Fujifilm X100V (2020) vs Sony Rx1 (2012)

pylorus21 wrote:

AE Conrady wrote:

Different planet alright. You want to rethink your statements?

Deed

No Deed, I don't have to because less DOF does not define better IQ per se, it's just an addional element of style a photographer can bring in. From my POV, the difference in roughly one stop in DOF is not decisive for the 35mm equivalence lens. If it is for some reasons, a Fujifilm XE4 with the 1.4/23mm could be an alternative to the Sony RX1.

X100V F5.6 1/800s

I totally agree with you...Sadly there is too much emphasise on shallow depth of field and many FF afficiandos equate this with IQ

You should open a club then!

Your implications that "there is too much emphasise" shallow DOF is offensive and deeply incorrect. Faster glass on larger sensors lets in more light. You might not know this but there are a lot of full frame lens companies that offer F1.8 AND F1.4 versions.

Have a look at the SONY - or Canon, or Nikon - offerings. It often is about a certain type of rendering. I get what you are trying to say about the third nostril from the camera left in focus, I DO get it, but to simplify matters by assuming that there is nothing else to consider doesn't do any larger system any justice.

Have a look at the MFT forum, if you like your own approach you will find plenty of people who bark up the same tree over there ... the moniker of choice is "razor thin depth of field" ... just the same as your approach, but on steroids

Deed

But after reading your contributions here for you, I would assume, that those who opt for the F1.4 versions are all nutters.