On 02/07/2013 6:17 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Paul via phone
On Jul 2, 2013, at 6:57 PM, Tom C <caka...@gmail.com> 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.
The K7 itself has some pretty nice things going on. The sensor at base
ISO worked really well for me in the studio. I really like the colour
off that camera. It doesn't do high ISO though.
It's AF selector problem was fixed on the first firmware upgrade. Pentax
broke it again on the K5, and never fixed it to the best of my
knowledge. I recall my K7 focusing better under studio lights. My k5 is
what is referred to as a "fail" when using conventional AF in the
studio. It actually works pretty good with off the sensor focusing and
face detection.
bill
--
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.
