Exactly, yes, that is my question. I have experience in seeing what an increase in sensor size can accomplish. But I have no experience in upgrading lenses. In other words: how would my Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II fixed lense compare with an interchangeable lens on a camera body with comparable size sensor? Based on the answers that I am receiving, I am beginning to conclude that my fixed lense may be pretty good. No company makes a full frame fixed lense but if they did then, based upon the answers that I am receiving, that would be my next purchase and I am wondering why and I am wondering what is gained from using interchangeable lens other than super zoom for shooting a bird or something?

I have noticed :-) My first was a 1 megapixel Kodak in 1998. I didn't even know about image editing software. Some of the photos were very bad but everyone was amazed because, for the first time, people could look inside a home without having to physically go. After a while, I discovered Paint Shop Pro and began to be able to battle some of the biggest problems. I am sure that nothing will ever match the degree of upgrade that discovering image editing software achieved for me. About 2005, I purchased a .28 wide angle Cannon S70. The wide angle and increased megapixels was a big improvement. About 2010, I purchased a .24 wide angle Samsung TL500 with fully articulating LCD. Particularly in photographing kitchens, this was a big improvement as I can hold it over my head and better show countertops and flooring. I can hold a camera over my head right into one corner of a bedroom. Up until a few years ago, MLS systems greatly deteriorated photos and imposed a 640 x 480 limit. Under that circumstance, composition can be emphasized but image quality is lost.

I have since upgraded to Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II. It does a good job and allows me to lighten shadow. But none of my analysis has considered lens quality. All of my cameras have been fixed lens.

Current camera is a Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark II. Specs: Sensor size 1.5″ , 24–120 mm, tilting LCD, Maximum aperture F2.0 - F3.9.

The angle is wide enough for most rooms except small bathrooms. I don't like the way that very wide angles highlight the foreground. I am happy with 24.

My real question is how do fixed lens compare, pertaining to image quality, to interchangeable lens?

I really appreciate this forum; teaches me about things that I didn't know I didn't know. I have come to understand that sensor size correlates to image quality; full frame is superior to smaller sizes. But I don't know much about lenses. As a realtor, I have always used high end point and shoots and my current model has a four thirds size sensor . For compositions purposes, I value the tilting/articulating view finder. I am surely not a professional photographer but I am a professional home shower and I believe that my knowledge of Buyers has led me to appreciate proper view finders that enable me to shoot down on kitchen counters and shoot under tree limbs in a way not possible with a tripod. But I am starting to realize that interchangeable lens cameras also have tilting/articulating views and image stabilization. So my question is: What is gained from using interchangeable lens in terms of image quality? I can see the improvement in my last upgrade; from 1/1.7 to four thirds sensor size. The images are better and I have much better fill light capability in post processing.

In the last year or two, I have noticed some high quality images in the MLS listings. These are high value properties and I believe that they are professionally done. The compositions and the angle selections are poor, in my opinion, but the image quality is better than my camera can produce. I wonder: How much of the difference is because the professional uses a better quality lens, or because they use a larger sensor, or perhaps skill?

I see, good to know. What about tilting viewfinder? I often take photos from above my head or around my knees.

What about image stabilization? Whenever I look at specs of interchangeable lens cameras, I don't see image stabilization. I don't want to use a tripod. My PowerShot G1X Mark II has image stabilization and a 1.5" sensor.

nice photos; nice property!

I like to use "Fill Light". Otherwise, "getting it right in the camera" would require bringing in lighting for interior shots and, of course, would not be possible for exterior shots.

Every detail of your post describes me as well. I have always used PSP for 15+ years and have always wondered if my photos would be better with PS. One thing that I have noticed over the years is that as the cameras improve the less processing I do. As a realtor with a point and shoot taking photos of houses in the early 2000s, I would rely greatly on post processing to remove shadows. And then I would do some other things. The software contributed mightily to the final presentation. But now, I like to use the fill light tool a little but most of the rest is good for me.

Adjust Fill Light/Clarity is the tool that I most use. Maybe a little New Brightness/Contrast; maybe a little New Vibrancy. Interior shots might need White Balance. I run a script to resize and lightly apply Unsharp Mask. For some reason the "New" tools must be used last. Sometimes Local Tone Mapping is good. Right click on the top banner and select "Customize"; drag and drop your preferred tools on to one of the various work areas. Drag and drop the ones that you don't use back to the "Customize" box.

My first camera was a one megapixel Kodak in the late 90s. I used Paintshop way back then. Photo editing made a massive improvment. But I have noticed over the years as my equipment has improved that the editing is not as important. They come out of the camera much better. To my eye, adding Fill Light is about the only thing now needed.

I am only a humble real estate agent who has learned some valuable knowledge on this forum. My skill and equipment is surely less than most posters here. I recently downloaded a free trial of corel aftershot 2 because of threads like this one. I must say after experimenting that I do better with jpeg. First of all, my raw shots must have the corners cropped out. I don't know why that it. Additionally, the raw shots have not been corrected for lens distortion. Yes, corel aftershot 2 has means to correct but I imagine that my camera jpeg output does a better job. Lastly, after I am done, I think the jpeg looks just as good or better.

My experimenting involved exterior shots. Perhaps if I had experimented with interior shots then I could have seen the increase in ability. But the need to crop the corners doesn't work will when photographing a kitchen while it is not much of a problem when photographing a house exterior.

These are from today in my yard near HW 281 just south of Marble Falls in Llano County. I'd say that these are in the beginning of peak bloom period. I haven't traveled anywhere but I am very close to perhaps the premiere stretch of Bluebonnet country - HW 16 from Llano to Fredericksburg. Since these volunteers in my yard are in peak season I imagine that the premiere stretch is also in peak season.

Yes, I use it at times. I am a Realtor and, of course, take mostly photos of property. Most of the shots that I take have a house with shadows or an interior that needs lightening. I use mostly "Fill Light" followed by a little other tweaking. But sometimes, as with the photos below, I do prefer to use the Perfectly Clear plugin.

PaintShop Pro is not very expensive and the plugin comes with it, so, it is probably just a small portion of the whole program that you are asking about.

My Corel PaintShop Pro X6 came with an Alentech Perfectly Clear plugin. It can be found under "Effects" and then "Plugins". I use it some, mostly on landscapes.

I had forgotten about Jasc. But I remember now, I guess that I had about the same program; probably 14,15 years ago. My camera, and cameras in general, were weak back then. It needed MUCH more PP help than have subsequent cameras. Getting that Jasc thing at least brought the images out of the shadows. But all of the tools and choices was overwhelming! After all of these years and updates, currently Pro X6, I have a procedure developed; a procedure that changes with each new camera. For example with my last camera I used "clarify" and "high pass sharpening" a good bit. But with my Canon g1 x mark ii, a lot of what I used to do make the image appear worse. My current procedure is to adjust white balance on interior shots, use fill flash to lighten up shadow, a little "unsharp mask" after re sizing. "clarify" has had a name change to "Local Tone Mapping" and a new "Adjust Fill Light/Clarify" has been added. "Adjust Fill Light/Clarify" is what I currently use the most. I didn't know that there was a book. I should get it.