Sunday, February 01, 2009

Does size still matter?

Mike Reichman discusses quality, size, and price of cameras in the digital age.
"Today though, there is a direct link between image quality and price. Using the same lens a 1960's $200 Nikkormat and a $1,500 Nikon F would produce identical image quality. The camera itself hardly contributed to image quality. It was the type of film and especially the film format's size that mattered most.
This is definitely not the case when it comes to today's DSLRs. Continuing the Nikon analogy, a D40 and a D3x produce different image quality but are separated by more than an order of magnitude in price!
Now we get to the crux of the matter. How big is that image quality difference?"

1 comment:

Royce said...

The ACTUAL quality of the 'image' is produced by the eye of the photographer. It doesn't matter if you can't enlarge it to 8x10 because it's only a 3 megapixel image - if it's a great image - it will stand on its own.

I went to school (AIP) with Bob Brown, and he was a very decent guy. He had possession of a Rollei system - the WHOLE 2¼ system - and he had no imagination or concept of composition. We both went to school in Pittsburgh, PA at AIP and I became (already was) a photographer and he ran his families' catering business.

Now that the PITTSBURGH STEELERS won their 6th SUPERBOWL - I think that sets the stage for the comment about persistence...and NEVER SAY DIE.

As far as the human mind goes - what is thought, will be.

Always believe in your effort, your thoughts and dreams, and creativity.