| Joined: | Thu Apr 19th, 2012 |
| Location: | United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 4424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Eric wrote:
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.
It isn't sacrosanct, I just think it would be a nice place to be, DSLR's are used like a rifle, with their sights aimed at the subject prior to shooting it.
I would much prefer to compose my image, prior to making an exposure, with a waist level finder, a popup loupe and maybe the image moving the opposite way to the camera movement, just like a real MF camera would.
Nikon produce cameras with ever increasing pixel densities for the simple reason that the public expect it. The fact that they almost never utilise any of the extreme resolution afforded by this technology is apparently irrelevant, they would need to have a screen (or print) 4 ft square or larger to use all the pixels. They buy the resolution, then throw it away. Nikon are in business to make money, NOT CAMERAS. Nikon sales would plummet to almost none if my suggestions were adopted.
Note that the single digit D's are generally much lower pixel count than the amateur or 'enthusiast' cameras are. So the 'pro's' are actually following my idea in principle but they can only buy what Nikon sell. The Holy Grail perceived by the vast majority is higher pixel counts. In my opinion it's a total wast of money and resources to create a tool which goes beyond the needs of the task.
I do see artists using painting/drawing classic scenes sat at their easel's on little folding seats in the more picturesque villages in the Lake District, not as common nowadays but it still happens! We once had an art club ask to use our garden at the pub in Cartmel because it provided a rather nice view of the Priory, The big advantage of painting/drawing is it's an additive process, they don't need to add the telephone wires or public toilets, etc. into the image, where as we need to remove them (if we choose). But then we are 'accused of Photoshopping', their omission is called 'artist's licence'! LOL
Of course you are right Robert...I am just being mischievous.
......but next time I see someone using a tripod on a day out, I will take a snapshot of them.
____________________
Eric