While I’m currently shooting Z8s…I have to admit they’re heavier than I would like them to be. And TBH…the various discussions about frame size and crop factor and relative high ISO performance are technically absolutely correct. But…and there’s always a but…I have to suggest that in addition to all of that one should consider an additional factor in a decision…the question of “does it really matter?”
For a pro like Steve or somebody making money in s9me fashion with photography…sure, it matters because their income depends on reputation so getting the absolute best makes sense, plus it’s business related so depreciation and business expense deductions can come into play. For really, really serious amateurs…it can make sense but less than for a pro…if they’re willing to accept the drawbacks that come with best like cost and weight and flexibility. For a lot of people…they want nice images of the GBH or lion or bighorn sheep to use for digital display or prints smaller than poster size. For those people…the benefits of best are far lower and the final images at output pretty much the same quality for both best and less than best. And less than best may be smaller and lighter or more flexible or allow more stuff on the hike and that is ok…remember, better is the enemy of good enough.
Truth is…for a significantly large majority of photographers IMO…any current frame size is plenty good enough if coupled with good lenses which is an important factor…and while I’m not trading in my Z8s yet…as I continue to age light has a quality all its own…and if that increases my enjoyment in the field and still gives good results for the blog…then why not? Software continues to improve…and while the $15K f2.8 lens gives great bokeh…I would be willing to bet that for most users noise reduction and lens blur features applied to the same shot with different gear will produce display images or prints that most people will not see a difference in. I have never shown an image to somebody of an interesting critter doing something interesting and had them reply that a blurrier background would make a better shot. Maybe I’m looking t all of this “image quality” stuff with the wrong attitude though.