Originally posted by normhead I do find your assertion that the equipment used is more important than the image produced somewhat troubling
I think you have completely missed the point - there was never anything in my post that pointed to that. An image produced that is not consistent across the frame as should be (landscapes can fall in this also) will not win any awards, and that is based on the equipment - you may have produced the photograph to the best you could but that doesn't make up for the shortcomings of the lens itself.
Really bad trending stuff that is seen quite often here on the forums:
- Why worry about chromatic aberration when it can be fixed with a mouse click in LR
- I don't need to worry about framing this scene perfectly, as long as I am somewhat close I can crop it in
- I am not worried about the sharpness of that lens, I will sharpen in post
- I am not worried about a proper exposure, hell I will fix it in LR
Every thing noted above is bad with cropping being the least of the evil's (this is where MFT really comes into play). In short, the image produced is also dependent on the equipment you are using so I am not sure where this would be or sound troubling. I do understand that corners can be cut and a lot of this stuff is somewhat mute when it comes to certain things like wall prints and digital display(ing) but there are plenty of areas where these shortcomings make a huge impact and this is why a lot of photogs pay the big money for higher end lenses and this goes for all brands...
Edit:
After all of that, I will rephrase my one response:
Quote: Originally posted by LaurenOE
No one cares aesthetically what is at the extreme edges of a photograph
Response posted by joe.penn
Well, it is kind of important, and extremely important if you are shooting large group pictures...
Edge sharpness TO ME is pretty important as I am a seasoned pixel peeper by trade and I want my art to be consistently the same across the frame to lesson the chances of rejection.