Specs or performance, which is most important?

Started 2 weeks ago | Discussions thread
Dennis1972 Regular Member • Posts: 278
Re: If you want to use an automobile analogy use F-1

cba_melbourne wrote:

Gary from Seattle wrote:

cba_melbourne wrote:

What is the difference?

Specs are the guaranteed minimum performance.

Any performance above the specs is of course nice to have, but you are not entitled to.

If the spec of a car say it does 200km/hour on a flat highway, and your neighbor's same car does 220kmh and yours only 201kmh, you have no claim.

It is the driver that enables top performance but the performance capability has to be there for the driver to win in F-1.

Well, that is what we call talent. Talent is a natural aptitude or skill.

The most talented driver cannot win F-1 without a top performance car. An untalented driver cannot win in F-1, even with the best performing car and team at his service.

Right ....

Now, that is very different in photography.

I disagree.

A talented photographer can win with a completely obsolete camera.

A talented photographer with an obsolete camera cannot win another equally talented photographer with a better camera.

To be honest I seriously don't care about "winning" in photography because photography is an art, and art is highly subjective.

If the spec say it has an ashtray and yours doesn't, you have a claim.

Trivial things like frame rate you can easily check. But the really important things are not even listed in a camera spec sheets. Like DR or noise or shutter accuracy etc..

 Dennis1972's gear list:Dennis1972's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 III Canon EOS R Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +2 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
chp
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow