radiojohn

OK, I really do get it. I know about inflation and I know that, adjusted for inflation, my entry-level, last year's model mirrorless camera (Olympus) at $299 sale price is actually cheaper than many film SLRs I bought in the 70's or 80's.

But I have to laugh when I see $1,000 off camera x. Even with that amount off, what remains it is far more than I want to pay. I'm not a working pro and that $299 Olympus with kit lens (and another longer Olympus zoom for $99) performs better than many of my higher end lenses of years gone by. This may be in part due to in-camera corrections via firmware.

So, the question is, will spending 5x or 10x the price get me that much more in terms of image quality (full frame, etc. vs 4/3rds)?

BTW, I've been down the road with Nikons, Leicas, a big honking Maymiya C330, a 'blad and more. I really liked my Rollei best of all.

Bill_de Loc: US

The answer no ... in most cases. There could be a time in a certain set of circumstances where you may say to yourself, I wish my camera had ...

After you get over the disappointment you will rejoice remembering all the money you saved.

--

BebuLamar

Adjusted for inflation the $3000 camera that was discounted $1000 was about the same price as the 35mm SLR I bought in 1977.
Any way paying 5x money for something generally you get less than 5x performance. So it's a bigger bang for the buck at the low end. But while the high end isn't 5x better it's definitely better than the low end and there are many of us need or want it.
Whatever you like is fine and you can laugh at people who spent a lot for their cameras.

radiojohn

I never laugh at people who spend more money on cameras, because I have been one of them. But the unbelievably clear EVF, the really fast focus and overall image quality of the "entry level" Oly stunned me.

I have left out of the mix video, but I realise a lot of the more expensive units are being used for 4K videos, etc. If I had a need for video for my work and tutorials, I would need a lot more expensive unit that accepts external mics, etc. So a high end mirrorless would kill two birds with one stone.

monroephoto

Speaking of discounts, have you seen the Canon EOS 5D sr at B&H Photo? Purchase price now $1,499 having applied over $2,000 in discount! I’m guessing the high resolution (50 mega pixels) and DSLR vs. newer mirrorless is fueling such a massive discount?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

It has never been the equipment, it is always about the skill level of the photographer. That said, the more expensive camera's are usually assigned to professional standards, the build is better, the shutter last longer, etc. etc.
I can put my Nikon 70-200 FL lens on a D7100 and get the same results as putting that lens on a D5 in undemanding environments.
On the other hand, if, as a pro, I had to shoot in the rain to get the shot, the D5 would last a lot longer than the D7100.
As far as FF goes vs. 4/3, I have been under the impression that the larger the sensor the larger the final image. But again, I might have been mistaken.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

" I have been under the impression that the larger the sensor the larger the final image."

Yes, the final image is larger with a bigger sensor. I have done enlargements up to 12x18 inches, my usual size when I enlarge, with files from my Olympus bodies and the resolution and details are there when I have done my part. I am completely sure I can enlarge much larger than that without loosing details.

One of the reasons why mirrorless offers sharper images resides in the fact that the back of the lens in use is pretty close to the focal plane, in this case the sensor. Vibrations from the mirror are eliminated since there is no mirror and their image stabilization is far better right now than what other cameras are offering. A great bonus is found in their sensor cleaning machine. In the more than 5 years that I have been using Olympus cameras I do not remember ever cleaning the sensor. I wish I could say the same of my Nikon bodies.

Bison Bud

At least to some degree, you get what you pay for, however, as prices go up the net gain in noticeable performance increase generally goes down. Once you reach a serviceable level of performance (which can be a very personal thing), gains made by new improvements are often small, but they do exist. If you want the newest and best equipment available, then you will pay a premium for it, but there's no guarantee that it will improve your images depending on what level you upgraded from in the first place and your skills as a photographer.

Anyway, there are many of us out here that drool over new offerings, but could never afford the expenditure needed. Instead, we try to find that optimum level of performance needed for our personal goals and often shop used or reconditioned equipment to save money. Just because a camera or lens is a few years old, doesn't mean it's lost any of it's capability. It's just that technology moves on and "New and Improved" is just about the oldest marketing strategy out there.

Frankly, if your Oly is working for you and it sounds like it is doing quite well, then I wouldn't worry about upgrading until you find that this system won't do something you need it to do. When and if this happens and if cost is still a big factor, then I'd take a look at used or reconditioned equipment. Otherwise, there are always new offerings to consider if you simply have to have new equipment. Good luck and good shooting to all.

Country Boy Loc: Beckley, WV

I think of it like buying a car. Even the least expensive vehicle will normally get you there and the most expensive vehicle may have extras in features but if you don't use or require them you are paying too much. Most people end up with something in between that meets their needs and makes them happy.
Only you will know what features you will miss if you don't have them - choose wisely and lots of luck on your purchase.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I was stunned yet again by the IS in my Oly m5 III. I was shooting in a museum, in a dark room, and through glass with no tripod and still got crisp shots.

User ID

Some users will find advantages are worth the expense. Others will pretend they found advantages. You may be content to forego advantages or you may find no advantages for your working style.

It’s obvious that basic user needs are the cheapest to serve and that icing on the cake tends to cost more than the cake itself. Really extra fancy decorative icing is the least return on cost, but for some celebrations only the ultimate will be appropriate.

I would comment on your price comparison. The problem of diminishing returns as price rises is real, but you further exaggerate it by including scavenger pricing. You bought a superseded low end model at close out. Forget that low price you paid. The lowest price you should use for comparison is the price of the new low end model that superseded yours. The result will still show an incredible increase to move up from the basic model. But it won’t be exaggerated to look even worse than reality. Reality is severe enough :-(

Price wise, if you bought a discontinued basic model, compare price to the also discontinued top shelf model ... NOT to the newest top model at its high intro price. Or ignore your close out bargain and compare the new basic model to the new top shelf model, both at their inflated early adopter pricing. Apples to apples.

LXK0930 Loc: Souh Jersey

When I was a teenager (back in the 1950's), I was in Peerless Camera (NYC), looking to buy my first 35mm camera (about $30).

At the counter was a gentleman buying a Contarex (I think about $600) for a trip. I remember the salesperson saying "OK, I have set all the controls. Just stand at least 10 feet away, with the sun over your shoulder. You should get excellent photos".

I am sure he really needed that Contarex for those difficult shots!

bleirer

Talking about the size of the image, It's about the pixel count I think, not really the size of the sensor. There are small sensor cameras with more pixels than some full frame cameras. Of course you can print any image any size, but the bigger you print the fewer pixels per inch you get.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

The biggest advantage is in shooting at higher ISO’s. My M4/3 takes great images but my FF blows it away in lower light.

LXK0930 Loc: Souh Jersey

When you say "sensor size", do you mean physical size or number of pixels.

Generally, larger sensor size means that each pixel is bigger, resulting in more vibrant images and less noise, but a bigger and heavier camera.

On the other hand, more pixels reduces image quality, but allows you to make larger prints or tighter cropping.

Naturally, a physically large sensor with lots of pixels gives you the best of both worlds, plus a much lighter wallet!

However, remember that other factors are equally important, especially lens quality, processing engine, and other features, such as IS/VR.