NikonClio64 wrote:
Having read through several pages of this thread, I'm yet another left distinctly bewildered by the pointless attacks of the pitiful trolling brigade with nothing to contribute than snide commentaries preaching false information.
If one can afford the big financial outlay for a capable FX ILC system with high quality optics, reliable Autofocus, and decent frame rates etc etc, many photographers are locked into a system. Which ever one picks among this year's top-end cameras, one is buying a very capable device.
I think the brand we use matters barely or (more likely) not at all. I happen to use Brand A and Brand B, but my photography would be essentially exactly the same if I used Brands C, D, E, F, or whatever.
IQ is very similar indeed, BUT some cameras *focus* a lot better than others in different situations, and that is where the meaningful differences are these days IMO.
AUTOFOCUS MATTERS.
Cheers.
(as an aside I have read from at least 4 different accounts that the R5 focuses better than the Z8/Z9...)
No one said anything like "AF doesn't matter."
My point is that the differences among things (like the excellent AF of all these brands) don't amount to that much. In addition, the "lead" switches back and forth every time a new model comes out... and the subjective biases based on brand team loyalty overstated differences and often ignore them.
The least important photographic question is typically, "Which brand is best?". And obsessing about these things is less about their photographic impact — which often ranges between insignificant and nonexistent — and folks reassuring themselves that they aren't wasting their money.
If each of these differences was actually that earth-shaking, those of us who have been watching photography gear evolve for some decades and reading the overheated marketing and reviews of each new development during that period would expect that photography would have improved by many orders of magnitude as all of those "revolutionary" advances added up.
That hasn't happened. Photography has improved incrementally, but has not fundamentally changed. Those individuals differences between thing 1 and thing 2 amount to far, far less than we imagine.
Or perhaps you don't agree, and you think hat photography is orders of magnitude better. 100x? 1000x? If so, then the incremental differences between contemporary product A and contemporary product B seem even more trivial.
It is fine and useful to understand technical stuff about photography and camera gear. It is a waste of time and a distraction to turn that into the point of its all.
May 22, 2023 at 10:03 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16250763 « Z8 vs R5? I'm just curious... »
