Besides commercial studio shooting and classroom situations, is there any real need for tethering?
Besides the 1.0 crop factor sensor, is there anything _fundamentally_ different between FF cameras and comparable APS-C cameras? We should really think long and hard about how some other manufacturer's FF body would enable us to improve our photography or enable us to shoot subjects that are impossible to shoot now. I'm not saying there aren't good uses for a FF, but many of us are evaluating the leap from, say a K-5 to a Nikon 800E. Feature-wise that's really a jump from a semi-pro to a pro level camera. The features you gain there aren't attributes of FF per se, but rather they are pro level features. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Paul Ewins <[email protected]> wrote: > And that, pretty much, is how I feel about FF. My photo course starts up > again on Friday (another three years to go for us part timers) and I still > don't have the unbearable itch to go FF even as my classmates look at 5D III > and D600s. There is so much that I can do that doesn't require FF that I can > wait another year or two. I waited long enough for the *ist-D, I can do it > again. It would be nice to have tethering software but that is the only thing > I couldn't do that my Nikon and Canon classmates could (I am the only non > Nikon or Canon shooter). > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 06/02/2013, at 7:17 PM, Larry Colen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd guess that my raw technical skill and ability to get a clear, sharp, >> photograph is likely in the upper half of people who own DSLRs and three or >> more lenses for them. I choose three to distinguish from the people who buy >> a DSLR kit with one or two lenses and use them as an expensive point and >> shoot. >> >> If Pentax were to make a full frame version of the K-5, i.e. same pixel >> density and performance on a 24x36 sensor, and the same performance and >> features otherwise, I expect that I would see two advantages: >> 1) I would effectively have nearly twice the number of lenses, because most >> of my glass would work without vignetting, and I'd get 1.5x wider AOVs on >> all of my lenses. Mind you, my 50 on APS would be the same AOV as my 77 on >> FF, so the actual difference is probably closer to 1.5 times the lens >> choices rather than 2 times. >> >> 2) Due to the physics limitations of registration distance, I'd see a >> substantial improvement in performance at the wide end, particularly in low >> light. >> >> I would, however, be surprised to find a huge difference in the sharpness, >> clarity, technical excellence, whatever in the vast majority of my photos. >> I'm pretty good at pushing the limits of performance of my gear in stupid >> low light, but landscapes and such, in good light. First, I'll need to spend >> a lot of money on a much better tripod and head than I have. And then there >> are all of the physical limitations as mentioned in other posts in this and >> the sister thread on the topic. >> >> I think that it would be accurate to say that for the vast majority of >> people that might buy a camera, the only two things that a full frame DSLR >> Pentax would give them over an APS equivalent are bragging rights and less >> money in their bank account. So, in a reality based market, Pentax would be >> a little foolish to bring out a FF DSLR. >> >> The market, however, is not reality based. There are a tremendous number of >> people that won't buy Pentax, or are considering changing to another brand >> because Pentax doesn't have a FF option. Never mind that in most respects >> the K-5 will outperform a large percentage of FF DSLRs, and we can probably >> expect a significant improvement in the next generation of body. >> >> If the goal of Pentax were to produce a camera system with the absolute best >> possible image performance they would (cue wailing and moaning and gnashing >> of teeth) abandon the DSLR format and develop a mirrorless system that uses >> a 24x36, or larger, sensor. The physical limitations of a mirrorbox, >> combined with the jarring and vibration of a 24x36 mirror bouncing around >> every time that you take a photo are direct impediments to the imaging >> system. As soon as you have to add lenses for retrofocus you lose speed and >> sharpness of your lens. If the mirror bouncing around weren't a problem, >> there wouldn't be so much attention paid to mirror lockup, and two second >> delays. I'm sorry, but physics is simply an unforgiving bitch. >> >> I suppose that Pentax could try some sort of crazy end run and keep the >> K-mount and registration distance by doing something like putting a 645D >> (36x48) sensor in something like a K-01. A medium format sensor and a 35mm >> registration distance, and you have at least the theoretical potential for >> wider AOV without the retrofocus elements, but I don't think that even >> Pentax's pet mad scientists are quite that crazy. Hell, I don't think that >> even I'm that crazy. >> >> Yes, in good light, optical viewfinders have all sorts of advantages over >> electronic. But in lousy light electronic viewfinders work better, and in >> my opinion the quality of the final image is more important than the quality >> of the image in the viewfinder. If an optical viewfinder were that >> important, I could just buy an optical viewfinder to slip in the hot shoe. >> >> But, no matter what path they take, I'm fairly sure it will be one that will >> allow me to use most of my existing lenses, at least with an adapter, and >> that if the full frame body costs less than $3,000, and I'm still employed, >> I'll probably buy one. >> >> -- >> Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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. -- -bmw -- 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.
