Or better yet, stay out of threads you don't find interesting, so that those who do find the topic interesting can find the information they have an interest in without having to wade through a bunch of arrogant pomposity. Some of you act like members of a 1960's-era Mississippi country club whining about women, blacks, and Jews wanting to become members.
Good point, Jonathan. You sometimes make them .
Photography is full of general statements such as, 'this lens is better, sharper etc than that, "this camera body or DB is better, sharper, produces creamier images etc. that that'.
Some of us want to know just how much better
? Is it significant? How significant is it, and in what circumstances?
Is any apparent improvement in image quality due principally to the quality of the MF lenses used; or perhaps circumstances which allow for more accurate focussing; or perhaps it's the case that any apparent improvement is just due to the innate skill and artistic eye of the photographer being displayed in the MF image because successful photographers usually get the most expensive equipment available? To what extent does different post processing affect the result?
Just as police corruption is best not
examined and reported upon solely by the police, such issues cannot reasonably be expected to be adequately resolved by MF users with invested interests to protect.
The problem is, I for one am not going to buy a terribly expensive set of MF gear, including DB, MF body and lenses, in order to make such comparisons.
I rely upon MFDB owners who also happen to own a 1Ds3 to make such comparisons, and as I've already written, that's a bit like expecting the Police Force to report on its own corruption.