My friend Kent coined a nice term..."Quality of File," which of course approaches cuteness because "file" is "life" with the two consonants switched around.
He sent me a bunch of pics, and I asked, in return, "Is the sensor in that Dƒ the best sensor ever, or what?"
It's the same sensor as in the pro D4. And, logically, as Thom Hogan pointed out, it's the sensor that should have been in the D750. So right about that.
But I like that term, "QoF." Many Canon shooters, for instance, are unperturbed that Canon has gone from leader to lagger in many sensor stats; they just love Canon's QoF, and that's that. The Leica S also has QoF by the gobs. So do the Sigmas. Fuji divides people based on their QoF reactions to X-Trans. And QoF seems to be what many people feel is naggingly absent from their otherwise perfect-for-them cameras o' choice.
Mike
(Thanks to Kent)
Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Chris M: "I like this idea a lot. The camera that defined QoF for me was the original Canon 5D. I've used a lot of different cameras with sensors that measure much better in the lab since I owned my 5D. Still, I'll open up a file from the 5D on occasion and will still blown away at how nice it is. This one has always been a favorite and this one still takes my breath away every time I open the full resolution file."
tex andrews: "Pentax 645Z, QoF, baby. Just amazing."
Daniel: "Finally tried the Sigma DP2 Merrill and QoF is more than enough to make up for camera handling shortcomings. Even more so when used carefully as as one would a View Camera."
Qualität of Foto, maybe?
Posted by: Rick | Monday, 28 March 2016 at 11:44 AM
^ what I would see when I look up QoF in the dictionary.
Posted by: Bob Smith | Monday, 28 March 2016 at 01:29 PM
Urg. The 'ole Fuji X-trans file bugaboo again. Any folks who have QoF "issues" with Fuji X-Trans files, are, IMHO, either uninterested in, or unwilling to, make a 30-second "round trip" from Lightroom or Photoshop to Iridient Developer and back. Or, use Capture One. Personally, any "selects" that are of any value to me as an X-photographer is worth 30 seconds of my time. Folks spend more time than that putting fancy borders or taglines in their photos.
But the QoF is a good attribute for a digital photograph. One of the key qualities that really drew me to Fuji X was that the QoF reminds me of the original Canon 5D.
Posted by: Stephen Scharf | Monday, 28 March 2016 at 02:27 PM
Good morning from Latvia. I saw this today in the Guardian and thought you might be interested. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/mar/28/daniel-mayrit-you-havent-seen-their-faces-bankers-photography Rogues gallery: how photographers are targeting the 1%. I love your site and visit almost every day.
Posted by: Scott Marriott | Tuesday, 29 March 2016 at 12:07 AM
Referring to photographs in terms of data makes a lot of sense, but still troubles me after all those years in digital. Maybe it's the dissonance between the quantitative nature of physics and the qualitative nature of the psyche. I'm a scientist by education and occupation. Photography offers me a detachment from numbers.
Posted by: sneye | Tuesday, 29 March 2016 at 01:52 AM
I'm more interested in the "Quality of Photo" department.
The "quality of file" in the shots I submitted 2 years ago to a local annual exposition was low. The photos were grainy, under (or over) exposed, some even with blurry elements or subjects.
The judging panel, on other hand, found the "quality of photo" high enough to award me the first prize in the Photojournalism and Overall cathegories. So different people value different things regarding photography.
Posted by: Andrea Costa | Tuesday, 29 March 2016 at 03:39 AM
That would explain why, despite its horribly irritating bugs and defects aka "quirks," I continued to use the the Fuji x100 occasionally---because I liked the quality of its pre X-trans files. Alas, I finally gave it up completely as the slowness and fussiness of the thing overcame any real or imagined QoF.
A friend of mine has a Df, and yes, I'd say from what I have seen, those files are something special.
Posted by: D. Hufford. | Tuesday, 29 March 2016 at 07:10 AM
Hi Mike...Seems like "file quality" is elegant in its simplicity and is self explanatory. Best, Chico
Posted by: Chico Ruger | Tuesday, 29 March 2016 at 03:45 PM
The trouble is, the file is only the raw material fed into the process of making an image.
Good raw material is not necessarily the best looking - it's the most flexible and malleable. The rest is up to the photographer.
Posted by: Steve Jacob | Wednesday, 30 March 2016 at 12:18 PM