Originally posted by Sliver-Surfer The photo is a near perfectly exposed low key image. There are no blown highlights there. And the only shadows with no detail is a small portion of the background and a small portion of the hair and that info may have been removed in post. That being said, you can tell it is not done with a modern FF camera. Your image is a very good image IMHO. I like the punch that those old Pentax cameras have.
My god, do I actually have to take a copy of this images and circle and label the blown highlights and detail-less shadows for you? Well you've finally convinced me, no good can come of this A9 worshipping discussion. The question "How is this possible" The answer is put it in your editor, and crank the contrast up until you've blown the highlights and buried the shadows in blackness." It used to be one of my favourite techniques in black and white film photography. It's not about whether or not you like this image, it's about do you need an A9 to do it.
But the camera will take fine pictures I'm sure. A little better than my K-3 images maybe, sometimes but not always.
The big thing for me from Winder's posted video, was the full frame focusing. That's impressive. I'm not convinced that 20 FPS is necessary, more than 15 or even 8. Unless of course the competition is not for "best picture" but is for "how many frames did I throw away to get this picture" which in my mind is a totally useless category. For those of us debating if we need the 8 fps of a K-3 or the 4.5 of a K-1, it certainly seems outrageous to think others think they need 20.
8 FPS is an image every .125 seconds. 20 FPS is one every .05 seconds. The difference is .75 seconds. Really, how much happens in .075 seconds? In the one image the guy with the D5 and the guy with the A9 ended up with the same shot, but the A9 guy had more throw aways. My question is "would I have the image showing with my K-1? For that particular image my answer is "probably." I wouldn't have started my shutter as soon. I owl have known what I was looking for, but a person moving that speed, my K-1 can handle that and probably do a better job on the high ISO images. But I'm guessing. In the real world, a tog could have gotten that same shot, shooting 1 frame, not 40.
I only watched the outdoor section. The photography was just too specialized to hold my interest long. I got through 19 minutes. I feel like I deserve a medal.
All the useful information was in the "look how I can frame right to the edge of the frame" part. The rest was pretty meaningless. I needed a 1 minute video. The rest was irrelevant.
But who knows, maybe 20 years from now 20 fps will be the norm, Useless as it is for 99% of my shooting, it would be nice to have it available for the other 1%.
My guess is my need for an A9 is for probably 1% of my shooting. What would you guys have as your percentage?
Last edited by normhead; 06-06-2017 at 11:50 AM.