I came across this article as I was looking over the new Photography News section and it made me stop and think. They are referencing a video by James Popsys, and I haven’t looked at the video, so take that as a caveat to my comments.
Maybe I’m unusual, but I don’t compare cameras for quality unless they are almost identical.
Two of the cameras in particular got compared; one medium format and the other full frame 35mm. That difference is what I’m talking about.
The first was the Leica Q3 43
And the other was the Hasselblad X2 100C
Now, my first question is, why would I compare cameras with two different sensor sizes to see which is better? That doesn’t make sense to me. Megapixels are not the same but even if they were, its apples and oranges; the Hasselblad has a much larger sensor. Thats not a fair comparison ever, in my mind.
Next of course you can look at their heavenly prices, and on that playing field they are close, but again, thats not a measure of anything qualitative; these two cameras are exquisitely fine pieces of photographic kit. There isn’t a quality deficit anywhere that I can see.
So, if one were to go pixel peeping, I’m sure there’s some measure to separate them, and again, I don’t know if thats what Popsys did, I still don’t know the value of comparisons like that.
If you were shopping for a camera, would this ever be a comparison you’d make?
“In my opinion”….Unless you know and understand the capabilities of both cameras inside and out, how could anyone possibly determine which is best? Latest and most expensive is not always determines which is best. The type of photography and subject matter you are targeting, should prioritize your preferences.
This is the kind of thing that I think is much better as a discussion than a one way video.