You will see no difference in a full frame 8x10 print <grin>. Of course if you routinely crop your images or do large prints...
Brendan MacRae wrote: > --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 08:08:30PM -0700, Brendan >> MacRae wrote: >>> --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 09:18:02PM -0400, >> Christian >>>> wrote: >>>>> Brendan MacRae wrote: >>>>>> --- John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> For most people, the (significant) extra >> cost >>>> of the >>>>>>> larger >>>>>>> sensor just isn't worth it. >>>>>> For most people, yes. For most serious >>>>>> photographers...that may be another story. >>>>> PJs, sports guys and, yes, nature pros use >> 1DmkIIs >>>> with a 1.3x "crop" >>>>> They seem pretty serious.... >>>> Not to mention all those guys out there with >> Nikons >>>> ... >>>> >>>> I guess we poor Pentax users can't be "serious" >>>> photographers, either. >>>> >>>> And all the time I thought it was the >> photographer, >>>> not the gear ... >>>> >>> You know, these kinds of comments are BS. >>> >>> Where do you get off? Point me to where I ever >> made >>> this suggestion. You said most people wouldn't opt >> to >>> spend the significant extra dough for a FF camera. >> You >>> didn't specify who these "most people" are. I >> assumed >>> you meant photographers of one kind or another. I >> only >>> suggested that the more serious the photographer >> the >>> more likely that person would opt for better gear. >> Precisely. You just plain assume that "better" >> means >> "larger sensor". That's the viewpoint that's full >> of BS. > > First of all, from what I've seen, larger sensors > produce better images. Call it BS if you want, but why > on earth would a company make a camera with a larger > sensor if there was no noticeable increase in image > quality. Oh, and then charge three times as much for > it! > > Must be a lot of suckers out there... > >> You (although not only you) seem to think that a K1D >> (if one ever shows up) is somehow an inferior >> product >> if it doesn't have a 36x24 sensor. >> > > Again, it's obvious you can type, but can you read? > Where did I say any such thing? My original post said > that I thought it was a mistake if Pentax didn't > concurrently work on a larger sensor for it's DSLR's > with the R&D for the 645D. My point being that there > would be MUCH more interest in the former over the > latter. > > Apparently Pentax agrees with me since at least > they've killed the 645D. And although you have no > evidence to support your contention that a FF DSLR > isn't what "most people" want (apologies to Cotty), I > want one, I feel it would be a big step up for Pentax, > it could possibly even lure away Nikon and Canon > shooters (something Pentax has done very rarely) and > it would most likely produce better images than > anything in the current lineup. > > Now, if the K1D had a mere 1.2 or 1.3 crop...I'd be > interested. Would this be inferior to a FF camera. > Depends. In Canon's example some folks like the Mark > IIn more than the 5D. But your saying that I called > anything other than a FF DSLR inferior is BS. I never > said it. I merely said I wouldn't buy another APS-C > sensor camera and would love a FF Pentax. > > And for the future, if you're going to comment on my > posts, insert your comments into my originals. That > might help you to stick to the subject at hand and > stop you from pretending later that I said things I > never said. > > Or better yet, you can just not respond at all. > > -Brendan > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
