|
Forum: Pentax Q
05-14-2021, 03:13 PM
|
| |
Phones still seem to handle detail way worse than proper cameras. Over all the images look nice though.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Q
01-04-2013, 05:27 AM
|
| |
By any chance, would you be looking for something like this? :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
02-11-2011, 12:16 AM
|
| |
OK guys, I have been watching all this some puzzlement. I am relatively new here, and I am not like most of you. I am the market for m43. I love photography, but I don't have a DSLR. I have almost purchased one many times, but I can't make myself do it. They are just too big and clunky. If they are any good, they tend to be too heavy too. Throw on a decent lens, and you might need a cart with wheels.
That just doesn't work for me. Photography is something that I do while I am doing other things. It is rare for me to set out to take pictures. Photography is largely a matter of capturing a moment, a place or a scene. But it is the moment or place that matters.
I am painfully aware of the limitations of my cameras. A lot of my friends have nice system cameras, and they love them. But when we go to a little league game, I put my camera in my jacket pocket, and they lug around a case that they are afraid to set down. Their cameras own them.
Their pictures are better than mine, but not in a way that anyone I show them to would notice. The people who look at my photographs are looking at the moment or place, not at the finer details of the pictures.
Those soccer moms? My wife is one. I guess she does not mind carrying her DSLR around because she is used to carrying a purse, but if she had the option of a small system that still produced better than P&S images, she would be all over it in a second.
The point is that there is a huge chasm between a typical P&S sensor less than one square centimeter and a DSLR sensor over 3 square centimeters. There is a sweet spot in between those two where portability and image quality intersect. Not for you perhaps, but for us.
As far as people like me are concerned, whether the camera has a mirror is irrelevant. The size and ergonomics are key, along with image quality. It seems to me that there are potential advantages and disadvantages to both electronic and optical viewfinders.
I don't question that for many of you the quality difference between APS-C or FF and m43 does make a real difference. In any endeavor, those at the extremes (in a good sense) will always make distinctions that the majority will not and cannot make. I marvel at that ability or talent, but I don't have it.
As a simple matter of physics, the larger of two identical sensors will have the capacity to produce a better image. I don't see how anyone could really begin to question that. So smaller sensors will always come with a quality compromise, and better sensors will come with a portability compromise.
I don't see the high end cameras getting smaller anytime soon. First, there is no need because the size is not an impediment for many uses. Second, you guys bought glass instead of houses, and you understandably want to use it.
I get the feeling that the true pros and artists don't get why we want smaller system cameras. That is because image quality (in aspects that I can can barely discern) matter more to them than the relatively modest improvement in portability. If you are in a studio, you can't really complain about the size of a full frame camera.
So just recognize that we want and need different things. As technology advances, m43 and other similar systems are just going to get better and better, but the larger sensor cameras will always be better yet. As Rodney King said, can't we all just get along and have fun taking pictures? Or something like that.
|
