millsart Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Why Merrills not so hot on a mostly 'landscape' forum? | |
snapsy wrote:
If they have identical nominal pixel counts but how about a higher MP bayer vs lower MP foveon?
That is rather the point of all this isn't it ? You can have a 16 meg APS-C $700 lens/camera that equals or comes darn close to 24+ meg cameras.
Even if we are rather conservative and compare with something like a D600, instead of a A7r or D800, the overall cost and size still is about 3 times more expensive/heavier than a Merrill
Everyone seems to always ignore how dirt cheap the Merrill's when comparing them to other cameras, and for me anyways, that is a big part of the attraction, besides obviously the size/weight savings
If money is no object, nor is size/weight, and you only care about the best possible image quality, then by all means go go a D800e, or A7r and some Zeiss or Leica glass and spend $5000, its overall a much better camera system.
But if landscape photography is merely a hobby, and you don't want to sink a lot of money into it, and you don't want to haul around a heavy backpack full of gear, yet you'd still like to be able to produce some very nice prints, I think a Merrill is tough to beat as far as bang for the buck goes.
If it was a $3000 camera, then heck no, I sure wouldn't own one no matter how much I do like the IQ it produces, I just demand for more from something costing that much. RX1 for example is much better value as I can use it for so much more than just landscape shooting
$700 or less though ? I think its a no-brainer, assuming you don't try to use it outside its limitations and your style of photography suits a slower pace, tripod, not machine gunning etc
|