| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Oh, my goodness, I don't even remember this???
But I stand by the FX-DX comment. I always considered DX as a temporary expedient until the manufactures devised ways to make a full frame sensor at an affordable price.
Some people find DX (or even smaller) is fine but I have always felt that a larger format has got to be better.
I still hanker after medium format, but the digital sensors in MF are tiny by comparison with the old 120 film frame sizes. 60x45, 60x60 and 60x75. There is far more to this than just image definition. Working in MF or large format is a totally different world as I am sure many of you know.
I still miss my Bronica S2a 6x6 a lot, but not the costs of film of course!
Why stop at MF? Why not get a scanning back 'camera'?
Not being flippant, Robert, but how big do we need to go? I doubt whether all but top end professional photographers will ever USE 50+mp .
When asked about the value of the inferior quality SLRs, Ansel Adams said (something like) "the biggest obstacle to quality in SLRs, is the ease and speed of use".
I know the reasoning on more pixels enable cropping and the larger the pixels the better, hence the bigger sensor the better. But look at how many people with even the D800 series struggle to extract the max quality. And how many people print beyond the visible limiitations of even 25mp?
I know applying best technique will always deliver best quality...but are we always going to be so disciplined?
As you will no doubt be experiencing, the D3 is an amazingly forgiving machine. For me, at least, I need a camera that copes with my worst technique. That way I know it will be better when I DO take my time and conditions are optimum.
There is nothing worse than a machine constraining how you use it.
____________________
Eric