gear-nut wrote:
Yes, we seem to agree here — the actual perceivable differences are effectively down to measurebating minutia, and usually only detectable at 100% view level. Another thing I’ve noticed is most people only detect differences in normally presented images when exif data is provided 🤣
Indeed.
Folks, including the measurebators, forget some important stuff. First, those little technical differences (e.g. - how much noise, DR, etc.) typically only come into play at the fringes. In most cases, pretty much any decent camera can produce an excellent image.
And they seem to forget that the performance boundaries are not hard stops – rather they are roll-offs. For example, at the boundaries of low light and, say, deep shadows where it is true that the larger format can produce a bit less noise or a bit more DR, it isn’t like the smaller option simply ceases to work. It probably has a little more noise than the FF version, and in 99 out of 100 cases once you adjust for that in post they both still look good.
And given that fact, we have to balance that incremental performance roll-off against what may be, at least for some of us, other advantages of using a smaller system for some kinds of photography.
Anyway, back to the primary topic: I’m still going to be interested to see if Fujifilm actually manages to reduce the size/weight of the new 16-55 f/2.8 by that 30% margin and maintain or even improve the IQ. If so, I may be interested!
Sep 21, 2024 at 01:45 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16646537 « A smaller XF16-55 II? »
