| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Eric wrote:
Robert wrote:
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.
In part the D3 is more forgiving due to it's larger sensor and larger photosites.
You misunderstand me, I am NOT advocating even larger pixels counts. Rather similar pixel counts in a larger format, the pixel counts relate to the output resolution and size, rather than the taking resolution. To illustrate a point sometimes it helps to go to the ridiculous extreme.
Miniaturisation is great for some things but to create photographs sometimes the constraints of physical limits and the sheer impracticality of implementing them are the biggest barriers. A true full frame 60x60 digital back on a film Hasselblad with perhaps 20Mp would in my view be better than the scarcely bigger than FX backs they are offering on 'MF' cameras today. They would have huge photosites and gather light very well, have a tremendous dynamic range and very good low light sensitivity.
I am thinking about making art here, not taking snapshots of activity. An artist would take their easel, pallet and paints into the field, why not a larger format camera and a tripod?
Ok, understand you, now.
We are agreed on the photosite size point....but if its so sacrosanct, why are Nikon are continuing to develop smaller photosite DSLRs? Why are professionals buying them? If a 6x6 20mp sensor is the gold standard, why aren't manufacturers sticking with that? You are suggesting they are developing lower standards by upping the pixels on the same size sensor?
On the subject of the artist lugging his gear into the field..sure, if you are a waterclolour artist you may well complete in the field. But many artist sketch or even photograph the scene and create the image in studio. I hear that photographers even do that...grabbing a photo in the field and using PS to create the image back home.
Of course we could drag our digital plate cameras into the wilderness...I just don't see it happening. Snapshots rule.
____________________
Eric