Quote: The crops Norm posted are from imaging resource I am not sure if he converts them himself or if he uses their jpegs, but either way, they certainly aren't examples of someone shooting a landscape with high dynamic range and trying to capture all of the colors present in the sunrise. I'm sure for this image a D610 would perform almost exactly the same as a K3 or D7200.
I just do a screen capture....
My point is, when I want to know about these kinds of things, I look for real world images.
As my tests have shown over the years, people can make all kinds of mistakes when they trust their impressions to make judgements, especially when it comes to the value of one format over another.
But in the end... I stick with... until I can see a difference in the images, there is no difference.
And until people can point out the difference in a blind test, even if there is pixel peeking difference, there is no practical difference. It may come as a shock to some, but pixel peeping is not an enjoyable way to view images.
Just a few highlights from over the years....
A forum member took a couple of side by side images with his K-01 and D800 and made 20 x 16 prints of a landscape. He showed both pictures to his wife and asked her which she liked. She like some parts of both better than the same parts of the other, and over all she couldn't decide which she liked.
A forum member teaching a beginner photography course, brought prints made at 72, 120 and 150 DPI to his students, 90% of them couldn't tell a 72 DPI from 150 DPI.
IN my own tests, those picking a prime lens from a group of zooms, some of them very cheap and poorly rated, the number recognizing the prime image was only slightly higher than chance.
I guess the problem for me, is I see relatively little real blind test type information, where conventional wisdom about sensor size, prime vs zoom, etc. are supported by any kind of blind test. To be more precise, a lot of "photographic wisdom" is just photographs voodoo. IN fact what I have seen over and over is someone who believes something like "more resolution make higher IQ photos" eat crow, over and over , when they actually do the work to find out if people can even tell.
In the process, I've heard unbelievable amounts of non-sense.
So my approach is simple. Discard all conventional wisdom, that can't be demonstrated with actual images. I don't think a test image like the one above is the best way to evaluate sensors and photographs, test in the circumstances you shoot. But, in the absence of that type of images, those images are crucial, in that they give you something real to form your opinion with.
The typical response is as above....that this type of studio image has no bearing on say a landscape shooter. And my response to that is "prove that." You can't just make shit up.. it's mind boggling to me that someone would think their opinion would be so strong as to negate actual test images. The only thing that negates the evidence presented by an image is another image. Talk is cheap. If there is no correlation between studio test images and images taken in a landscape setting, that should be easy to demonstrate. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't demonstrate it, ti doesn't exist as a concept.
But based on years of following everything I could find, and everything everyone has pointed me to.. my conclusions would be as follows.
In 99% of the images taken, a 10 MP image is good enough, and the format of the camera used is pretty much irrelevant.
People's preferences in lenses can not be determined by test charts.
Most people have purchased way more photographic capability than they will ever effectively use.
People love the gear they own. They bought what they wanted, and they are prepared to live with their decision and make it work. They are not looking for people to tell them they should have something else, and are not prepared to entertain the notion that they should have something better.
On this particular and on many sites, people are talking about minutae that don't make much difference to an image, as if these are really important things.
They aren't.
Composition is really important. The technical qualities of cameras rarely are.
If you don't believe me check it out yourself. The 300mm plus club is by far the most "liked" thread in part because, it doesn't differentiate on supposed "lens quality" , IQ, MP, or anything else. People take great images with 6,000 dollar systems, and they take great images with $800 systems.
One of my favourite responses of all time....
A student in my studio class asked the instructor "what's the difference between a really expensive camera and a really cheap camera.?"
A: "The expensive camera will cost you more to repair."
There are many non-photographic reasons why people believe in their gear. Owning really expensive gear helps with confidence, it can impress clients, it can help you achieve a "look" through the employment of photographic cliches like narrow DoF. But as a photographer, those, at least to me, are not important things. The answer is as above. And until someone shows me different, I'm going with that. Watching the forum over the last 5 years, I'd also add, spending more money enables you to keep spending more and more money. Buying a DSLR enables you to blow a pile on lenses. Buying a 645z enables you to push the amount of money spent on lenses over $50,000 if you choose to go that route. It's a kind of gamesmanship.
But every year, I go out with my mountain of gear, with Tess and my buddy David, along with the 4 or 5 photographers a year who hire me to take them somewhere, and every year, the number of my friend David's pictures, taken with his point and shoot are among my favourites. If it's a three photographer trip, his images will comprise about 33% of my favourites. Really, your biggest photographic assets are your perspectives, your composition skills, and your opportunities to be where you can get good images. You can talk about gear all you want, but, there's David's point and shoot images will still hold their own, no matter who you are, and what you're shooting with. It suits the way he shoots. Maybe you need a bit more for what you shoot, maybe you need dynamic range for sunsets, maybe you are one of the rare people who actually prints 60 inches wide, who might benefit from more resolution. It's possible.
But most of the people on here when they talk about the need for upgrading are just blowing smoke. I've talked to people who take arial photographs, or who are in very specialized areas of photography where the right equipment is absolutely crucial. There's a lot of people on the site that confuse themselves thinking they are that type of person. That they need some kind of special technical spec to do what they do. Most of them just need to learn how to set up a shot with what they have. And guess what, if you won't do what it takes to get the shots you want with what you have, you probably won't do what it takes to get it with your new equipment either.
Call me skeptical, but, I just don't buy 99% of the non-sense, and the posturing that goes with it.
I read it and smile, but people shouldn't think for a second I'm taking much of this seriously, and I feel most of the more experienced guys are the same. We smile and nod our heads, because it's just not worth getting into, most of the time.