YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16269599
Eight pages and still going. Can't we all just get along. RIP, RK.
Eight pages? I remember a similar thread on crop and full frame (or one of those 'this' vs. 'that' topics) that generated more than 600 replies.
So then one has to wonder, if the answer is so definitively simple as "better camera yields better IQ/sharper results," then why all the interminable fuss?
Should not the OP's question been conclusively answered within the first few responses?
After all, we're talking technical, not art, creativity, or even skill.
Well, for one thing, as I pointed out in my last post, how viewers perceive and value sharpness and other measurable factors can differ.
And the differences might not just be subjectively perceived. High-end lenses from different manufacturers might all exhibit exceptional MTF charts, for example, but nevertheless produce images with different characteristics. Which characteristic is better is a matter of subjective preference.
And then there is the oft-discussed bokeh, the aesthetic quality of the photograph's out-of-focus area, which is 100 percent subjective. Yet, it's often treated like a 'technical' issue.
As iamascientist noted, "This whole thinking of 'photog a is better then photog b, but if photog b is given a better camera then photog a, then photog b technically has the better pictures'"
No one has even hinted at this? Are we sure about that?
Well, what has definitely been hinted at is that the same photographer (thus obviously maintaining the same creative level and skill set) will always benefit from using more expensive gear, because more expensive gear guarantees better image quality, and image quality (with all else the same) is always a decisive factor.
But yes, this is all just 'technical talk' in a gear-oriented forum, so let it run wild without interruption.
Here's the problem. Unless someone is seeking a specific answer to a problem that might require a technically based solution, then the value of these discussions (not just this thread specifically!) becomes a bit suspect. This is not to say, by any means, that such topics should be avoided or worse yet, censored.
But having someone, such as iamascientist, come in for a second to provide some much needed perspective should not be discouraged either. And while his remark might have been a bit aggressive for some (not me), there have been other members on this thread who have in fact noted that any differences in quality, should they even exists without benefit of 100 percent crop, would be negligible at best.
Yes, it's a deliberately compartmentalized discussion, and yes, there are a number of folks who can talk the technical with the best, yet still have great appreciation for the larger picture, so to speak.
However, discussions like this can potentially also become a monster, ones that effectively rape the soul and spirit of photography by placing disproportionate value on the technical in relation to overall photography. Interjecting a little restraint, a little refocusing on what actually matters, is thus to be encouraged, not dissuaded.
Really, a novice buying an entry level DSLR has somehow been mislead? Can they not take excellent photos with these? And why should they go mirrorless? Maybe they checked out both offerings, but preferred the feel or ergonomics of the DSLR.
That's the problem; if you set up a discussion that intentionally renounces the holistic, then important factors get marginalized or ignored altogether, rendering the overall discussion incomplete.
To be sure, for folks in the know, much of this indulgence and imbalance might matter little---they get it---they don't need to be subjected to an "it's the photographer" riot act---and hey, for some folks, these types of discussions are just fun, and that's absolutely fine. Plus, if you dig through them, you can certainly glean some instructive technical information.
But for newcomers, these discussions can be a disastrous source of disinformation and grossly skewed priority.
Whenever an OP ask a question about sharpness or image quality in general (raw, jpeg, crop, full frame, etc.), one of the first things that should be asked, especially if the OP is a novice, is what they hope to obtain through such information; what's their goal, their preferences, and so on.
Otherwise, there should be only one simple answer: The more expensive, the better the image quality. But of course, as these repeated threads constantly prove beyond a shadow of doubt, that even when confined to the gear-centric technical, it's never that simple.
Personally, I don't venture much up in the gear side of POTN, or at least, don't comment much, but sometimes, out of respect for photography, it's difficult to ignore the ludicrous without reaction.
Anyway, I'm out of this thread, but PM's always welcome.