The shot I posted the other day of the two girls is actually 3200, since it was one stop underexposed at 1600. While it's a bit noisy, it's better than FF film at 3200. DX format is great for everything I shoot. And that includes a fair amount of magazine and stock work. Paul On Jan 1, 2007, at 2:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> That depends on exactly how demanding the photographer is, and in > what ways. > > DX format can satisfy very demanding photographers, as long as > performance at the max ISO is not the primary consideration (Note also > that the max ISO on a 5D is 1600, H[3200] is actually a software push > in-camera, as L[50] is a software pull, you can of course do the same > thing in your RAW converter). > > It all depends on exactly what you want. DX is the best option for the > vast majority of photographers. Those who need max high-ISO > performance > and high resolutions go FF, those who need ultra-high resolution at > lower ISO's go with a MF Digiback or LF scanning back. There's a > hell of > a lot more to the equation than just the noise barrier. > > -Adam > > > > > P. J. Alling wrote: >> APS-C cannot, unfortunately, satisfy the most demanding >> photographers. >> Pentax has already run up against the "noise" barrier with the K10D. >> They've been forced to abandon 3200 ISO sensitivity. (Nikon's choice >> was to use extremely strong noise reduction, with loss of detail). >> We're dealing with a law of physics here. >> >> K.Takeshita wrote: >>> On 1/01/07 1:45 PM, "John Forbes", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> If every other manufacture brings out a FF body Pentax will as >>>>> well or >>>>> they _will_ _die_. Simple as that. >>>>> >>>> But the others won't. Simple as that. >>>> >>>> And actually it won't affect Pentax. Any "full-frame" bodies >>>> would be >>>> much more expensive, and therefore in a separate market segment >>>> that >>>> Pentax doesn't address. Canon would suffer from the >>>> competition, not >>>> Pentax. >>>> >>> There was an interview article with Nikon on FF subject. Among >>> other things >>> they said, they have been observing Canon 5D sales for a while >>> but it never >>> went beyond 5% of total DSLR sales. FF sensor cost in case of 5D >>> is still >>> over 6 times that of APS-C. Nikon says that they are always >>> watching the >>> market demand but for now, they do not see FF cameras being >>> popular. In the >>> meantime, DX lenses (their DA equivalent) are becoming ever >>> popular and >>> settling almost as default DSLR format. >>> Despite some speculations that their F mount is too small for FF >>> DSLR, that >>> is a myth. They have sufficient margin left for FF digital lenses. >>> >>> So, my guess is that before FF sensor cost comes down >>> sufficiently, APS-C >>> sensors design would have progress farther and satisfy the need >>> of most >>> demanding photographers. >>> Besides, even if they offer FF DSLR, that does not at all mean >>> that they >>> suddenly discontinue APS-C lenses. I am sure they offer >>> different sizes as >>> two different formats, i.e., FF is NOT an upgrade to APS-C. >>> >>> I for one would much prefer compact size of DA lenses and bodies. >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
