In my many ramblings on cameras and photography (or arguments, when Canon/Nikon sycophants are involved), I have always stuck to 2 main points:
1: The 1940s flappy mirror box design (DSLR) is ancient tech that is marketed by old men for old men, and it’s holding back imaging technology.
2: Sensor size and megapixel count don’t matter if they’re not optimized. It’s all about getting as much light as possible onto that sensor to make the most of its size.
So, more megapixels means less light per pixel, and a larger sensor with fewer megapixels captures more light and detail than a sensor twice its size.
With the ever increasing push for high megapixels in both the full-frame and APS markets, there were really no options for low-light performance or image quality that warranted the almost exponential price and size premiums over the smaller Micro Four Thirds system cameras (like the Panasonic Lumix GH4).
Armchair enthusiasts point to reviews and beat their chests about this, but real world experience has told me that unless your photography requires that extra 5% of performance that the highest-end (double-sized and triple-priced) DSLRs provide, anything bigger than the Micro 4/3 sensor was a waste… Until Now....
No comments:
Post a Comment