There is a certain beauty to ultra-high resolution images. But you're basically right. And you don't need that kind of resolution for magazine spreads either. Most pubs don't want any tiffs larger than about 35 megabytes, even for spreads. There's no real advantage to higher resolution in offset printing. In making large ink-jet prints, I've found that even a 6 megapixel camera like the *istD can turn out beautiful 13 x 19s. The K-5s 16.4 megapixel files are wonderfully detailed at 20 x 30. Billboard photography is where cameras of over 20 megapixels really shine, but I don't shoot billboards. Nevertheless, I want a 645D:-). Paul On Jan 13, 2011, at 12:57 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> OK, let me seize my chance to show my ignorance. Compared to a K-5 or > equivalent, the 645D is bigger, heavier, slower, and doesn't have as > many interesting lenses. Its only advantage is a mega-huge sensor > with correspondingly many pixels. So my conclusion was that this > kind of thing is really only useful for those who want to do > large-format printing, magazine pages and up. > > Is there any other reason to use one, aside from it being beautiful > and seductive and all that? -Tim > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote: >> >> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:46 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: >> >>> On 1/13/2011 6:05 AM, Larry Colen wrote: >>>> If I could pretend to afford it, I'd buy the kit and keep one set for >>>> myself. >>> >>> Suppose you could. Then you would have to /pretend/ you'd need one as it >>> seems to me that your kind of shooting does not /necessarily require/ one. >>> I know for certain that /mine/ does not. >> >> You are quite right there. Though having one would allow me to do some >> Savagesque style photos of the desert night sky. I'd do a lot more night >> landscape photography but my gear is not quite up to the task. Having seen >> what a 645D can do at ISO 800-1600, it would be very fun to play with one >> when photographing musicians. It is interesting to see how it compares with >> the Nikon D3, though I suspect that you could throw some math at the raw >> file, process the 41 Mpix down to the D3s 12 Mpix, and gain some performance >> there. >> >> I describe the type of photography that I do as "photography that uses a >> camera". But, I have to admit that while a large percentage of the photos >> I've taken in the past few years would have benefited from the performance >> of a K-5, only a small percentage would have benefited any more with a 645D, >> and a large number of them would do better with a K-5 than with a 645D. But, >> while a Dodge van might do a carpenter a lot more good than a Porsche 911, >> that doesn't stop the carpenter from wanting the 911, any more than reality >> keeps me from wanting a 645D. >> >> >> -- >> Larry Colen l...@red4est.com sent from i4est >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> 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 > PDML@pdml.net > 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 PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
