If a Camera A delivers highly accurate autofocus, more reliable auto exposure, slightly lower noise, slightly greater dynamic range along with a massively better viewing experience and custom configurability and problem-free reliability along with equal or better sharpness and does all this at 1/3 the price of Camera B which fails repeatedly in field use, would you still buy Camera B*?
Doesn’t the answer sometimes depend more on cemented cognitive committments more than facts? Personal preferences (some justifiable and some arbitrary and some je ne sais quoi) should not be dismissed from consideration, but it’s critical to distinguish preferences from rationalizations that defend unsupportable cognitive committments. To be objective based on some usage-based scenarios, which need not be the same for everyone.
Camera gestalt is changing rapidly, upending longstanding assumptions.
My challenge in reviewing gear is to put things to the test in the field making real images, scrupulously keeping an open mind while also necessarily griping when a camera gets in the way of the job, for whatever reason(s)**. I provide the facts so that internally-defended cognitive committments can perhaps be relaxed and overcome.
Coming soon is a comparison which speaks directly to the first paragraph.
* For a completely general example of “getting in the way”: I use manual focus a great deal but this is a non-starter for users whose vision does not cooperate, or for fast-moving scenes or when the focusing screen makes the error rate too large, and so on. Various technologies can help such as focus peaking, but are only partial solutions addressing certain situations.