Topic: Is the image quality hype over

This is not very related to manual gear. Just a few thoughts ...

I am wondering why the most test-journals and realted internet sites still have the focus on image quality. It seems to me that in the meantime most of the consumer cameras are able to deliver excellent image quality with low noise and superb sharpness.

I own thee digital cams: First, the GF1, it produces perfect images in bright light, maybe a liitle too noisy in darker environment. But very reliable metering. Now 3 years old.
For the X-E2 and EOS 6D I can't imagine what could be better. I make my pictures only for printing in A3, and each of my cams is able to produce images which let me print outstanding pictures. It is nothing else than a dream.
So when I read dpreview for example, comparing iq and and other parameters, I often ask myself: Why am I doing this anymore?

Hanoi

Re: Is the image quality hype over

One possible answer: because you don't feel comfortable with your gear and your practice. Once you find out it barely contributes to 10% to the final result (i.e. your pictures),  you prefer to dedicate your time to more procifient activities and stop reading such c..p.

"That rug really tied the room together."  The Dude

Re: Is the image quality hype over

Thanks for your oppinion.

Indeed, I feel very comfortable with my gear. And I don't belive that I am looking for other gear. 

I just think it is no longer needed to focus only on image quality caused by the cameras. It is more like is was while the analog times from the past, when other things was more important, like metering, lense mount and things like that.


Hanoi

Re: Is the image quality hype over

Lens mount has nothing to do with image quality. Metering is somewhat important whatever the technology you use even if a good printer (I am not!) can do miracle under the enlarger with a "poor" negative.

The next step would be for you to define what do you exactly mean by "image quality"... I guess you mean "optical quality" which has very little to do with "image quality".

"That rug really tied the room together."  The Dude

Re: Is the image quality hype over

Sales hype... these days, that all I see of the "new" cameras. So, do you REALLY need 20+MP? I found my D70 printed images that are hard to tell from newer cams. IMPO, it's all sales hype for the pixel peepers...

Seymore
MooreFoto

Re: Is the image quality hype over

Seymore wrote:

Sales hype... these days, that all I see of the "new" cameras. So, do you REALLY need 20+MP? I found my D70 printed images that are hard to tell from newer cams. IMPO, it's all sales hype for the pixel peepers...

I totally agree with you. Nearly every cam from the last years is able to shot pictures which can result in stunning prints. For pixel peepers impovements are still possible. OK, I don't need to understand why people need to examine their pictures like a scientist examining DNA cords, for example.

Hanoi

Re: Is the image quality hype over

One  forum  I  no longer   associate with had members going back and forth--dumping  expensive  amounts of  Nikon / Canon  gear  going from one to the other, trying to keep up with the Joneses.   

I now have Canon 7Ds  and frankly,  for no more use  I've gotten out of them  I just as well have  stayed with the 40Ds

On  a  side note,  I did  introduce  a new  friend..........He's  an old film guy,  and a burglary  in his  house  recently  relieved him of all his  Canon FD  gear.   So  I  sold him  one of the 40Ds,  and  "it's a whole new game" for him.

Re: Is the image quality hype over

I think most of the hype is over due to the now similar quality's of most sensors. I mean now days it's more akin to comparing one type of film to another. I think they will, and should be concentrating more on the resolving power of the various respective lenses and camera features. Your mileage may vary. wink

I put that adapter in a safe place, never to be seen again.

Re: Is the image quality hype over

I  think  a  LOT  of this  is  simply modernization........."in the old days"  many of us  could not afford to shoot   many many shots,  blow them up,  and microscopically examine them.   Most of us  were not  Nationa Geographic  photogs,   LOL

And  now that we  all have  HUGE   computer  monitors  with   ridiculous  resolution,  you can  SEE this  stuff

I've  got   many old photos  where  something  "as  large as"  an 8 X  inch  photo print does not look  "all that bad," but  blow up the  negative  (most mine were 35mm)  and  they look like  'ell.