resembling what you profess to see. I suggest training your eye a bit and exposing yourself to more quality photographers by buying their books or visiting their websites. Perhaps less time worrying about your gear and more time learning about photography as an art and a craft?

Besides it is and always has been about the photographer, not his equipment. Here are some quality examples of what good colour, lighting and posing looks like...

http://buchangrant.com/blog/?p=1979

And most of Giulio's work is with Olympus and Panasonic m4/3 gear:

http://giuliosciorio.com/portfolio/

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

Sorry but I would have to disagree with you on both counts.

I'm unsure what you are disagreeing with.

While my eyes are not those of a pro,

True, we agree.

but they can surely tell in general the slight advantage IQ of a larger sensor to that of a smaller one (back up by DoXmark tests).

I disagree. I don't think you can as evidenced by your cited examples.

Secondly, your links to those two pro-shooters, while impressive, are heavily post-processed.

There are no pros who don't post process. If you don't, you are not getting the best out of your files.

I have no doubt that they would get even better results from a larger format sensors. Physics is physics and the earth is stills round.

This is, to a degree, true. If your talent outstrips your equipment, better equipment will return better results. However, there are so many steps in the imaging process, sensor and format is so rarely the problem. Indeed, your posts have served to prove my main point: talent in composition, skill in execution and vision in producing the final image will win over a fancy camera/sensor every time.

-- hide signature --

Dave Sanders

The links which I cited are just quick examples of what APS-C sensors can do. They might not be the best examples to you but they are good enough for me when compared with some of the posts I see on this forum. Over the course of my research, I've concluded that at the end of the day, again in general APS-C sensors provide an edge over smaller sensors. I'm not alone with this conclusion and you are not alone in yours. But if we all to believe that m4/3 sensors are as good if not better than larger format sensors then Fuji, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Samsung, Sigma shooters will eventually migrate toward m4/3. I dont see that happening ever. We can debate and cite samples from both camps to back up our opinions. But I dont have the time nor the inclination to search and cite samples and links to prolong this old argument. APS-C and FF sensors exist for a reason and I still trust what my eyes saw and continue to see. As a matter of fact, I will upgrade to FF sensor once I find that the price point has came down to an acceptable level for me.

 Ttriple's gear list:Ttriple's gear list
Sigma DP1s Sony RX100 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
U2New
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow