07-09-2008, 01:36 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 451
|
|
Why does it have to be "full-frame"? Honestly this is just amazing techlust based on paper specs. Unless routine enlargements to 16x24 or larger is needed, the premium on full-frame isn't worth it. Heck, if lust for amazing image quality is called for, why not go larger, as what the article mentions? 2nd hand MF systems can be had for decent prices if you know where to look, and they come in even larger sensors.
Someone is going to argue with me over high ISOs, and I'm going to agree on that; if you're making a living from shooting celebs in dimly-lit nightclubs, go ahead. If you aren't, I'd like to say that most low-light situations have crap lighting which makes crap pictures.
Marlof, go bug Olympus for more small primes. I think the E420 with a 14/4 pancake and a 40/2.8 pancake makes a nice combination with the existing 25/2.8 pancake.
And the telephoto lens theory isn't hilarious. Trust me. I've seen people chase superteles, got full-frame, and then went out to get bigger superteles. They don't even print!
Last edited by yslee; 07-09-2008 at 01:51 AM..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Threaded Mode