Sensor Size Does Matter

Discussion in 'Open Gear Talk' started by soundimageplus, May 9, 2011.

  1. soundimageplus

    soundimageplus SC Top Veteran S.C. Charter Member

    578
    Jul 6, 2010
    Camera choice is a very personal thing, and we all use what suits us within the financial constraints (or otherwise) that we have. If we buy a camera because it looks good or because it makes photography simple for us, that is a perfectly legitimate choice. But what if that choice involves the use of what is generally perceived to be a inferior and non-serious piece of equipment, i.e. a micro sensor compact? And what if we are then offered the opinion that such a camera / sensor combination is actually superior in many ways and that the more expensive and better cameras that we cherish and desire are only marginally better than what many of us regard as a "point and shoot". This is my personal response to the recent post on this subject.

    In a forum / website about Serious Compacts, some products are perceived to be more serious than others, and this can often relate to the size of the sensor. Small or micro sensor compacts have a substantially smaller imaging area than Micro Four Thirds or the APS-C sensor sized compacts such as the Sony NEX, Samsung NX100, Leica X1 and Fuji X100. These are generally perceived to provide better image quality, better high ISO performance and better dynamic range. This of course doesn't imply that the aesthetic quality or importance of the image is any higher, but the general perception is that a larger sensor, all other things being equal, is capable of recording more detail, with less noise and the capacity to handle a wider range of tones.

    To all intents and purposes this is true. I don't know of a single test or example that says anything to the contrary. While under certain circumstances, usually at base ISO, in good light and with a non-problematic composition, it can be difficult to see much difference between a high quality small sensor image taken with a good lens at its optimum aperture, and an image taken with a larger sensor, when viewed at small sizes. But a difference there is, and it can be seen clearly at 100% on any decent computer monitor. Go up the ISO scale and this difference becomes more apparent. If a micro sensor was capable of comparatively similar results to an APS-C sensor, then why would manufacturers choose to design the latter? There would be little point.

    I'd love a good quality small sensor compact camera. I still hanker after the results I got with my Olympus E-10. Seemingly infinite depth of field and a nice sharp image. However 3.97MP and a 10.8MB file just isn't enough these days. It probably wasn't when I used it, but with a bit of interpolation, I managed to convince myself it was. However there's no denying that the files printed and published very nicely, provided of course that nobody blew them up too much. In the hope of getting something better than that, I've looked at endless samples and even bought a couple of examples. The last being a Leica D-LUX3. Surely this will be good I told myself, but after getting the images on the screen I was almost in tears at the featureless mess that appeared before me. And then I looked at the jpgs!! From time to time a "super-compact" appears. Samsung and Olympus are the latest to come up with one of these. I eagerly look at the samples, imaging the light-gathering possibilities of an f/1.8 lens and the incredible depth of field I'll get at the same time. But no, there it is again, the lack of detail, the blown highlights, the over active noise reduction, the overall "processed" look that I find so dispiriting.

    Micro Four Thirds changed everything for me. I bought a G1 in a last desperate attempt to avoid buying a Leica, so that I could have a light, small high quality camera without living on bread and water for a year. Eureka! I found it. I was, and still am, mightily impressed with what Panasonic came up with. (The Leica avoidance exercise didn't work however, as I still bought one, and kept the G1, which actually persuaded rather than dissuaded me to buy the Leica!) I couldn't believe that this kind of quality was possible in something so small. Though to be realistic, it was the removal of the SLR mirror that made the difference. All this and interchangeable lenses. Since that day I've gone SCC (small camera crazy) and Sony, Olympus and Samsung as well as Panasonic, models come and go on a regular basis.

    In the meantime, the smaller stuff kept on coming. The LX4, that must be good? Well no. The LX5, this has to be it. Well the pictures kind of look like the LX4 pictures did. I must admit I find looking at images taken with these cameras quite depressing. Trying to see a blade of grass in the green blotchy mess at the bottom of the picture is not easy. At small sizes they look quite promising, but as I keep hitting the Apple + keys they just keep getting worse.

    Of course not everybody wants the same level of resolution or detail that I do. The popularity of camera phone images testifies to that. But I'm a photographer, not only is it my passion, its my job. I want to see something that approximates to what I saw out there in the world and I've never seen a micro sensor image that yet does that for me.

    The often given reason for the popularity of these small sensor cameras, is that they are easy, or simple to use. And popular they are, outselling everything else by quite some margin. Point and shoot has become a favoured term. But are they that easy? Try taking a picture indoors without some (usually useless) flash gun popping up, rendering all those you know and love as extras in a zombie movie. The ones that take raw files usually provide enough time between pictures to let you get on and finish defrosting the fridge, which usually comes in handy at shrinking your fingers to a size so that you can actually change a setting. And then of course they are pocketable.

    Why anyone would want to put a camera in a pocket eludes me. I know whats been in some of mine, and I certainly wouldn't want to put my camera in there! Even in the ones I'm not ashamed of there's dust, money, keys, last nights pizza etc. etc. There's also this notion that we're supposed to be photographers. Why we would want to hide the thing we love baffles me. Everybody walks around with their mobile phones on show, whats wrong with a camera? Are we ashamed of them? There are also these modern inventions called straps and cases but I suppose thats a bit radical for some.

    In the last few years we've seen the emergence of the Super Serious Compact, usually at super serious prices. The Olympus Pens aren't cheap and then there's the Leica X1 and the Fuji X100. Heavy duty image quality, but a few operational issues. However they are pretty small. Even pocketable if you moonlight as a poacher. So why are they so expensive? With Leica you're paying for the name as well as whats inside the thing. And you're paying for top of the line image quality. Say what you like about the slow focusing, lack of viewfinder and pointless manual focusing option, it takes a damn good snap. So much so that Getty Images "allowed" it to go on their approved camera list. They don't do this lightly, and a camera has to be thoroughly tested before it gets their seal of approval. And then there's the Fuji X100.

    Its difficult to talk about the new love of my life. Remarks (unkind I must say) have been made about just how long my "infatuations" last, but this is the real thing. (Really!!) I've sold four cameras already and another three are on ebay, all because of this little wonder. The image quality of a Nikon D3 in a small, incredibly gorgeous package. I have never enjoyed using a camera so much and what makes it so special is that the images are so stunning. The best image quality I've seen in any camera apart from my Leica M9. Accurate AF, though not the fastest, the most amazing viewfinder I've ever used and unbelievable high ISO performance. Can a small sensor compact compete with this, well of course it can't. If anyone thinks it can, they need a new monitor or an eye test or both.

    And yet despite all the plastic finishes, the plastic lenses and the plastic images, compact micro sensor cameras still have their fans amongst serious photographers. I applaud their courage and their determination to coax a viewable picture out of these little devils and though to me it seems easier to offer a sticking plaster to a stone they are undaunted. Turning your back on sharpness, resolution, a decent dynamic range, a decent lens and the ability to take a picture that you can decipher at higher than ISO 400 takes guts as far as I'm concerned. The same guts it takes to say " Mmm… this Mcdonalds Burger is tasty" or "The Nissan Micra is a decent car you know"

    Personally, I just can't see it. Neither can I see the point. Yes these cameras are perceived to be easy to use, but to what end? If you're happy with the results, then fine, I've no problem with that, unless you try to persuade me that they can do the job as well as a camera with a larger sensor. Yes the best camera you have is the one you have with you, but why not give yourself a head start by taking one out that gives you the best quality you can afford. And yes it may require a little more work to get the results, and no it may not fit into your Lycra shorts (at least not without causing quite a stir!) but aren't you supposed to be a photographer? Don't you owe it to yourself and your subjects to do the best you can? We suffer enough dumbing down as it is, to voluntarily dumb down what we choose to take pictures on strikes me as virtually a crime. If convenience rather than quality is your thing, then I suppose thats a choice you have made, but I've never seen that as an option. Photography is the second most important thing to me after my family and the idea of not giving it my best shot (sorry!) is anathema to me. Using a micro sensor that is going to restrict me and disappoint me is not my idea of doing that and while I respect peoples choices I just wonder what they will think many years down the line when they look at their images and say "Was I really satisfied with that?"
     
    • Like Like x 11
  2. Lili

    Lili SC Hall of Famer

    Oct 17, 2010
    Dallas, TX
    Real Name:
    Lili
    When I shot film I gravitated to medium format for just the reasons you state. finally using Rolleiflex 2.8.
    That was the smallest camera with the B&W quality i could live with.
    Then film improved; a lot and I graduated to the Hexar AF.
    Fast, quiet and sharp.
    Not quite so good on textures and surfaces as the TLR but my vision had changed and the new camera suited it.
    I still appreciate acutance and smooth tonal transitions and found the films of the late 90's to provide that even in 35mm.
    My first digital was a Coolpix S5, it was small and terribly convenient but the results were...bleh
    I got the Ricoh GRD; the level of control and the bite of its B&W images grabbed me by the soul.
    I used that camera till it died.
    I still mourn it.
    Then I got a Pentax K100d Super and the image leapt of the screen at me. Very like my Rollei in crystalline beauty.
    [​IMG]
    But Pentax went mad on lens prices plus the portability issues and the fact that my first DSLR was a OM-1 that I loved (sold to get Rollei).
    led me to the e410 and 510 I still have.
    I adored both with the zooms but esp with the 25mm Zuiko.
    Fast handling and compact combination.
    Noisy at High ISO but superb IQ and in the case of the e510; excellent IBIS
    [​IMG]
    Still it was just a touch much to carry.
    I got the E-PL1 and fell in love with the little guy.
    The Zooms rock but with the 17mm it is an extension of my hand and eye like the e510 but easier to carry.
    [​IMG]
    (This was with the 14-42mm kit BTW).
    I had not planned on getting anything else, but I walked into Wolf Camera and met the XZ-1
    it was gorgeous.
    We all know the specs, I will not bore you with them.
    The draw...is different. As you say the smaller sensor does not handle the tiny textural details as well as my larger cameras.
    It is a palette i am still learning.
    Whereas my GRD was sketchpad dawn in pencil...this is one drawn in ink, like a high-quality graphic novel.
    and my Vision adapts...
    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 10
  3. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus S.C. Charter Member

    Jul 12, 2010
    Philly, Pa
    Lili,
    I just love having you here....
    your pal....Don
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Lili

    Lili SC Hall of Famer

    Oct 17, 2010
    Dallas, TX
    Real Name:
    Lili
    :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. BBW

    BBW Administrator Emeritus S.C. Charter Member

    Jul 7, 2010
    betwixt and between
    Real Name:
    BB
    I think when it comes to camera choice and use "everything is personal" is where it's at. So if a small camera sensor works for someone - go for it. However, I also think that if we were going to do a print comparison and we enlarged various cameras with their different sensor sizes that we'd definitely see a difference.

    Now beauty, interest and aesthetics are definitely personal.:drinks:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee SC All-Pro S.C. Charter Member

    Jul 8, 2010
    There are many reasons to love photography, perhaps as many as there are photographers. I do not understand how a different sized sensor can restrict one's vision and creativity and ability to capture the moment. I said the following only recently here on SC, but when recently reviewing some of my older pictures, most family, but more than that too, the IQ of the image mattered less. The picture itself mattered most. It may have been a quirky picture of my son or it may have been a picture from a photo walk, but in both cases they triggered memories of times past and things seen and things done. Over time that was what was important to me.

    Do not let the tool limit your ability to make art. Work with the tool at hand. Be resourceful and be creative with it. Try something new. Experiment.

    I'm sure that we've all seen the infamous picture of the situation room during the Bin Laden encounter. There was a lot to critique about that image - who was where, facial expressions, body stance - but one thing that stood out to me is how perfectly digital the picture looked. It has all of the qualities that you outline Soundimageplus that come from a large sensor, but it does not look like any of the presidential archive pictures I've seen from past presidents. Most are B&W, gritty, textured, and they make the job of the President look imperfect and a little rough on the edges. Somehow, that particular image does not look presidential to me.

    Nothing against sensor size - my GXR will run rings around my GRD3 - but there is a rendering involved in at least some small sensor cameras that is very appealing in and of itself. It's a little rough around the edges too, but sometimes more interesting than something large, pure and digital. I used to have a Canon 5D which I sold some years ago. I do not miss it. Other tools, most with small or medium sensors, work better for me and what I like to do with cameras.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. soundimageplus

    soundimageplus SC Top Veteran S.C. Charter Member

    578
    Jul 6, 2010
    It doesn't but thats not what I was writing about.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. BBW

    BBW Administrator Emeritus S.C. Charter Member

    Jul 7, 2010
    betwixt and between
    Real Name:
    BB
    Right, you definitely were not writing about that sensor size limiting one's vision or creativity, David. I hope that that last sentence and my post didn't lead the thread in that direction. I certainly didn't mean it to.
     
  9. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee SC All-Pro S.C. Charter Member

    Jul 8, 2010
    David, fair enough. I misunderstood your comments.

    I'll admit that most compacts disappoint me, but there are gems out there that can do serious work, "serious" being defined by the context of one's own work.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Janis

    Janis SC Regular

    145
    Nov 22, 2010
    Central Texas
    I think it depends on what you shoot. Sensor size matters to me because I want clean images even at high ISOs. I shoot a lot in low light and/or where I need a high shutter speed to freeze action. I rarely convert to B+W so I clearly see any noise and it really bugs me. I love the EPL-1 but feel constrained by not wanting to use it above ISO 400. I love being able to use higher ISOs with the NEX, but miss Oly colors, popup flash, viewfinder, and lens choices. I can practically shoot the D700 in the dark at ISO 3200, but it's a heavy burden to carry around. Still waiting for that perfect camera, and I'm pretty sure it will have at least an APS-C sensor!
     
    • Like Like x 3
  11. wolfie

    wolfie SC Veteran

    299
    Sep 19, 2010
    Nice to see someone who agrees that camera body compactness is not a virtue for endless indulgence: if a camera is worth having for any sort of serious photography, then for me, it should be a decent size to hold and operate comfortably while delivering DSLR image quality. I've been taking photographs to be published in magazines for 15 years plus and have learned that editors will ultimately choose content over IQ, but it has to be a heck of a shot to justify the extra effort the illustrations staff may put in to pretty it up. I'm convinced that the likes of micro 4/3 is the way ahead, yet I am still holding onto my K7 simply because there is no WR-rated compact system camera body or lens available that can see me safely around water,rain and sand. When that happens, I'll be dumping my DSLR and wont be looking back.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. Paul Giguere

    Paul Giguere www.paulgiguere.com

    97
    May 4, 2011
    Wayland, MA USA
    This is an interesting thread. While I agree that compact cameras using a small sensor can not compete with larger sensor cameras in terms of dynamic range, ISO range, etc., all of this should be considered to be on a spectrum rather than something that is black or white. Remember that cameras are just tools and that they should support your photographic vision. There are times when a DSLR is necessary because your vision requires the specific capabilities that such cameras can provide and there are times when a compact (or even a camera phone) will work for you. Some people require large format film cameras, others will use toy cameras, etc. I've seen plenty of stunning photos taken with compact cameras and plenty of bad ones taken with $3K DLSRs with a $2K lens (and vice-a-versa). Just because one has a full-frame sensor, have squeezed every bit of dynamic range out of the photo, and it's so sharp you can cut your finger on it doesn't mean that the photo is going to be good. Neither does using a small compact that is easy to use, always with you, etc. determine whether the photograph is any good. All of these features, capabilities, etc. are just one part of what makes a great photograph great. It also requires vision.

    This web site exists not to offer a counter against DSLRs and those who use them but to provide a place for photographers to discuss compact cameras and how they use them to achieve their photographic vision. The camera in some ways is irrelevant in my opinion. It should help you get the photos you want and not become a fetish object. I use the camera I do (a Ricoh GRD3) because it is the best tool to help me achieve my vision at this time in my photographic life but I'm in no way going to say it is better than anything else or the best camera for everyone. It works for me and the intended audience for my photos and when it no longer does, then I will find another tool (camera) that does. In the end, my photos have to stand on their own regardless of the type of camera I used.
     
    • Like Like x 11
  13. BBW

    BBW Administrator Emeritus S.C. Charter Member

    Jul 7, 2010
    betwixt and between
    Real Name:
    BB
    Amen, Paul, and I hope that is something we all have the wisdom to agree upon.
     
  14. Djarum

    Djarum SC All-Pro S.C. Charter Member Subscribing Member

    Jul 10, 2010
    Huntsville, AL
    Real Name:
    Jason
    Maybe I'm confused. After reading what you have posted, I'm having a hard time relating sensor size to what is your personal opinion about what good IQ is. Take the LX5. So the blades of grass are mushy. So is this because of the Panasonic Jpeg, lens, or other issues? I have seen jpegs of the Nikon D90 and up to 400, at 100 percent pixel peeping, there is nothing no more impressive about the pictures than my PEN. Yes, the images are better from 800 on up, no doubt. The Sony NEX system RAW files are pretty good. But I'm not a RAW shooter. Just looking at the GH2's RAW files vs the NEX 5 RAW files at 3200, I see very little, if any difference in resolution and noise.

    The point I think I'm trying to make, as a counter argument, is that larger sensors are inherently better, but are only one part of the equation when it comes to IQ. Lens Quality, anti-aliasing filter, supportive electronics, and for me, JPEG quality all make up the final resolution, noise characteristics, and dynamic range of the final image. Its not just about the larger sensor, it is about the implementation as well. I've seen RAW output of the NX100 camera of Samsung. I'd take the GH2 RAW files up to ISO 3200 anyday over the Samsung NX10 RAW files.

    Where the larger sensor does come into play is the Canon and Nikon implementation of the APSC and even Full Frame sensor. At the APSC side, they are at least one stop better in ISO than Samsung and the Sony NEX cameras.

    Now getting to the various camera types, I think we have to discuss how they are going to be used. Is an SLR required to post Facebook pictures? Not really. Heck, even an Iphone can do that. While taking pictures in low light situations can be frustrating, and is typically easier with a PDAF type system, a Point and Shoot for many people is much easier because they can get the camera into places sometimes an SLR can't go. But now we aren't talking image quality. The SLR will always take better images in all situations. Most of what I have read of the LX5 and S95 users is not that the image quality is as good as an SLR, but it is good enough for their purposes. In some cases, I've seen pixel peeped images of the LX5 that rival my PEN. Of course this is at lower ISOs.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  15. olli

    olli Super Moderator Emeritus

    Sep 28, 2010
    Metro Manila
    Real Name:
    olli
    Broadly agree with you but Canon and Nikon APS-C are not one stop better than NEX (can't comment on Samsung). Nikon may eke a little more out of the Sony sensors but overall there's nothing to choose between the most recent sensors implemented by Nikon, Sony or Canon.
     
  16. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee SC All-Pro S.C. Charter Member

    Jul 8, 2010
    I've been thinking about just this topic and considered opening a new thread on it (as in, out of all of the "pieces" that make up a camera system which do people prioritize over others). Most small sensor cameras have lenses that are compromises designed to accommodate either size, zoom focal length or some other factor. The small sensor uses what it gets from the lens - if the lens is not very good then the first piece of hardware in the chain is already decreasing IQ. I attribute the success I have with the Ricoh GRD3 small sensor camera because the lens is very, very good. The sensor is receiving a high quality signal.

    The "smallish" sensor Olympus E5 is an outstanding camera! Pair it with my amazing 14-35mm lens and it probably rivals anything else that I have ever owned, at least at base ISO. Sharp, detailed, amazing clarity, beautiful color, a sense of 3 dimensions... The new Olympus rendering engine works wonders. The sensor is the Panasonic sensor used in several other cameras, but those who have tested the E5 against them claim the E5 performs better as a system in regards to IQ.

    Returning to serious compacts, the Sigma DP cameras have outstanding lenses. Quirky to use, but IQ can be amazing. Now, in this case sensor design does make a difference. Not quite as large as APS-C or full frame, and fewer megapixels, but the Foveon sensor is unique and does things no Bayer sensor I have tried can do. It has limitations, but used within them the cameras can deliver stunning pictures!

    I guess I take sensor quality, small sensor or large sensor, for granted. Most of them can be very good. It's the pieces that surround it that I prioritize more: lens quality, physical camera design and ability work with the hardware and software to capture the pictures, and the rendering engine that processes the raw data in camera. And let's not forget the post processing software - even that matters in what kind of IQ we can squeeze out of a camera.
     
    • Like Like x 5
  17. soundimageplus

    soundimageplus SC Top Veteran S.C. Charter Member

    578
    Jul 6, 2010
    There's nothing there I would disagree with, because again, I'm not talking about the content of an image, or its intention, purpose or importance to the photographer. I was responding to the suggestion that micro sensor compact cameras can compete in terms of image quality with m4/3, NEX, X100 etc.

    "I use the camera I do (a Ricoh GRD3) because it is the best tool to help me achieve my vision at this time in my photographic life but I'm in no way going to say it is better than anything else or the best camera for everyone." The writer of the previous piece, that I was replying to, didn't just say that he preferred to use smaller sensor cameras because of what they offered him practically, but that there was pretty much no reason to use larger sensor cameras because there was no significant quality improvement.

    His original point was a good one, in that the camera that you use should neither dictate to you what you do with it, or that only certain cameras are suitable for certain kinds of photography. However he went further.

    Some of the phrases used were:-
    "Yes, the X100 can take outstanding low light images, but I think that under the majority of real world conditions, I actually get better low light images with a smaller sensor."

    "As a result, DxOMark says, small sensor cameras are beginning to catch up with large sensor cameras in terms of image quality."

    "The X100 and its peers deliver in this respect...... At screen resolutions, it can be hard to justify the difference in price and size compared to the XZ-1 or GRD."


    "I tend to use a DSLR for more serious shooting, technical shooting. A compact sits in my pocket as a backup or a walkabout camera. Viewed this way, the results are uncomfortably close between the ‘serious compacts’ and ‘super compacts"


    "Slow and inaccurate focus is a bit of a problem with all the super compacts. The large sensor is compounded by fast lenses that give shallow depths of field and show up focusing inaccuracy. Compare this to the Ricoh GRDIII. You can be very sloppy with the focus and the wide lens, and smaller sensor is more forgiving."

    In my piece I was questioning and challenging these statements.

    As far as I'm concerned people can use what they like to take pictures on, and I will continue to use what I use. However, I (and others) felt that if some of the statements were allowed to go unchallenged, then it could result in innacuracies and misinformation. A view on camera use is one thing but the piece went someway further than that.

    Whether micro sensor compacts are a useful tool for serious photography is another debate, and one I would certainly have a view on, but this isn't it.

     
    • Like Like x 4
  18. soundimageplus

    soundimageplus SC Top Veteran S.C. Charter Member

    578
    Jul 6, 2010
    I think thats a good idea, and one that would clarify a lot of things.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Andrewteee

    Andrewteee SC All-Pro S.C. Charter Member

    Jul 8, 2010
    David, OK, so we are reading too much into your original analysis, so we're not really being fair in responding to your points. But you do imply that small sensor cameras are essentially toys by equating them to McDonalds and cheap cars or by stating that photographers who use small sensor cameras are courageous. Just as you were responding to another article that you disagreed with, we agree with you that larger sensors will in most cases perform technically better, but we also believe that there is far more to a picture than sensor size, and in fact there are many reason to take a picture.

    One of the things I enjoy most about Serious Compacts is that people talk about gear, but they also, and perhaps more often (I don't have data to back that up - it's just my perception), talk about their own photographic experience and philosophy of photography, and they show and discuss their pictures. And I think that is what you are seeing in some of the responses, that you cannot isolate one technical component and claim that that alone makes a great picture. That there is far more to a picture than sensor size and quality.

    But I acknowledge your original intent and I understand that as a working photographer with clients your priorities are aimed differently than the serious enthusiast who takes pictures simply for their own satisfaction, where other priorities may have room to maneuver. I will try to remain on topic going forward :wink:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Paul Giguere

    Paul Giguere www.paulgiguere.com

    97
    May 4, 2011
    Wayland, MA USA
    I guess it all depends on what one considers to be "serious" photography. I'm sure there will be as many opinions on this definition as there are people on this site. Photographic wars have been, and still are being, fought over such definitions (professional vs amateur, serious vs non-serious) and I'm not sure it serves any purpose. If you purposely create photographs, that is you make photographs that promote a certain vision or perspective that go beyond the informal cataloging of your life and experience (snapshots come to mind but are in no way less important, particularly to the individual making them) then is that not "serious" regardless of what you use to capture the image?

    When I first found this web site, I took the title (SeriousCompacts) not to be used as a comparison to non-serious cameras (compact or otherwise) but rather as a statement for people who use these types of cameras to purposely create photographs. I suppose one could apply this to mean compact cameras that have manual control options (aperture, shutter priorities, manual exposure controls, etc.) but again, there are cameras that do not have that level of control and yet can be used to make "serious" photographs. Saying that only serious photographs can be made with only specific types of cameras misses the point (and no one has said this in this thread so I'm not quoting anyone here) because the definition of what is serious is being defined in this case by only a couple of very narrow factors (IQ and even status of the equipment). Yes there exceptions to this such as when a client requires a certain file size and quality but again, that gets back to using the best tool for the job.

    Great conversation :smile:
     
    • Like Like x 3