The heavier the better.
- If the system is heavy enough to keep the photographer at home,
if he/she is not really in the mood to take images that's good.
- If the system is heavy enough to force the photographer to really look at the scene,
feel and explore it and deeply think about composition, viewpoint, depth of field, color and light and
not to forget the message and care about each single image as much as possible that's good.
- If the system is heavy enough to keep the photographer from taking a crappy scene because its not worth the hassle that's good.
P.S. Going out now and pointing my photocopier along with a diesel aggregate at some random crap for sheer fun.
This is so damn right: my best photos so far come from my Mamiya RZ67 system whit no prism finder.
I will now make a statement and question, I'm newbie on image quality, and a photographer professionally for just 5 years. But i really don't understand why everybody use the D800 as comparison meter. I own a d800 with a nice park of prime lens, i calibrate it with color passport and do my work on C1. I also own a Leaf Valeo 22.
The Valeo is 10 ( ! ) years older technology, super low to sensibility to light ( is best is iso 25, is 50 is just ok ) and incredibly slow. Also it work only with Leafcapture ( which looks designed from north korea military ).
Even so, if i shoot in my studio the image quality ( color and contrast ) is way superior to the D800. The D800 always end up with resolve complex areas in a muggy way, even when i shoot with the nikon 14-24, on a tripod, with mirror up. I mean is a great sensor, and is way more useful as portable, cheap, and usable with capture1. But if it come to Quality, real image quality, what i feel i can get from my Valeo is just superior ( and client feels the same to ).
How can the d800 chip be compared, i presume, with the IQ250?