>> |
Anonymous
>>267860 >ultimate image quality
Why do people care about this?
I'm>>267714, I'm not interested in any of the Four-Thirds DSLRs for other reasons, but people obsessed with ULTIMATE IMAGE QUALITY get on my nerves.
-Technical image quality matters for nigh shit. - Subjective image quality is just that, subjective. I mentioned this in another thread, after someone said something similar- Canons tend to have the lowest noise, but I personally find the noise they have more intrusive than other brands. So what has better image quality? - Even small sensor compacts are standing up to 135, though I haven't seen or done any direct comparisons, larger sizes (DSLRs, etc.) meet or exceed 120, and anyone who's talking about "ultimate image quality" and not shooting sheet film is just finding something to wank about.
Stop worrying about the spec sheets and lab tests and just worry about the qualities of the image you're producing. Any minor differences between any DSLR's ideal technical image quality are going to be trod over by your own clutzy handling of the camera and the files, and the screwy scenes you point it at.
Oh, and anyone who disdains a pop-up flash is just being a snob. It's obviously doesn't hurt the weathersealing- someone post that pic of the E-3 being doused with water- and a flash can be useful when you don't plan on it being. It's also less obtrusive than a big Speedlight or Speedlite or Vivitar or whatever stuck on top.
|