Entropius
Senior Member
I notice there's a huge amount of brand comparing going on here. Someone posts something negative (whether trolling or not) about 4/3, and lots of people jump to its fanatical defense. Lots of words have been wasted on whether or not 4/3 can "compete", or whether it's a "professional-grade" system -- whatever any of that means.
I also notice that none of these topics are ever brought up in image threads. There are absolutely gorgeous images posted with 4/3 equipment, and (in the threads like the Bird Thread that invite posts from other systems) other systems as well. In those threads with really glorious pictures, the discussion isn't about noise levels -- it's "Where is that? How did you get that shot? I love the composition! What amazing lighting!"
Fact is, all modern camera systems (and mos can take amazing pictures, and the differences between 4/3 and APS-C and fullframe melt away when the light hits the mountains just right.
There are differences between equipment -- it's certainly valid to tell someone, for instance, that if they want a good low-light lens the 50/2 probably isn't it because of the cantankerous AF, or that the reason there's so much noise in the shadows in the E-620 is because they left auto gradation on, or that the E-510 has a problem with banding in shadows in ISO 1600 shots but it's fixed on the E-620. But all of this comparison between systems, solely for the purpose of stroking or bashing someone's ego, is a little tiring. Good photography is 90% the user; 9% the quality of the lens (meaning SG/HG/SHG-type distinctions); 0.9% the quality of the camera body behind it; and 0.1% which brand it all is. Far too much breath is wasted on the last 0.1%.
And it's driving off some people, too: see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33336753 .
4/3's honor doesn't need defending against trolls -- let the images speak for themselves. And, please, if they're really trolls, don't feed them for Iluvatar's sake.
I also notice that none of these topics are ever brought up in image threads. There are absolutely gorgeous images posted with 4/3 equipment, and (in the threads like the Bird Thread that invite posts from other systems) other systems as well. In those threads with really glorious pictures, the discussion isn't about noise levels -- it's "Where is that? How did you get that shot? I love the composition! What amazing lighting!"
Fact is, all modern camera systems (and mos can take amazing pictures, and the differences between 4/3 and APS-C and fullframe melt away when the light hits the mountains just right.
There are differences between equipment -- it's certainly valid to tell someone, for instance, that if they want a good low-light lens the 50/2 probably isn't it because of the cantankerous AF, or that the reason there's so much noise in the shadows in the E-620 is because they left auto gradation on, or that the E-510 has a problem with banding in shadows in ISO 1600 shots but it's fixed on the E-620. But all of this comparison between systems, solely for the purpose of stroking or bashing someone's ego, is a little tiring. Good photography is 90% the user; 9% the quality of the lens (meaning SG/HG/SHG-type distinctions); 0.9% the quality of the camera body behind it; and 0.1% which brand it all is. Far too much breath is wasted on the last 0.1%.
And it's driving off some people, too: see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=33336753 .
4/3's honor doesn't need defending against trolls -- let the images speak for themselves. And, please, if they're really trolls, don't feed them for Iluvatar's sake.
