Price? Image quality??
I wonder how important camera price is these days in terms of image quality? The Leica M10 certainly has acceptable image quality. But, if you look at the DX0 ratings for the full frame Leica M10 (ballpark $7000) and the APS-c Samsung NX500 (ballpark $800), the half frame Samsung just edges out the Leicaís DX0 scores in all departments except low light. The improved image quality of the expensive medium format Fuji and Hasselblad digitals compared to some full framers with close to the same number of pixel (and, of course, smaller pixels) is best appreciated with you nose pressed against a larger print.
Even before I plug in my own limitations as craftsman or the fact that many good pictures donít require the ultimate in high resolution, am I an idiot for shooting with a Leica rather than a Samsung or, to reverse the equation, a $1200 half frame Fuji H1 rather than a $3400 full frame Nikon Z7? What has price got to do with image quality these days?