1. Can't argue with a guy who hand-waves impartial quantified data based on rigorous testing from a reputable business that tests cameras and optics for a living and whose survival depends on their accuracy... on account of da numbers don't favor the camera you like... ?
The question is whether you're making a mountain of a molehill. Our practical experience, and the DP Review tests, demonstrate that the quantitative differences that you think are so important don't actually interfere with making good images, except perhaps at the extremes of the ISO range -- but in reality, probably not even there. Even near the limits of sensor performance, the difference between an EP-L1 and a D3000 or a 50D or even a K-x (which, to get briefly on-topic, uses pretty much the same sensor that is in the Sony NEX cameras) is real, but not enormous.
Do I understand the technical aspects of digital imaging? Yes, I do. In my work, I use digital sensors, operating at the limits of their performance, to extract numerical information (mechanical forces in the pN range; distances in the nm range; counting of single fluorescent molecules; examples
here and
here). If you've ever done imaging work that demanding, please share.
I also use both film and digital sensors to take pictures for fun, and of course to do that I need equipment.
For example: Until this year, Nikon did not sell a 35mm equivalent lens - my favorite FL - that can, on an APS-C sensor, resolve a scene as well as the Olympus 12-60 SWD zoom on a four thirds sensor. An additional advantage of this lens is that it has, at 35mm-e, effectively ZERO geometrical distortion. It also has very effective IS, silent and lightning-fast USM focusing, and it is weather sealed, which is helpful since I like to shoot in the rain and I don't want to trash an expensive lens.
This year, Nikon finally released their 24/1.4. It is a great lens. But it is heavier than the 12-60, it has no IS (it's fast, but that doesn't help if you're trying to hold DOF, which I often am), it has more geometrical distortion than the 12-60 at 35-e, it costs $2200 instead of the $800 that I spent, and it does not allow the precise control over framing that a zoom permits.
I make equipment choices by trying the stuff out and taking actual photographs.
After having tried APS-C gear from Nikon (D80 with 24/2.8) and Pentax, I found their offerings at my favorite FL frustratingly inadequate. I even purchased a Pentax K20D and the little 21mm lens, and played with it for a week. that lens is cute as a button, but it focused slowly and loudly (screw drive), it was soft wide open, and it was not really that good at middle apertures. I sent the Pentax stuff back to B&H. Only then did I purchase the E-620 and 12-60. I did not return that remarkable lens, and I have not been tempted to sell it.
Again: I have not said that your choices are wrong, Nick. But it is deeply arrogant and foolish to assume that other people use the same decision criteria that you do. Smart people can and do make different choices for different reasons. It is sad that that making your own choices is inadequate, and you feel the need to denigrate the equally valid choices made by others.
