vandit

<p>As an addendum, i just noticed that the OP has mentioned he is a perfectionist. </p> <p>I dont know in what sense he is using that term, but if his sense of perfectionism includes indulging in the sort of exercise posted a page or 2 earlier (shooting buildings and then looking at the photos at 100% for technical imperfections), then i concede that my advice is going to mostly irrelevant (I only look at 100% to see if the focus is correct. I have never in my life checked corner sharpness of any photo. Etc. etc.). </p> <p>Following the advice of the more technical-oriented members may be a better option, in that case.</p>

<p>"I guess Ansel Adams was amiss taking his seminal photographs of Yosemite with an 8x10 view camera."</p> <p>Really? You think that one example of a person shooting large format, back in the era when the technology gap was much larger, is a sufficient answer? </p> <p>What about all the many superb landscape photos that have been produced after that, with 35mm cameras - would, say 5 Nat Geo photographers shooting 35mm be equal to 1 Ansel shooting LF? What about the fact that the gap between the various small-format cameras in 2016 is orders of magnitude lower than the gap between LF and 35mm back in those days? </p> <p>Your statement esseentially only males the point that back in the days of Adams, there was a significant gap in technical quality between large format and 35mm. I am at a loss to understand how that is relevant to this discussion today, other than an attempt to take things out of the context of this discussion and make this into a photographic version of a debate on how many angels can dance on a pinhead. </p> <p>I reckon Moonlight over Hernandez would be just as amazing if it was shot with a 16MP Fuji or a 42mm Sony or a Canikon in 2016. The additional megapixels of a Sony isnt what would make it better, but the composition and Adam's post-processing. </p> <p>And I will repeat: I have yet to see a photo, either on Photo.net or elsewhere, where i have felt "ooh, this is a great shot, but an additional 10 megapixels would taken it from good to great"</p> <p>If you feel differently, that is fine. You are entitled to your beliefs and your 20lb backpack - there is no need to go about trying to prove that your opinions are objectively better. </p>

<p>Interesting thread - I recently decided to get a Fuji system as an alternative to carrying a Canon system for general photography, precisely b/c i found that carrying even a 17-40, 24-105 and 70-200 around all day was too much work. </p> <p>So I ended up with a Fuji XT1, 16/1.4, 23/1.4 and a 35/1.4. </p> <p>I opted for Fuji b/c of the way it is set up - as a camera, not an electronic box. I like having all the controls at my fingers, instead of looking at the menu, and while i havent quite acquired the same swift reflexes with the Fuji as I do with the Canon, i am a lot closer than with other cameras.This isnt my first tryst with MLCs - I had a Panasonic GF1 when it first came out. Gave it away b/c it was about as ergonomic as dried dog-poop. The camera was an impediment to seeing photos.</p> <p>And honestly, I see the same issue with the Sonys (well, that and the fact that a comparable Sony FF MLC kit isnt appreciably lighter than a DSLR kit). I am sure they are technically great - but ergonomically, they are lacking. And all the resolution and measurements and specs in the world are meaningless if you end up fighting the camera when you are taking prints. And yes, i realize that someone else may find the Sony to not be as much of an ergonomic disaster as me - if so, have at it.<br /><br /><br> Re resolution - no one is arguing that more resolution is better, helps with cropping, etc. etc. But I'll also submit to you that no otherwise-great photograph has ever failed b/c of a lack of resolution in the details. The aesthetic elements of a photograph are what matter - every single time. Sure, all else being equal, more megapickles are always nice to have. But all else is rarely equal. Give me a camera that fits my shooting style and gets out of the way, and i have a tool that actively helps my photography - the less time i spend fumbling with the camera, the more time i can spend on my subject.</p> <p>I actually had no idea how many megapixels the XT1 had when i bought it. I have an X100 (the original) and i dont know how many megapixels it has either. I dont care. And i am not a tech-hating Luddite, btw - I just think that at this stage of technology, megapixels are more or less irrelevant. </p> <p>So all of this is a long-winded way of repeating that old wisdom - go handle the cameras and pick the one that feels best in your hands (that's also what helped me pick the XT1 over the XT10 and the EM-Ds). </p>

<p>There is no point buying a camera based on specs or lens resolution tests - in the real world, it is going to make no noticeable difference (no one ever looked at a photo and said "great shot, but it would have been better if you shot it with lens Y instead of lens X). <br> If you are shooting wildlife, you should care about AF speed. For street, landscapes and travel - pretty much any camera these days is going to be competent enough.<br> So buy whichever camera feels best in your hands, and whose interface/working quirks suit your shooting needs. <br> I could never shoot with that Sony - it feels like an electronic gadget, not a camera and for whatever reason, that comes in the way of my photography. So i went with a Fuji system last week: was planning to get the XT10, but that was too small in my hands, so XT1 it was. Lens resolutions, image quality pixel peeping, etc - none of these even remotely entered into my equation.</p>