Excellent summary...great points made...however...my comments relate to the small screen "envelope"...as my OP was intended to explore the views of using smartphones within this specific envelope...it was never intended to compare systems for reasons which you provide.
But if you stop to take notice, the low end gear is not where Olympus' product development and marketing is going. It is going to very sophisticated high end bodies and top lenses - all of which are specialist in function and can demand a higher price. The low end market for cameras has been disappearing for about a decade.
Viewing conditions (size, display type, viewing lighting, distance, etc.) effectively broaden or narrow the acceptable shooting envelope for ALL systems being compared, not just the smallest. Remember, it's not just the small system that benefits from a more constrained viewing condition. To the extent there's a shooting envelope gap between two systems, it will pretty much scale for each similarly. In the abstract, the gap will remain the same. The real question here is how often you'll be shooting in conditions that exceed the smaller systems shooting envelope (for a given viewing condition). The more that occurs, the less utility of using that system and the increased utility of using a larger and more flexible system.
You made an excellent point and I agree with it. Unfortunately, it flew over the heads of fanboys.
Respectfully it depends...and...no I am not espousing the superiority of one system over another...while you are correct that MFT is "good enough" for the vast majority of consumption...as another person has already outlined within this post...it depends on context...to this end a photo can be viewed for its artistic value in terms of composition...colour...etc...but in other applications (medical/advertising etc.) the technical aspects beyond its artistic value are also considered.
You are lost in the fog and are not cognizant of the direction this thread has taken - which of course it naturally would take - shooting envelopes and function versus a simplistic argument.
Absolutely...can't imagine how the camera's and/or lenses can get much better...they produce an excellent product...can hardly wait for the outdated sensor to catch up.
No offence taken...its a proven human trait that cognitive absorption/evaluation is a function of familiarity and subliminally perceived threats...its a primordial human characteristic which evidently is applicable to the opinions/perspectives/assertions made as found within this commentary...more concerning is that the same process applies to the remainder of society...interestingly, it speaks volumes about the posters...whether they realize it or not.
Yes. m43 is indeed that sweet spot for me, it lets me do everything I want to do, and it does this very well. (Side note: I shoot almost exclusively at or near base ISO)
Provides more artistic freedom and for its intended purpose is the "sweet spot" for many relative to their subjective "shooting envelopes"...makes sense...thank you.
There it is' the intrinsic bias - m43 is mediocre so artistic potential will be also. Artistic potential begins with the photographer, who in turn becomes a master of this tools to manifest his/her vision. Mediocre photographers seem to like blame the gear
Your implication is correct in that I would not even come close to describe myself as an "artist"...I'm a mediocre photographer at best who is always interested in hearing people describe themselves as artists/pro's/photographers/hobbyists...a major portion of my professional life involves the utilization of images which if interested are summarized elsewhere in this forum.
The "best image possible" is very, very subjective. For example, a large format setup might technically provide the best image "possible", but if getting the image requires me to scaling a rock face, then the size of that system is going to be prohibitive. So the best image possible is going to be the one I can capture with the equipment I can carry. And yeah, maybe that means that the best equipment in this case is a smartphone!
In my mind, it's actually pretty simple. If we're in general agreement that larger sensors result in better light gathering capability and thus "better quality" then anyone "serious" about doing photography should ultimately be hoping to shoot with a large format camera, with the requisite larger lenses, tripods to hold the gear still, etc. But of course, not everyone can A) afford to buy that kind of equipment and B) transport and use that equipment in the situations they'd need to use it. So everyone is balancing overall system size vs. ultimate image quality. Within there, there's a lot of nuance in terms of how you use your cameras in particular. For example, for me IBIS is a non-starter. Fuji makes some great cameras, and their sensors can produce higher "quality" images than MFT, but until recently they haven't had a great solution for people who want to use IBIS - which means I cannot A) use IBIS to use a lower shutter speed and then lower ISO to keep "quality" up, but more importantly B) I cannot use IBIS creatively to use a slow shutter speed in panning shots to give a sense of motion in the background while keeping my foreground subject sharp. It's all a trade off, and that's just fine.
It's important to remember that increasing sensor size is not always the only/best way to increase a shooting envelope, especially when other fundamental constraints of cost and size are also factored in. Bigger sensors generally mean bigger lenses and greater costs of producing the sensors, lenses, batteries, bodies, etc. Smartphone manufacturers have the light gathering disadvantage of the tiny sensors/lenses they use but can counter that with lower costs of producing those sensors and the lenses and the growing trend toward using more than one of them on the phone and combining their output in clever ways. They can leverage the computing and display capabilities already sunk into a general purpose smart phone and develop computational strategies to overcome the sensor size disadvantage. The sheer production volume advantage they have also drives down costs and ramps up the incentive to innovate and to introduce newer/better sensors and supporting hardware and software. The net result is a complex mix of factors that affect the "shooting envelope." It's important to check that "bigger is always better" mindset at the door when it comes to this shooting envelope/IQ topic.
Ahem:
There;'s no way of reading that except as a comparison beetween phones and MFT.
Wow...hope you had a parachute on making that leap...if possible please pause and review your logic or lack thereof.There it is' the intrinsic bias - m43 is mediocre so artistic potential will be also. Artistic potential begins with the photographer, who in turn becomes a master of this tools to manifest his/her vision. Mediocre photographers seem to like blame the gear
My thought exactly!
You’re entire opening/purpose for this thread implies it is...Wow...hope you had a parachute on making that leap...if possible please pause and review your logic or lack thereof.There it is' the intrinsic bias - m43 is mediocre so artistic potential will be also. Artistic potential begins with the photographer, who in turn becomes a master of this tools to manifest his/her vision. Mediocre photographers seem to like blame the gear
- Nobody said MFT is "mediocre"...
--
