Paul via phone
On Jul 2, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > It's important to note that you were shooting with a Pentax K-7, by my estimation the absolute worst of all the Pentax DSLRs I used, which would include all the top models. Even the istD was better in some ways. The K-5 was a huge upgrade. > > -- > 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.
