On putting money into 4:3 gear ...

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 40,687

CharlesB58 wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

But, for sure, I've seen more than my fair of photos that looked great on the back of an LCD but were severely lacking on the computer monitor.  However, my question is if differences in IQ between modern systems is such that this is an issue.  For sure, it may be for cell phones and compacts depending on the scene, but what about from mirrorless to FF DSLRs?  How often does the IQ differential between systems really have an impact on the success of a photo?

It depends on how "success of a photo" is defined.

A photo that placed lower in a photo competition than it otherwise would have, a photo that sold for less than it otherwise would have, a photo that did sell that otherwise would have, etc.

This involves not only the opinion of the photographer, but also of the viewer (and in the case of professional work, the client).


Many people will like an image based purely on the "eye candy" factor (just look at the results of the DPR challenges), in which case, the majority of viewers either aren't concerned with IQ, or as is often the case, unaware of how better IQ might enhance their enjoyment of the photo. Basically,most people don't recognize top quality IQ on a concsious level anyway.

YES!!! This is what I'm trying to say!

In my case, I would say that with current 4/3 or m4/3 equipment such as the E5, OMD, EP5 or the lastest Panasonics, there would be no demonstrable advantage in IQ if I were to use FF, for the current way my photos are being displayed and used.

YES!!! This is *exactly* what I'm talking about!

They are used priimarily for web or display through 52" HDTV (viewed usually from a distance of at least 10 feet.) No one is pixel peeping them that I know of! LOL However, my client recognizes the better IQ of my photos compared to what people submit to them taken not only with cell phones, but also what is submitted to them by a couple of people who regularly bring their APS-C dslrs with them and take photos of performances.

But are the photos your client is purchasing from you displayed any differently?  For example, the IQ of a 1200 x 800 photo on my monitor is essentially the same as the IQ of an 8x12 inch print.

There is pro who comes in to shoot certain acts, using Nikon D7000s. His photos are clearner, with better DR, and functionally he doesn't have some of the AF issues I have with my E520. But no one has yet to tell me that his photos are "better" than mine.

This is *exactly* what I'm talking about!!!

Were I using an OMD or E5, I have no doubt there would be no demonstrable difference between the IQ of his photos vs mine as they are currently displayed, as far as the majority of people are concerned.

But would the target audience care enough to pay more for the photo, decide to purchase the photo or not, or vote differently in a photography competition?  That's what I'm asking.  Myself, I think it would be relatively rare that the difference in IQ would make a difference, except for extreme conditions (keeping in mind, of course, that some photographers' photography is almost entirely in the extreme).

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow