Well, I do agree with your proposed system for general purposes - while
I can imagine lotsa situations where a FF longish prime lens would fit
into my go-anywhere bag with the {still in the far future} m4/3 camera
and everyday zoom. Details indeed.
While I am currently shaping my needs to a Ds and some 35mm bodies, I
would very much like the idea of keeping a 20+ FF camera for those
unholy clients that think that's the only way of achieving pro quality,
and a much cheaper and portable APS camera for my own uses. And since
money is hard to print, using the FF lenses in the APS camera as needed
would be very interesting.
If I ever surrender to the EVIL m4/3 ways, the APS camera may get dumped
- but complete gear compatibility is still going to be my goal.
lf
ps: I understood your comment about m4/3 evolution. Let's see if APS
closes the gap towards FF next. Mind you, I still see lower quality
indexes on color and noise in 4/3 vs. APS tests on the web. Not that I
take those tests as gospel, but info is always welcome. Good light.
Dario Bonazza escreveu:
Luiz Felipe wrote:
Dario, your point about a FF system and micro 4/3 is interesting, but
there is a simple solution. One that includes the use of the big FF
lenses with suitable adapters in the m4/3, for some specific uses.
Those would be exactly the big, expensive and fast teles, made even
longer by the format diff. Not to be used everyday, but often enough.
Keeping a set of FF for studio - or more elaborate shots, BTW - and
APS systems with the same key lenses is something really desirable for
me, assuming I get to use the set, professionally.
Actually I'm doing that now - only my FF is film. Trying to make the
best out of my system is an old habit - from M42 to PK, M42 to Canon
FD, and soon M42 and PK to Canon EF, just in case...
Not bad. If one has to build on an existing system (that's the most
common situation), there are several good options. APS-C +FF is a good
option for sure, but no longer the best possible one, I'm afraid.
Thinking about an ideal solution, starting from scratch, I think m4/3 +
FF is even better. It allows even more benefit in size and weight, with
little if any sacrifice on performance. That wasn't true in the past, as
4/3 equipment was not smaller than APS-C, while its quality was. Lately,
for some reason IQ of 4/3 sensors/electronics has improved more than
APS-C, while m4/3 has finally brought out the small system Olympus
promised for ages. I think both these improvements are mainly due to
Panasonic, not Olympus.
Using FF lenses on m4/3 is not of big interest to me. If I can afford to
carry FF lenses with me, I can add the FF body too. If I use m4/3 body,
I want small lenses too. Of course, there can be exceptions, but
exceptions ain't good for generalization.
So my recipe is:
1) One system/format? APS-C: The best comprimise in image quality, size,
versatility and cost.
2) Two systems/formats? m4/3 + FF: Widens the choice in image quality,
size, versatility. It has a cost.
This is how I see things going. Your mileage may vary.
Dario
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
