Sony Dollars per square foot...

[blb]

I'm familiar with the realty issue of dollars per square foot, but don't know the photography equivalent ... maybe IQ ... maybe usability? Anyway - it looks like the 5n is going for around $700, the 3c for about $600, the 5 for closer to $550, and the 3 for $400. A)Which offers the best price to "square footage" ratio and B) how meaningful are the differences? (I've read a couple reviews that state that the 5n has much greater IQ than the 5.)

 

[BBW]

blb, you're dollars per square foot concept is an interesting one. I know when it comes to housing and the real estate market that cost per square footage changes quite a bit when it comes to the age of the house and the location...at least that's the way it normally works. The other things that come into play for the purchaser are how well the structure has been maintained, what the inner workings are like (appliances, heating and cooling, electrical, etc.) and perhaps we can compare some of these things directly to cameras, too? And then we have to add in the "market" influences, too. Is there a glut of cameras? Are prices for the "older" ones dropping or holding steady?

By the way, although you've been around these parts for a while, I don't think you've done the "official" meet and greet, yet. How about stopping by the Welcomes and Introductions forum?

 

[wt21]

Is "image quality" the ultimate goal in photography? What exactly is image quality? Is this a good picture? (from Vivian Maier Photographer | Official website of Vivian Maier | Vivian Maier Portfolios, Prints, Exhibitions, Book and documentary film) but there are blown highlights and motion blur! Yet it is still great work.

A camera is a personal thing. What focal length do you shoot at? How does it fit in your hand? Do you need speed of operation? Do you fight with the camera, or does it just work for you? etc. I'm not sure the measure of cost vs. "IQ" is useful, to be honest with you. Even if we defined IQ as (resolution + DR - noise), which is how most techno-photo-netizens seem to be measuring it.

Having said all that, I think there are two improvements in the c3/5n vs. the 3/5: 1) better micro-lenses (needed for such a short flange back distance) means sharper corners and less color shifting, 2) higher MP means better resolution, and Sony has done this with little to no noticeable increase in noise.

But for me, all the other items I mentioned (fit, comfort, etc.) leans me away from the NEX. I did try the NEX C3, and found it too small for my hands, so I'm sticking with M43.

On a purely dollar play for resolution and dynamic range, I think the C3 is a very good deal, if the size works for you. If you stop worrying too much about ultimate IQ, then the older 3 model is a bargain. If you want something more expandable (i.e. you can add a viewfinder, etc.) then the 5n is really nice. I never liked the 5 that much, and in terms of cost vs. resolution&DR, the sensor in the 5 was not any better than the 3. It was more about the grip and size.

 

[krugorg]

Interesting concept!

I was thinking of a parallel with the high-end audio world. For your first dollars spent, assuming you have an appreciation (or some would say, golden ears), I think you can hear fairly big improvements. As you start to transition from the top mainstream stuff to high end, the improvement % in sound quality starts to go down for each $ spent. Once you get to the super high end, you are chasing 1-2% gains for way too much cash. Diminishing returns!

 

[Bruce]

Yea, interesting thought. Not certain what equation could be used. It may vary, I believe it would, depending on the individual. A for instance may be someone like myself who will pick up my discontinued Pany FZ28 fairly frequently because I simply like using that camera. People sometimes just don’t see the reason to change I suspect and aren’t caught up in the must have the latest camera philosophy. Some prefer to wait for prices to drop, which they always do.
Bruce