Do you really see THAT much difference in images?

Started Jul 28, 2013 | Discussions thread
Anders W Forum Pro • Posts: 21,468
Re: But frequently ...

Great Bustard wrote:

Anders W wrote:

Great Bustard 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. I see photos where IQ makes or breaks the pic.

... I see pictures that couldn't have been shot nearly as well with less "capable" cameras. Now how do you reconcile these two observations?

That differences in operation (e.g. AF speed / accuracy) usually matters more than differences in IQ, except for extreme circumstances (e.g. large prints in low light), but, more usually, most any modern DSLR or mirrorless, and often compacts, can get the job done for the vast majority of situations, despite differences in IQ and operation.

On the right track but not just differences in operation. Some people (and no, I am not thinking about you  ) appear to think that differences in camera capabilities, such as those between FF and MFT, translate into perceptible differences in IQ for just about any picture. As we both know, that's not the case. There are many things the two formats can do about equally well. But there are a few things FF can do better (at a certain price in terms of bulk, weight, and cost). In other words, the more capable camera is more versatile, i.e., can handle more shooting scenarios reasonably well. I believe they call it a bigger "performance envelope" these days.

Personally, I never really saw it differently. It was clear to me from the beginning that the Konica SLR I bought when I was sixteen wouldn't do significantly better than the compact I had practiced on before that (my father's Konica C35) at about 35 mm FL on a nice summer day with no particular difficulties in terms of metering or f-stop-shutter-speed combination (the C35 was program mode only). I was also clear to me from the beginning, that the SLR could accomplish quite a few things the C35 couldn't handle at all.

Same with progress over time. Today's cameras can take decent images in shooting scenarios that were simply impossible in the past but that doesn't mean they will do significantly better in every case.

 Anders W's gear list:Anders W's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH +28 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow