Price? Image quality??

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
7:39 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
I wonder how important camera price is these days in terms of image quality? The Leica M10 certainly has acceptable image quality. But, if you look at the DX0 ratings for the full frame Leica M10 (ballpark $7000) and the APS-c Samsung NX500 (ballpark $800), the half frame Samsung just edges out the Leica’s DX0 scores in all departments except low light. The improved image quality of the expensive medium format Fuji and Hasselblad digitals compared to some full framers with close to the same number of pixel (and, of course, smaller pixels) is best appreciated with you nose pressed against a larger print.

Even before I plug in my own limitations as craftsman or the fact that many good pictures don’t require the ultimate in high resolution, am I an idiot for shooting with a Leica rather than a Samsung or, to reverse the equation, a $1200 half frame Fuji H1 rather than a $3400 full frame Nikon Z7? What has price got to do with image quality these days?
 
:)
If Samsung cameras are same quality as their phones, I would touch it with ten feet pole.

DXO means absolutely nothing for images, IMO. It is same as judging image by histogram.
 
This is like saying that a Toyota Corolla is as equal to a Ferrari Testarossa, both vehicles will get you there... but in most cases that is not the point of whole endeavour .
 
What has price got to do with image quality these days?
Click to expand...

Very little, as little as it ever did before anyway. Which was rarely much, once you spent enough for a decent lens.

There's a heck of a lot more to a camera then whether it does well on a DXO rating.

G
 
Bill Pierce said:
What has price got to do with image quality these days?
Click to expand...

Ignoring for the moment the bit about the validity of DXO scores as an example reference point of quantification, the question is still valid but probably rhetorical.

It's like buying wine... the trick is to find something good that you enjoy at a reasonable price...
 
Bill Pierce said:
What has price got to do with image quality these days?
Click to expand...

Like the others have already said, exceedingly little for 99%.
I'll just add though by saying that if you're chasing the last 1%, then price (as a measure of technical advancement) can have a large effect on image quality.

However, for some cameras (Leica M), price is not a measure of technical quality, so I think it was a bad example. The NX-500 scores 87 "good image quality points". There are 36 cameras that score more "good image quality points" all costing more than the NX-500, and more or less increasing in price. (I limited the launch date to the NX-500 on).
If you look at the graph, the NX-500 is at the peak of (sensor) performance:price, from then on it is demising returns on investment, but more investment will get you a better DXO measured camera.
 
xayraa33 said:
This is like saying that a Toyota Corolla is as equal to a Ferrari Testarossa, both vehicles will get you there... but in most cases that is not the point of whole endeavour .
Click to expand...




The Toyota is better transportation. FAR more reliable, less expensive to buy, less expensive to insure, better gas mileage, cheaper to repair.


The Ferrari is a bauble for the rich.
 
The problem these days is finding a camera system that has good quality all around. I like what I see from many cameras, but then it depends on what lenses you can get for them, and that may drive up the system price. Or in my case, finding out the native lenses lack distortion control, and I'm now looking for third party replacements or switching to a different system.


PF
 
Most interchangeable lens SLRs and Mirrorless digital cameras today have excellent image quality.

Higher price gets you things like better build quality, weather-resistance, better ergonomics, more sophisticated autofocus, higher frame rates. For some people, those features are worth the money. For others they're not.



Here's a personal example:

Many of you know that about a year ago, I sold all of my Canon fullframe gear and bought an Olympus Pen-F, a micro four thirds camera.

The Pen-F is a medium priced camera in the world of m4/3, costing about $1000 for the body. A couple weeks ago, I bought a new Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II. That's Olympus's top of the line "Pro" model, and it cost $1700.

Both cameras have a 20mp Micro Four Thirds sensor. Both have IBIS. They use the same lenses. Same viewscreen. Image quality nearly identical. So, what did an extra $700 get me?

The big thing for me was weather-sealing. I like to shoot in the rain and in other bad weather, and was afraid to take the non-sealed Pen-F out in the rain. I have taken the OM-D E-M1 mk II out in heavy rain already, using the weather-sealed Olympus pro lenses I have and it worked flawlessly.

The pro camera also offers faster framing rates and is supposed to have better AF with moving subjects. None of that matters for me, I don't shoot sports or wildlife, but it would make a difference for those who do.

The E-M1 mk II also has the best built-in grip of ANY camera I have ever used. It fits my small hands perfectly. The Pen-F has no handgrip and I found it hard to hold. I bought an add-on grip for it, which helped a lot but the Pen-F shutter release is on top of the body, not on the grip, so less ergonomic than the E-M1 mk II which has the button on the handgrip.

The E-M1 mk II has longer-lasting batteries and dual SD card slots, too, which is convenient.

So...the high priced camera does not offer better image quality, but DOES offer features that the cheaper model does not. Whether those features are worth the money is up to you, and depends on what kind of photography you do. For me, weather sealing is worth the money because I'll use it. I like the better ergonomics of the E-M1 mk II over the Pen-F, too.
 
One of the privileges of affluence is the permission to rationalize our desires; but it is also a trap. It is impossible for a Rolex to measure and mark time more precisely than a Timex even though it cost vastly more. The beauty of the Rolex lies elsewhere. You’re not foolish to desire the Leica over the Samsung; but you might be wise not to justify it by looking at pixel precision alone.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The Toyota is better transportation. FAR more reliable, less expensive to buy, less expensive to insure, better gas mileage, cheaper to repair.


The Ferrari is a bauble for the rich.
Click to expand...

But that is not the point.

Not everything we humans do is based on logic or economics or common senses or "told you so" . Advertisers know this very well and they play on our emotions, ego and fantasies to sell us baubles and other overpriced stuff that we don't need.
 
xayraa33 said:
But that is not the point.

Not everything we humans do is based on logic or economics or common senses or "told you so" . Advertisers know this very well and they play on our emotions, ego and fantasies to sell us baubles and other overpriced stuff that we don't need.
Click to expand...




That is the point. Bill asked if price was related to image quality. It isn't. As far as cars go, I think medium priced cars are the best buy. Cheap cars often are low quality, and expensive cars are overpriced baubles. Medium priced cars are usually very well-built, reliable, inexpensive to repair. They're not as fancy as expensive ones, but they're often more reliable.
 
Recently, I purchased a Pentax K1 (FF)(not the K1II) for $1495, didn't have to pay tax or shipping (even in California). Thought, even though I don't need it I have 5 lenses that will fit so what the heck. I can't remember the MP number but I can't tell any difference from my $300 (2014) mirrorless APS-c camera. I hope someone can tell me why I can't tell the difference.

I think I might be agreeing with Chris Crawford.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
The Toyota is better transportation. FAR more reliable, less expensive to buy, less expensive to insure, better gas mileage, cheaper to repair.


The Ferrari is a bauble for the rich.
Click to expand...

Oh c'mon Chris, you know the Ferrari is far far faster, handles much better, has much better brakes, will be safer in crash, is built to a much higher level, and just looks and sounds gorgeous.
The Toyota is none of those things, but exactly what you pointed out.

Guess which one is cheaper and easier to make?
:)
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
That is the point. Bill asked if price was related to image quality. It isn't.
Click to expand...

Actually it most definitely is. Cheaper cameras on the whole have worse image quality than expensive ones. There are outliers (like the Leica M) and there are bans where cameras share the same sensor in different bodies cost different amounts (like your Olympii) but on the whole, price = performance.

If you want to make the car analogy, image quality is lap times. Everything else you mentioned about cars speaks to usability, not performance. The Ferrari is faster. The Toyota might be more comfortable and easier to drive, but it's not faster.

Rolex is like Leica, it's a pretty good performing (actually very well performing) watch wrapped up in status. Sure, it's not as accurate as a phone that syncs automatically, but it's not in the same class. It's like comparing a film Leica to a digital Nikon.
 
My Rolex would cost me £3000 to replace and it loses a minute a day. It requires servicing each year at a cost of £250 and will be away for a month. My £50 Seiko that I use to tell the time is totally accurate, needs no servicing and a battery every 3 years. Once you get out of the real cheap zone price is not about quality it is about perceived status, self image and the marketeers desire to get you to stump up for features that you need (like grips) but could have been engineered in for the same price as the base model.

Contemporary road ferraris are not good at track work, they are too heavy and too large, and will be beaten on most days by specialist track cars costing a fifth. They are simply status symbols, nothing more or less, and mostly sit in garages for their life as too many miles kills their value. If their owners feel good about them, great.

The relevance of either to cameras is moot anyway - it's the image that counts. I make no pretence of being a serious photographer and I love shooting my Leicas and other old cameras, but my pro friends will produce better images with their phones than I do with a Leica. Which sucks, but there we are.

Enjoy what you want to use.
 
Brand new Rolex has a 2 sec per day margin of error +/-.. and only needs servicing 1x every 10 years..thats pretty good..around $850 for that..
Service turnaround..3 weeks..
Leica turnaround..well...service isn't their strong point..lol..
Rolex and Ferrari..will get you..girls..or..gold diggers..
Timex and Hundai...well..
They will get you..
A wife..
Pick your poison..
 
@Charles,
For some of us we really just enjoy using cameras, image quality has been moot for a long time. The camera needs to be enjoyable, that’s why we buy Leicas and not Canons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom