| Joined: | Wed Apr 18th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4186 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Historically better equipment meant weight, bulk, expense. We each pitched our stake according to what we were able or prepared to afford. Weight didn't matter back when our hair had colour!
But digital advances have moved the goalposts such that we can now afford commensurately higher quality equipment and increasingly, at more acceptable weight. The problem is that there still isn't a perfect blend of ergonomics, weight, price at the best IQ....the holy grail of photgraphy. When someone comes up with it, there will be a shed load of takers....and DSLR deserters!
I am not sure having super sensors that give 3x better results than current will be significant...unless the method of viewing demands it.
I rarely print photos these days. Primarily because I don't have places to display them....there aren't that many places around to display them...but more honestly the desire or need to display them is diminished. Most photos these days are personal images, which can be shown to relatives (who have any interest) on an iPad.
For me, the IQ is acceptable in most bodies these days. The issues with lighter bodies that need addressing are ...ergonomics and performance.
____________________
Eric