Paul wrote: > The photo editors at The New York Times, Harris Publications and a number of > other concerns I shoot for tell me I get at least as > much BANG as any of > their shooters. In fact one recently asked me how I achieve so much > definition. i blamed it on the DA* 60-> 250. A few (not many) of the > shooters I compete with have kits like?well, like yours. And they frequently > complain that their profit > margin is too small. But more and more I see the expensive gear mainly in the > hands of the really big buck ad agency shooters > and the doctors and lawyers, who like to have expensive stuff hanging around > their neck. (Although Leicas are still the number one > choice with the prestige set.) Serious photography doesn't require mega > expensive equipment. It doesn't even require a 24 x 36 > sensor. (All sensors are full frame. I get a full frame with every shot.)
So you started out with good gear, know how to make the most of your equipment, and/or are a very good post-processor, and/or are ahead of your competition when it comes to the game. Many times depending on the scene/circumstances a larger sensor is not REQUIRED or holds little benefit given the end output. However you know this as much as myself, and that is rarely does anything beat a larger media size when recording images. The same could be said of all the film generation Hasselblads, 6x7's, and sheet film cameras. Only those with the means to purchase them did so. That doesn't mean they necessarily purchased them simply as a status symbol, though it certainly occurs then as well as now. I've yet to attach a neck strap to the D800E. I always hold it one-handed by it's manly grip. :) Regarding FF, as you say, every camera from the first made, to the Minox, to the 110, to the Kodak Disc cameras can make that claim. I'd argue that people don't purchase a high-end camera because of the results it delivers on a frame by frame basis anymore than I was willing to pay upwards of $10/roll for Velvia, thinking every shot would be better. They purchase them because of the potential they have. That potential is hard to, and rarely recognized by the casual observer, at small output sizes, or quantifiable when not comparing subject to subject, shot to shot. Nevertheless the potential to deliver higher quality (whatever the criteria is) images exists. And while not having my Pentax gear (don't have it) alongside my Nikon gear, I can easily see differences between a 36MP image and a 14MP image, and I can see qualities to some images that amaze me... also using some top lenses like the 70-200/2.8...Internal focusing (zoom does not extend), whisper quiet, instantaneous, almost imperceptible time to focus. Tom C -- 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.
