Do you really see THAT much difference in images?

Started Jul 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
MichaelKJ Veteran Member • Posts: 3,466
Re: Do you really see THAT much difference in images?
1

ryan2007 wrote:

MichaelKJ wrote:

ryan2007 wrote:

rkhndjr wrote:

I read so much about the IQ with this or that camera and lens that I truly wonder if I am just not seeing the same images at times. It has always seemed to me that an image from any decent camera and lens was good in my estimation, disregarding all the highly technical aspects which are brought up in replies. Is there really that much change between images taken with any camera and lens?? How many look forward to seeing a nice picture without critique of some sort. Do all the equations and talk of the sensors, et cetera lead to a better understanding of how to take a good picture, and is it necessary? Just my thoughts this morning and I hope I did not offend any one. No bad thoughts in my mind, just curious.

Compare images taken with Fuji X lenses to any equivalent Micro Four thirds lens, the Fuji optics are better. You also have a larger sensor that helps, but that is just a part of the equation.

You can compare the Fuji X20 or even X100s call it p&s to others and the Fuji is still very very good. The X20 has a smaller sensor to the X100s. The X100s and Fuji XE and Xpro mirror-less cameras have a 1.5x crop like Nikon DX.

I am sure taking the next step to Sony RX-1 that is full frame and I think maybe a Leica model (not sure) are a step from that.

You might want to add that you are voicing your opinion that 1) there is a difference, and 2) that the difference is significant enough that it matters. You might also want to explain why so many enthusiasts and professionals are happily using mFT.

It is not an opinion, it is a fact as it stands today for still use in a mirrorless camera comparing Panasonic or Olympus to Fuji XF lenses the Fuji is better.

Proof?

It was significant enough for me to sell my MFT's gear and I had quite an investment, that is how much better Fuji stands today for stills.

You are an n of 1. It that what you are basing your claim that it is a "fact" that the Fuji is significantly better?

Specifically name the professionals using any mirrorless camera to actually make a living as a only camera. Not to post to a blog so they can brag.

I didn't say that there are professionals who are using mirrorless as their only camera.  Please don't imply that I did.  I'm talking about the fact that there are many serious enthusiasts as well as quite a few professionals who own and use m43.  Do you think they are idiots or ignorant not to recognize the "fact" that Fuji is better?

Their (there) are no commercial photographers that solely use mirrorless. None shoot Pro Sports, None shoot magazines, none shoot weddings. I would not shoot Fuji to make a living with this system as it stands today and I own the system.

I didn't know this thread was about the IQ requirements that professionals use.  How much would you be willing to wager that there isn't a single wedding photographer who uses m43?

You need a DSLR and that is what I would buy. You need to use the right tool or it just does not work.

Need a DSLR for what? Last I checked, my OM-D worked just fine.

I was responding to you comment about the Fuji. Why do you feel the need to bring up DSLRs?

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow