As has been noted:
This is a long angry thread!
It is, IMO, all too occupied with what I regard as over-definite statements such as:
...sensor metrics don't matter.
Oh, raw sensor metrics matter most of all.
etc.
ad nauseum.
In terms of the importance of sensor technology I probably sit at one pole, having noted (way, way up there ^^ somewhere) that, for the types of photographs I want to take with it, the decidedly old-tech sensor in my Canon 5DmkI does the job for me quite nicely. For a number of reasons, some good and some bad (the bad including some employment uncertainty) I quite consciously decided
not to upgrade my DSLR system (which also includes a Canon 50D) until such time as the cameras or camera system held me back from something I really wanted to do with my photographs. So far that hasn't happened, so I haven't upgraded. While I have participated here, none of my oxen are being gored (* but see below), so I'm in at least a somewhat disinterested position here. My camera sensor is cr*p and yet: so what? It takes photos I like and that's good enough for me.
At the other pole, I think Victor (YVV_146), for example, has explicated rather well the types of photographs he wants (and, as I understand it, professionally needs) to take and why, for his kind of photography, sensor performance matters a lot to him. I get the impression from Victor that for what he wants to do, even the best of current sensor technology involves compromise and that he'd rather like to see improvements and will probably take advantage of any which come along (as long, I guess, as they have some level of affordability).
Lots of others, I'd guess, are at or between those two poles. That's more than just fine! Everybody's wants and needs and circumstances are different. What's somewhat less than fine, and probably the source of much of the "angry" nature of this thread, is being told that your wants and needs and circumstances are just plain
wrong and that the enlightened among us should be listened to as they have the
one and only true truth. Somehow I find that unlikely.
(*) For myself, since the start of this "discussion" I've dropped rather too much money (for my personal value of "too much") on something with (apparently) a decidedly inferior sensor. In keeping with my style of photography, I didn't buy it in order to stress the sensor, or the system, because, well, that's just not my style. I didn't buy it for any improvement in sensor quality at all, as I have no need for any improvement over the decidedly ancient, obsolete, outdated (and perfectly adequate for my needs) sensors I already have. I bought it for other reasons, but in my mind - and despite commentary in this thread - those are unrelated to any need to be "fashionable". Anyone who knows me would know that me and fashionable occupy entirely different spaces. I drive a 30 year old car, I dress at the minimal end of "business casual", I work in a decidedly unfashionable (though IMO necessary) area of IT (IT, already!) which most people seem to believe ceased to even exist some years ago. I don't even know whether I'll keep "the thing" or not (that is nice about overpriced Leica gear: the resale value curve is favourable). I've taped over the "bling bits" on the camera (and despite possible carping, that's for practical rather than "reverse fashionable" reasons). I've not even had it for 24 hours yet, so I can hardly claim to have produced any "great art" with it (as if!) yet I'm enjoying playing with it so far:
If that makes me a dupe of the horrid marketing machine then so be it.
...Mike
