$8,000 Hasselblad vers $1000 Fugi.

[Don Fischer]

Was interesting and something I've though about with even less expensive camera's. Guy shot 7 different photo's with the two camera's. The Hasselblad had 100 pix's and the Fugi 26! He put both photo's of each side by side and had people tell him which came from which camera. Both photo's were just the same! Of the 7 set's the Hasselblad was only picked two time, Fugi wiped it out.

I have wondered a lot about the real advantage as far as photo's go if spending the money was really worth while. Problem is only good pro's can really tell the difference and even then not all the time! I think if your making really big photo's, pix's do matter. but for the majority of photo's they really don't. As big as I've blown up photo's from my camera's, Nikon D7000 and Panasonic XS 100, is 12x24 inches and I'm no pro but I do like a lot of what I did! Has seemed to me for quite some time that photographer's spend a lot on chasing the most expensive equipment. Seems they believe spending the money will give them better results. I have though that better result's came from learning to use what you have! I'm sure If I learned to better use what I have, photo's would get better.

 

[Don Fischer]

Was interesting and something I've though about with even less expensive camera's. Guy shot 7 different photo's with the two camera's. The Hasselblad had 100 pix's and the Fugi 26! He put both photo's of each side by side and had people tell him which came from which camera. Both photo's were just the same! Of the 7 set's the Hasselblad was only picked two time, Fugi wiped it out.

I have wondered a lot about the real advantage as far as photo's go if spending the money was really worth while. Problem is only good pro's can really tell the difference and even then not all the time! I think if your making really big photo's, pix's do matter. but for the majority of photo's they really don't. As big as I've blown up photo's from my camera's, Nikon D7000 and Panasonic XS 100, is 12x24 inches and I'm no pro but I do like a lot of what I did! Has seemed to me for quite some time that photographer's spend a lot on chasing the most expensive equipment. Seems they believe spending the money will give them better results. I have though that better result's came from learning to use what you have! I'm sure If I learned to better use what I have, photo's would get better.

Shoot put this in the wrong place. There's Digital section down a bit where it probably should have gone!

 

[RAZKY]

Was interesting and something I've though about with even less expensive camera's. Guy shot 7 different photo's with the two camera's. The Hasselblad had 100 pix's and the Fugi 26! He put both photo's of each side by side and had people tell him which came from which camera. Both photo's were just the same! Of the 7 set's the Hasselblad was only picked two time, Fugi wiped it out.

I have wondered a lot about the real advantage as far as photo's go if spending the money was really worth while. Problem is only good pro's can really tell the difference and even then not all the time! I think if your making really big photo's, pix's do matter. but for the majority of photo's they really don't. As big as I've blown up photo's from my camera's, Nikon D7000 and Panasonic XS 100, is 12x24 inches and I'm no pro but I do like a lot of what I did! Has seemed to me for quite some time that photographer's spend a lot on chasing the most expensive equipment. Seems they believe spending the money will give them better results. I have though that better result's came from learning to use what you have! I'm sure If I learned to better use what I have, photo's would get better.

As regards image quality, price can be meaningless. The Nikon Df cost a couple of thousand dollars less than the D4 at the time both were in production, yet their image quality was identical as they employed the same identical sensor. I'm sure there many other similar examples.

 

[Ysarex]

Was interesting and something I've though about with even less expensive camera's. Guy shot 7 different photo's with the two camera's. The Hasselblad had 100 pix's and the Fugi 26! He put both photo's of each side by side and had people tell him which came from which camera. Both photo's were just the same! Of the 7 set's the Hasselblad was only picked two time, Fugi wiped it out.

I have wondered a lot about the real advantage as far as photo's go if spending the money was really worth while. Problem is only good pro's can really tell the difference and even then not all the time! I think if your making really big photo's, pix's do matter. but for the majority of photo's they really don't. As big as I've blown up photo's from my camera's, Nikon D7000 and Panasonic XS 100, is 12x24 inches and I'm no pro but I do like a lot of what I did! Has seemed to me for quite some time that photographer's spend a lot on chasing the most expensive equipment. Seems they believe spending the money will give them better results. I have though that better result's came from learning to use what you have! I'm sure If I learned to better use what I have, photo's would get better.

A couple thoughts:
1. I was fortunate to have a mentor when I learned photography. I made friends with the staff photographer for the St. Louis baseball Cardinals and followed him around everywhere. One of the lessons Jim taught me was, "Lenses take pictures, cameras hold film." We need to update that a bit today, lenses take pictures, cameras hold sensors. Put your money where it counts. The last time I decided to adopt a new camera system I did precisely what Jim taught me; I went shopping for the lenses I wanted and once I found them I considered my options for the camera that would work with those lenses.

2. If you're going to save and process raw data files (you should if possible) all the facade the camera makers hype about look and color, the Nikon look, Canon colors, Fuji film simulations, etc. is just icing on the cake. Ignore it and bake your own cake. If I'm working from raw data I can take a Nikon NEF file, a Canon CR3 file and a Fuji RAF file and process them to all "look" the same. So there's no real substance there that you can't sweep aside -- make your own photographs.

3. Once you have enough resolution there's really little benefit to more. It's overkill. Someone will always come along and say, but what if you need to make a print the size of your house? People who make wall size prints and then walk up to them and stick there noses in them to see if they're sharp enough don't really care about the image, about the photograph. They have a problem. If you make a really large print and it's the photo that matters, you stand back an appropriate distance to view it. The bigger it gets the farther back you stand and the resolution requirement doesn't go up. You don't need 100 megapixels, you don't need 50. I have three different resolutions available in my cameras now. I have a 20 megapixel 1" sensor camera, 25 megapixel APS sensor cameras and a 45 megapixel FF camera. The camera I use most is the 20 megapixel because it's a compact and fits in my pocket -- where I go it goes. I never encounter a situation where that 20 megapixels isn't enough resolution. I have the other cameras because I need them to work with my lenses. I'd be happy if they were all 20 megapixels. For me, my 24 megapixel APS Fuji is the sweet spot and I see no reason to ever need more.

I posted a photo below. It's old (2001). Posted here it's reduced to an appropriate forum display size. The original will make an acceptable 13x19 inch print. I have it printed 14x17 and it's hanging on the wall behind me right now (my wife liked it). It would be nice if the original had a little more resolution but it's adequate as is. The digital camera that 23 years ago took that photo was a 4 megapixel camera.

 

[cgw]

Amen...Amusingly frequent posts here about the absolute necessity for top-shelf/top-of-the line/just-dropped gear for anyone "serious" about photography. The sensor-size "arms race" comes to mind. 16-24mp APS-C sensors work for me, thanks. So do Fujinon lenses and those cheap, plasticky, Chinese-made, pin-sharp Nikkor G primes.

 

[Marc Hildebrant]

Interesting discussion.

I recently purchased a Canon EOS-90D to replace my Canon Rebel xTi. The new Canon has many new features that I most likely will not use as I prefer to shoot in RAW. I do believe that the sensor has been improved from the 2006 technology to the 2019 for the camara.

The increase in the number of pixels and the improvement in sensor electronics were what motivated me for the new camara, along with a new revised interest in Photography for me.

Marc

 

[webestang64]

I went shopping for the lenses

That is all that counts since the dawn of the medium for "best" quality. Sames goes for enlarger lenses.

Next comes film/sensor.

Manufacture name is mostly irrelevant as it is with automobiles these days.

 

[cgw]

Interesting discussion.

I recently purchased a Canon EOS-90D to replace my Canon Rebel xTi. The new Canon has many new features that I most likely will not use as I prefer to shoot in RAW. I do believe that the sensor has been improved from the 2006 technology to the 2019 for the camara.

The increase in the number of pixels and the improvement in sensor electronics were what motivated me for the new camara, along with a new revised interest in Photography for me.

Marc

Fair enough. Still, "trailing edge" gear a few years old is often a stone cold bargain. Actually happy some worry about dying in their sleep not owning what's newest. They're always trading stuff in! Lucky us!

 

[smoke665]

Put your money where it counts. The last time I decided to adopt a new camera system I did precisely what Jim taught me; I went shopping for the lenses

This^^^ I have a range of glass at various price points. Barring the occasional exception the higher dollar glass is better.

you're going to save and process raw data files (you should if possible) all the facade the camera makers hype about look and color, the Nikon look, Canon colors, Fuji film simulations, etc.

This^^^ I'm not a fan of the manufactures "take" on color. Not knocking Fuji here but I didn't care for Fuji Color when it was film, but that's my personal taste. i procees my Raw files to my standards.

Once you have enough resolution there's really little benefit to more. It's overkill

Maybe....but what's enough for you may not be for someone else. There are certain advantages to MF like greater tonal detail, and light gathering ability.

Manufacture name is mostly irrelevant as it is with automobiles these days.

Again maybe. All manufacturers have good and bad years/models. I went from a Pentax K1000 to a Pentax ZX-M. What a letdown, I went from a camera built like a tank to plastic junk.

@cgw there will always be those who view the satisfaction from a journey based on what they're riding in, and those whose satisfaction comes from what they see along the way. Had friend several years ago showed up with a new "Top of the line" camera. Started quizzing him on its features, he gave me a puzzled look and said he didnt know anything about that, he only bought it because it was really expensive, looked cool, and he thought it would take better pictures on full Auto.

 

[Marc Hildebrant]

cgw,

My "new" camara was introduced 5 years ago. Not clear when trailing technology starts, but 5 years isn't recent.

Still learning about this camara which is enjoyable.

Marc

 

[ClintLloyd]

I think the ability to crop is the most attractive aspect of a high resolution camera rather than the ability to print billboards. As a landscape/street/portrait camera where there's minimal cropping if any, I'd be more than happy with a 33mp A7IV or even a 24mp model. In actual fact I run my A7RV in M Raw 26mp for people shots as the full resolution is just too much detail for my liking.

But seeming that I'm an awful panner, 60mp definitely comes in handy for sports and wildlife as I can do quite a large crop and still be left with plenty of resolution. It's a nice luxury to have as it gives me a sense of security in certain situations.

 

[Marc Hildebrant]

Ysarex,

That is a great picture you posted. Much post processing?

Marc

 

[Ysarex]

Ysarex,

That is a great picture you posted. Much post processing?

Marc

Thanks, very little. That was my first digital camera. A 4 megapixel Sony S-85. It only saved JPEGs. The biggest post adjustment I made was to correct the sky color -- little contrast boost and sharpened. It's nearly uncropped, slight crop off the bottom.

 

[Ysarex]

Maybe....but what's enough for you may not be for someone else. There are certain advantages to MF like greater tonal detail, and light gathering ability.

Sure different folks will draw their own line higher or lower but we're definitely into the range of overkill with all those aspects.

Greater tonal range: Yep the medium format Hassy has two thirds of a stop more DR than my FF Nikon. So what would that be worth to me? Well my FF Nikon has more than two stops of DR over my 1" sensor compact. And my 1" sensor compact (Canon G7) has more than enough for all but the most extreme cases. That puts me way past the point where the price/performance curve stopped being a curve and it's just a straight line going up. My Canon G7 cost $500.00 and it delivers more than enough tonal range 99% of the time. How much is more than more than enough worth?

Noise and low-light: Yep, the larger sensor area = less noise. But it's the same price/performance curve at least for me. I don't get any noise in my photos now so I don't really need less than none. How much is less than none worth?

The photo below taken at Jefferson Barracks was taken with my Canon G7 1" compact that has three stops less DR than the medium format Hassy. That's white grave markers in direct sunlight backlit. That's extreme high contrast lighting and my G7 handles it with ease. The photo wasn't planned in anyway, my wife and I visit occasionally and walk there. I just had my G7 with me because I always have it with me -- fits in my pocket. If I owned a medium format Hassy it wouldn't have been there. If it had been there it wouldn't really have done much better because everything the Hassy has that my G7 doesn't would be overkill for the photo.

 

[smoke665]

The photo below taken at Jefferson Barracks was taken with my Canon G7 1" compact

Posting comparison images at web resolution is somewhat like comparing a VW and a Lamborghini going down the road side by side at an idle. You wouldn't spend the money on a Lamborghini unless you intended to step on the gas, and I wouldn't spend the money on a Hassy unless I needed the better camera. Not knocking the G7, but what do you think the response would be if you walked on the set of a major commercial shoot with it?