On Apr 14, 2013, at 6:08 AM, DagT wrote: > 14. apr. 2013 kl. 01:20 skrev Bill <[email protected]>: > >> On 13/04/2013 7:38 AM, George Sinos wrote: >>> >> >> So, I want a camera with a fast standard lens, I want something that is >> fairly compact, and I want certain lens qualities that I have to see to know. >> I feel quite fortunate that the Fuji X-Pro1 and the 35/1.4 standard lens >> fits that description. > > I can agree with you there, except that I would like a fast wide angle > instead of a standard.
What I want is fast standard and wide image stabilized lenses, and good low light performance. If we ignore the need for image stabilization, I could get that for $2500 or so with a D800, plus lenses. Physics seems to say that you can't get optical image stabilization in a lens that is faster than f/2.8. Physics also says that it is hard to get sharp, fast lenses in K-mount shorter than ~40mm. So, if I want it fast and wide, I need either full frame, or mirrorless. Full frame would have the advantage of nearly doubling the number of lenses that I effectively have. My 20, 31, 50, 77, 90, 135, 200, 300, 80-200 & 50-500 would all have 1.5* the field of view that they do on APS, with some loss of sharpness in the corners. Mirrorless means that they would be able to design lenses to a much wider field of view, without going into retrofocus. It also means that the camera would be able to focus a lot better in extremely low light, and I would be able to manually focus in much much lower light. It has the theoretical advantage that you see exactly what the camera will, which is handy if you are shooting in IR. There are no problems with mirror lockup and mirror bounce. You can get a live histogram in the view finder, remote the viewfinder so that it doesn't even need to be attached to the camera. The camera can do a lot more decisions based on what is in the image. I can see how facial recognition focus when photographing musicians would be a lot handier than the microphone recognition that my camera currently has. For my photography, the solution that would work the best for me, would be to have two bodies. A 24x36 mirrorless mount, with an adapter that will work with screw drive AF lenses, and a next generation improvement of the K-5, with better focus and metering. Apart from Angle of View, there seem to be no performance advantages of full frame over APS that aren't solved by two or three years of technological improvements. While there are times when it is nice to isolate a subject with shallow depth of field, I have lost many, many more photos because I missed the focus, and the depth of field was too shallow, than because the depth of field was too deep. If too much is in focus, the picture may not be as nice as it might otherwise be. If the subject is not in focus, the picture is lost. -- 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.
