Humm, interesting to read the various takes on the subject. Having had many different camera brands and (obviously) models, from P&S to DSLRs, I believe there are differences between them and many are very substantial not only in terms of features and functionality, but most importantly, image quality. Even though I do believe any camera is capable of taking good pictures, the question I always post is: how many pictures one has to take in order to get THAT good one out of the camera? The ratio between # pictures taken and # of good pictures will determine how good (or bad) a camera really is. This logic is the primary reason I don't go by sample images posted on the internet when I'm looking for a new camera. Of course I don't disregard them and in most cases they show the camera's capabilities. However, if it takes 1000 shots to get 10 good pictures, that's no good. Saying that all cameras are alike based on 8x10 prints is inaccurate, IMO. Some cameras produce real horrible purple fringing, visible even on 5x7 prints. Some produce soft images or poorly focused images. Some can't focus at all in low light or they seem to focus but in reality, the images come out blurry. Some can't handle ISO pass 200 producing real bad quality images at 400 and above. Some have very weak flash producing dark images. Some produce images with a lot of distortion caused by the lens. All of these problems can be visible on any 8x10 prints. And the list goes on and on. I think to a great extent, many cameras are very comparable to each other and the differences between them in terms of IQ produced may be determined in the lab but not in real life. For those, the preference to one brand/model vs. another can be made based on ergonomics, size, features, brand name and even color/looks. But no one can ignore the fact that there are huge differences in technology between say the Pana G1/GH1 and the Nikon D90.
Last edited by Tullio; Aug 31, 2009 at 10:53 AM.