gdanmitchell Online Upload & Sell: Off
|
Coming back to this thread...
This is one of those things where it is more about the suitability of the overall package to one's particular kind of photography than it is about individual technical specs.
Basically, both cameras can produce excellent photographic results. They aren't identical, and we cannot deny that a larger sensor, all else being equal, can produce specs that exceed those of a smaller sensor. If all else actually were equal — price, size, weight, lens & and accessory availability, AF speed and accuracy, burst rates, and so on — the larger sensor camera would always "win."
But all else is never equal, and the importance of the various parameters will vary for different kinds of photography and among different users.
In the end, given a bunch of cameras and camera systems that produce very high levels of image quality, it is this overall mix of features and their relevance to one's particular photography that makes the most important difference.
I love analogies, and although none are perfect, I like this one. Suppose one is looking for a new car. There are two intestine* prospects. One has a top speed of 150MPH and the other a tops speed of 155MPH. If top speed is your only criterion, the "best" choice is obvious — get the faster one. But what if the faster one costs 4x as much, is not very comfortable on long drives with your kids, requires service every 2500 miles, and... you never drive faster than 85MPH anyway?
(To be fair, here's another one. Again, there are two prospects. One gets 50MPG and the other gets 53MPG. Yes, that's a "G" instead of an "H" now. If mileage is your only criterion, the 53MPG car is the best choice, right? But... I'll let you fill in the rest of the hypothetical.)
Dan
* "intestine prospects" is such a fun typo that I won't correct it above. It should, of course, be "interesting prospects."
Edited on Jun 15, 2022 at 05:35 PM · View previous versions
|