Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-31-2009, 09:54 AM   #91
Pentaxian
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,464
QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote

last year at our local photo-walk, I met a really nice young lady carrying a 1Ds Mk II and it was obvious after about 45 minutes she was really struggling to carry and efficiently use the camera. I was carrying three bodies including a digital and was getting far more shots and opportunities at street portraits (granted, I am a pretty experienced street photographer) but even with three bodies and dealing with film, I was having an easier time than she was. it was very apparent that she was paying the price for that large body. andof course she had an L zoom lens. ( don't remember which one) and a flash. it was disappointing to watch her. =(
Well, a FF sensor needs more stuff around it as well, but I don't think it's strictly necessary to make the body bigger. (Seems more like Nikon decided to make the d300 chassis one which could *become* a full frame camera than the other way around: I think with a body that size I would simply not opt for a grip. ) I think the key with the size of a camera is you need to balance between what's hefty enough to be stable vs what's actually going to fatigue you.

For me, it's very clear, the line between where a little more weight and leverage helps and where it starts getting counterproductive. I like it so I have enough to bear up against rather than have to try and stabilize the camera in all directions, not so much that it's actually difficult to hold the rig up.

In these tech-focused times, I notice a lot of people just don't pay attention to shooting posture and camera handling. Assuredly, those big Canons are beastly, but in general, if you're having trouble with fatigue, the first thing to look at is your posture. Small changes there can make a big difference. Usually I don't mind bodies being hefty: what I try to control is how much dead weight will be in the bag at any one time.

I saw a lady with maybe a Nikon D60 the other day, and what must have been one of those travel zooms, holding the whole thing like a little P&S. The photo teacher in me wanted to run over and show her how to hold the thing. (Though I'm sure this wouldn't be appreciated right then: it appeared she was conducting some kind of interview in the process. ) So sometimes the opposite problem applies, though the solution's much the same.

08-31-2009, 10:13 AM   #92
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Not following you here, Pentaxor. Are you suggesting that a 645 lens isn't much bigger than a 35mm or APS-c counterpart despite that larger format? I don't know much about medium format, but I'd imagine that the distance from the mount to the imagine plane (register) is greater based on pictures that I've seen. Here's a link I just found:

mounts.htm

Look at the Pentaxes. It's interesting that the Panasonic G1 - a micro 4/3 EVIL is listed right above. Look at it's tiny register - the benefit of not having a mirror.

That increased register distance of the 645 gives the light rays more distance to expand and land on the larger film.
NO ! I'm implying on saying that if you think that a FF lens or an APC-lens or whatever was being discussed is bigger, well those lenses would be simply appear as dwarves compared to a standard or normal size 645 lens. even the mounting size would simply swallow an APS-C lens and an FF. from the 645 lens that I saw and held, they are a heavy piece of glass. of-course, there are K-mount lenses that are gigantic. such as the big telephotos and super-telephotos. but we are talking about normal lens and standard zoom lens size in general.
08-31-2009, 10:44 AM   #93
Pentaxian
johnmflores's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somerville, NJ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,007
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
NO ! I'm implying on saying that if you think that a FF lens or an APC-lens or whatever was being discussed is bigger, well those lenses would be simply appear as dwarves compared to a standard or normal size 645 lens. even the mounting size would simply swallow an APS-C lens and an FF. from the 645 lens that I saw and held, they are a heavy piece of glass. of-course, there are K-mount lenses that are gigantic. such as the big telephotos and super-telephotos. but we are talking about normal lens and standard zoom lens size in general.
Thx for the clarification. It brings up an interesting point - despite their clear quality advantage, medium format never usurped 35mm in terms of broad market adoption. I guess that for a great majority of people the quality benefits were not worth the size, weight, and I presume cost penalties.

And that's where we are now - will photographers be willing to live with the size and weight disadvantages of FF in exhange for increased IQ? At the current price differential, the answer has been no. But half the price and/or size gap and will people flock in large quantities to FF?

My hunch is no - that FF is the new MF - reserved for pros and serious amateurs, and that APS-c's greatest threat comes from below (micro 4/3rds) and not from above.

Micro 4/3rds is the new 35mm
08-31-2009, 11:19 AM   #94
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
Thx for the clarification. It brings up an interesting point - despite their clear quality advantage, medium format never usurped 35mm in terms of broad market adoption. I guess that for a great majority of people the quality benefits were not worth the size, weight, and I presume cost penalties.

And that's where we are now - will photographers be willing to live with the size and weight disadvantages of FF in exhange for increased IQ? At the current price differential, the answer has been no. But half the price and/or size gap and will people flock in large quantities to FF?

My hunch is no - that FF is the new MF - reserved for pros and serious amateurs, and that APS-c's greatest threat comes from below (micro 4/3rds) and not from above.

Micro 4/3rds is the new 35mm

unless they will make the APS-C obsolete, then expect a high influx of people going FF.

this all comes down to marketing. I don't think that even half of the general public knows what is an APS-C camera and an FF camera, their significance nor knows the difference in IQ. most often than not, a neophyte or hobbyist would only look at the body of a dslr and would say that that is a professional camera and I want one. I like what I see on the previewed photos without comparing it with other cameras and say it's the best camera so I want one. I like this camera eventhough I dont know anything about lenses and it doesn't matter if it's a kit lens and what the hell is a kit lens? I have the camera body and this camera brand is being advertised as the best camera eversince, so I'm confident enough that I will be able to get great pictures because it is a ***** . a scenario like this happens everyday inside a camera store. and there's no single day that I went that never saw a single person made that kind of a remark.

if we would look which camera in the market is much more in demand and profitable, it is neither an APS-C sensor, nor a FF camera. it's the simple P&S camera that rules the market with surely more than 50% share in sales. 25%-35% would be the the APS-C cameras and 10-15% percent would be the FF cameras. and surely a P&S camera's IQ is not better than a FF, but it rules the market due to it's compact size, travel-friendly or versatility, handiness, durability, practicality and price. one thing I noticed that most common consumers look after a camera; it is usually size and video capabilities.


Last edited by Pentaxor; 08-31-2009 at 11:40 AM.
08-31-2009, 11:30 AM   #95
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
QuoteOriginally posted by johnmflores Quote
will photographers be willing to live with the size and weight disadvantages of FF in exhange for increased IQ? At the current price differential, the answer has been no. But half the price and/or size gap and will people flock in large quantities to FF?

My hunch is no - that FF is the new MF - reserved for pros and serious amateurs, and that APS-c's greatest threat comes from below (micro 4/3rds) and not from above.
I agree completely. People in the main want small and convenient.
08-31-2009, 11:45 AM   #96
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I agree completely. People in the main want small and convenient.
portability does play a major role in camera sales eversince. you got a small dslr at the size and cost of a high-end P&S camera that you could use readily and comfortably. and expandibility for those moments that you need to put or use a particular lens.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, frame, ltd, photography, photos, sony
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:29 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top