Price? Image quality??

[Huss]

I find it ironic that he owns a Z7. Basically he is saying that the camera doesn't matter much, yet he owns the latest model. This happens quite frequently.

Yep yep.
I recently posted a link to the famous Magnum photog Ara Guler.
He in essence said the same thing, as they all seem to do.
And yet uses/used just the high end stuff.

Funny that.
😉

 

[zuiko85]

Yep yep.
I recently posted a link to the famous Magnum photog Ara Guler.
He in essence said the same thing, as they all seem to do.
And yet uses/used just the high end stuff.

Funny that.
😉

Wonder if this falls under the reason; "Because I can afford it."
Although that said, I'm not always sure just how these folks make their money.

 

[icebear]

All those numbers are marketing's little helpers to get to your hard earned money.
Every season there are new numbers ... hey you got new money that someone wants you to spend.😎

At the end of the day, the print on the wall ... it 's not the specs of the camera that make a great picture, it's what you see and how you are able to capture that with the tool you have in front of your eye. A boring image with a lousy composition doesn't get any better with more mp's.😀

 

[Mcary]

OK not always but a good amount of the time the gear used matters about as much as what day of the week the photograph was taken.

 

[aizan]

a higher price may not get you higher image quality, but there is something else that it gets you: status.

spending more money will get you more social capital. that's why leicas, contaxes, hasselblads, rolleiflexes, and various other examples of expensive gear make such good instagram fodder.

 

[markjwyatt]

a higher price may not get you higher image quality, but there is something else that it gets you: status.

spending more money will get you more social capital. that's why leicas, contaxes, hasselblads, rolleiflexes, and various other examples of expensive gear make such good instagram fodder.

From that perspective (and I think you are correct), Contaxes, Rolliflexes, and possibly Barnhardt Leicas are probably the best values in status.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have a question for Chris Crawford. How did you find the transition from an optical viewfinder to an electronic viewfinder? The few mirrorless cameras I've had a chance to look through have not been very impressive, at least compared to my OM-1 with an all matte screen, which is my benchmark. The latest electronic vf I've tried was a OMD-EM5 so I suspect there have been improvements. Unfortunately I live in the sticks and even finding a store that would have the Olympus line.....well I might have to travel several hundred miles roundtrip. That, I don't want to do.

I haven't used the OM-D EM5, so I can't comment on how it compares to the much newer Pen-F and E-M1 mk II viewfinders.

I don't think the electronic viewfinders are as clear and sharp as a good optical finder like that in the OM-1. For autofocus, they're fine, but for manual focus they're a bit of a pain.

Because its is near-impossible to judge sharpness on them when manually focusing, the Olympuses and many other mirrorless cameras offer a magnified mode on the EVF where it magnifies part of the image to facilitate manual focusing. Even with that, manual focus works best if you activate focus peaking (it can be turned on and off).

It works, but feels like a kludge. Also in very dim light, MF is hard. That's true also of many optical SLR finders, too, though.

So, my verdict is that the EVF in the newer Olympus cameras is ok. It takes some getting used to and if you only do AF, it works well. Its the price you pay for having such tiny, lightweight cameras.

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

I wonder how important camera price is these days in terms of image quality?

About the same as it ever has...


My M2 is worth about 10x as much as my Spotmatic F, but I stick the same film in both...

 

[Ste_S]

I've come to a conclusion that for IQ, it all depends on your final output.
For my large prints (16x20 and higher), IQ is very important and to achieve that I use a high MP camera (42MP Sony A7RIII) and lenses that can resolve it.

However, for social media or printing 8x10 photo books I actually find smaller sensors are more than capable. I've done 8x10 prints of photos taken with my iphone that I'm proud of.

Right now I'm exploring photography using P&S cameras, I purchased an Olympus Tough TG-5 (1/2.3" sensor size) as my daily/street camera as it is more rugged than my iphone and less intimidating than a more professional looking camera.

Indeed. Discussions about image quality are pointless unless you're also talking about final output. Pretty much anything can do a really nice A4 print and you don't have to spend a lot of money on a camera to get nice A3 and greater sized prints.

People who obsess over tech specs for camera are mostly gear heads who like to pixel peep with their eye pressed up to a monitor.

 

[pgk]

There is only so much technical perfection one can take.

 

[jsrockit]

It’s never smart to spend using someone else’s hypothetical wallet. There are various reasons for choosing what we choose. But... if you can afford it and you enjoy it, you’ll tend to spend more and tend to want more perceived quality. I think everyone does this within their own comfort zone. What is expensive for me, is cheap for someone else depending on what you earn.

 

[Mcary]

It’s never smart to spend using someone else’s hypothetical wallet. There are various reasons for choosing what we choose. But... if you can afford it and you enjoy it, you’ll tend to spend more and tend to want more perceived quality. I think everyone does this within their own comfort zone. What is expensive for me, is cheap for someone else depending on what you earn.

Agree!


Additionally it depends a lot on one's obligations for example someone might earn as much as someone else but live where the cost of housing is much lower thereby have more disposable income. Also other things such as the choice of a >20k vs a 30K+ vehicle can greatly affect a person's disposable income.

 

[jsrockit]

Good addendum Mcary... I agree.

 

[Godfrey]

Excellent!

G

I don’t have a car anymore,
I quit driving because I fear
Dying much more
What’s this have to do with
The camera I shoot with
I don’t know but I’ll play along
Just because of the watch
I wear is not so expensive
So, what’s the size of my sensor
Is it related to the price of my
Lens or the grip on my Bessa
Or my Panasonic or my Sony
Or should they be put in the dumpster?
‘Cause they’re not so expensive
Afraid to contemplate
the direction this is going
Price, performance, results
Is getting to be a little bit
Boring
Never understood the desire to talk
About it
I think I’ll just grab my camera
And go out and use it

Mike

 

[Michael Markey]

It’s never smart to spend using someone else’s hypothetical wallet. There are various reasons for choosing what we choose. But... if you can afford it and you enjoy it, you’ll tend to spend more and tend to want more perceived quality. I think everyone does this within their own comfort zone. What is expensive for me, is cheap for someone else depending on what you earn.

I agree .
I see plenty of Canon/Nikon camera and lens outfits costing as much as a Leica when I`m out and about.
Nobody seems concerned about the perceived value as regards their own photography .

 

[Godfrey]

Agree!

Additionally it depends a lot on one's obligations for example someone might earn as much as someone else but live where the cost of housing is much lower thereby have more disposable income. Also other things such as the choice of a >20k vs a 30K+ vehicle can greatly affect a person's disposable income.

I don't know about anyone else, but I buy 30k+ vehicles when their sale value drops to <10k, in good shape, do whatever repairs and service are needed (usually ~5k), then drive them until they are worn out. I also only buy cars with cash money.

By doing this, the ownership of a fine car becomes relatively inexpensive. Much less expensive, in terms of utility vs expense, than buying a lot of high end photographic equipment.

Total cost when new: >60k
My cost @83k miles with all details taken care of and a couple of upgrades: 18k.​

Still purring along nicely at 120K miles. 🙂

G

 

[Mcary]

I don't know about anyone else, but I buy 30k+ vehicles when their sale value drops to <10k, in good shape, do whatever repairs and service are needed (usually ~5k), then drive them until they are worn out. I also only buy cars with cash money.

By doing this, the ownership of a fine car becomes relatively inexpensive. Much less expensive, in terms of utility vs expense, than buying a lot of high end photographic equipment.

Total cost when new: >60k
My cost @83k miles with all details taken care of and a couple of upgrades: 18k.​

Still purring along nicely at 120K miles. 🙂

G

An excellent choice which of course leaves you more disposable income vs buy a new 30K+ vehicle 🙂

 

[Bill Clark]

I made some family photographs with my iPad mini that turned out just fine.

Why are people so obsessed with equipment? Even the smart phone and tablet computer do a fine job in the hands of a capable photographer.

 

[Huss]

Why are people so obsessed with equipment? Even the smart phone and table computer do a fine job in the hands of a capable photographer.

So imagine how much better those pics would have been with high end gear!

and so it begins..

 

[zuiko85]

I haven't used the OM-D EM5, so I can't comment on how it compares to the much newer Pen-F and E-M1 mk II viewfinders.

I don't think the electronic viewfinders are as clear and sharp as a good optical finder like that in the OM-1. For autofocus, they're fine, but for manual focus they're a bit of a pain.

Because its is near-impossible to judge sharpness on them when manually focusing, the Olympuses and many other mirrorless cameras offer a magnified mode on the EVF where it magnifies part of the image to facilitate manual focusing. Even with that, manual focus works best if you activate focus peaking (it can be turned on and off).

It works, but feels like a kludge. Also in very dim light, MF is hard. That's true also of many optical SLR finders, too, though.

So, my verdict is that the EVF in the newer Olympus cameras is ok. It takes some getting used to and if you only do AF, it works well. Its the price you pay for having such tiny, lightweight cameras.

Thanks Chris, your real life experience with this emerging technology is worth more than all the advertising blurbs.
On the one hand, m4:3 appeals to me for the small size and short register distance. I'm of the "If I can mount it, I'll shoot it" school of fooling around with cameras. But it sounds like manual focus is problematic with electronic vf's, which sort of negates the advantage of being able to adapt any oddball lens I happen to come by. I'm sure
Olympus's modern m4:3 AF lenses are excellent but I'm a hobbyist and a cheapskate and don't want to pay the price of admission.