joer wrote:
My previous response is not fair. Sorry about that.
No Problem.
joer wrote:
1. I have no way to dispute the numbers nor would I want to. I'm just saying that they should be taken with a grain of salt. The numbers are generated in Raw with everything turned off. Not indicative what the camera is capable of.
Well, the numbers are pretty well indisputable and it's quite wrong to take them "with a grain of salt". The DxO numbers give a very clear indication of Sensor performance which will be reflected in performance whether in Raw or, as you put it, "everything turned off"; but then you are talking "post processing" which is a whole other can of worms.
joer wrote:
2. I have a GX7 and an E M1. Even though they are rated widely different I don't see much difference in my use of them.
In what way are they rated widely different? The two cameras are rated overall at 70 and 73 which is quite close with the newer Olympus Sensor having the slght edge but as you so rightly say, the difference will be marginal in use.
joer wrote:
3. Light is what makes the photo. Even poor lenses have sweet spots where they are competitive with expensive lenses.
Forgetting the remark about light for the moment and looking rather at the lens comment, it is true that a lens will have an aperture whereof it delivers it's best performance; in Landscape photography and using a tripod which allows full access to any aperture you like, the best performance possible can be extracted from the lens. It becomes a different kettle of fish if that aperture can't be used at the time the image is taken and that will be the majority of the time, I suspect. Regardless, a top quality lens will always deliver a better performance than these "poor" lenses you describe. If that were not the case there would be little point, as I said before, in stumping up for that Summilux you desire.
joer wrote:
4. Using the camera to its best advantage and post processing makes all the difference in the photograph.
Who would disagree with this? It is indisputable that a skilled Photographer and PP expert will always produce a superior end result to that of the masses. I'm sure that most visitors here aspire to such lofty heights and I am no exception.
joer wrote:
4. I can easily make up for a lens that is less sharp than another. You can dispute this if you like but it is what it is, at least to me.
No you can't and neither can I! If you were to take the same image, one with your "poor" lens and one with a "quality" lens and then process both with your superior PP skills, there would be an obvious difference.
You are totally mixing up what is achievable with good equipment and what is achievable with superior Photography/PP skills. It is quite possible for a skilled Photographer to take a good image with poor equipment but not the reverse. The best equipment makes for even better images given the right skill set.
There is also the question of what equipment lies within your budget and what is "good enough" for a particular user. I don't want to give the impression that I'm disparaging of consumer level glass, I have used plenty of it in the past and it was "good enough" for me at the time.