08-29-2016, 11:20 PM
Sorry, that's hypocritical on a lens-test site. You're part of that "industry" and this industry makes a living because we users need to fulfill some dreams from time to time - even the ones with the 500 kW cars.
It simply matters shit if I "need" 36 or more MP, because we can't choose bodies, AF-modules and sensors, that all comes in a package. I don't care what somebody thinks I need or what would be "enough" for me. It was a good experience and a good learning path as well to have it - soon it will go to somebody else who wants to do pictures with 36 MP and no one should judge at the beginning what this person needs or not. These 36 MP were more the "poor man's medium format camera" than a necessary evolution - but they just show what's possible and what's not. If you're happy with 8 MP, fine. Keeping a battered Nikon D3s as reference camera demonstrates enough how big the interest is in high MP at PZ. As well as not rating lenses which are in front of a 50 MP Canon - if you don't need more than 12 MP, why did you invest in that machine?
Most users use their cellphones anyway and make pretty good photographs with them, without thinking about lenses or other crap. They don't care about 36 MP DSLR - here we do and debate our heads off.
There's nothing wrong with buying what we think could be cool, but i daresay, that some of those posted portraits would suck on a big print if they were done with only 12 MP. Whereas most of these were taken with higher resolutions aka film, don't you agree?
Just out of curiosity, when have you been at a photo exhibition last time? How big were the prints? Were you touched or was it just some kind of eye-candy, sooner forgotten than done?
There's also nothing wrong with 36 MP at low ISO for lots of details and downsampling to 12 MP at high ISO and still being a lot better than any standard 12 MP body by default. To say the industry is doing one thing to sell more other products is at the moment only logical. Okay, Canon goes the other way and offers with the 5D Mk IV a camera at standard of 2012 with UHD I card, crippled 4K video but at 3500 $ - whereas Nikon goes to China for lens production and raises the prices anyway although the lenses are cheaper made.
Speaking of portraits: I'd really like to put some samples here, but I even more like to keep the trust of my "models" who didn't sign to be published. I actually don't think it's worth the effort to make the cheap vs. expensive camera+lens test. A high price camera doesn't make great pictures just by itself and cellphones are cheap yet delivering great portraits, so the evidence is already clear.
But the general tendency to centered portraits imo has more to do with "where are reliable focus-aids or AF-focus-points" than with composition.
It simply matters shit if I "need" 36 or more MP, because we can't choose bodies, AF-modules and sensors, that all comes in a package. I don't care what somebody thinks I need or what would be "enough" for me. It was a good experience and a good learning path as well to have it - soon it will go to somebody else who wants to do pictures with 36 MP and no one should judge at the beginning what this person needs or not. These 36 MP were more the "poor man's medium format camera" than a necessary evolution - but they just show what's possible and what's not. If you're happy with 8 MP, fine. Keeping a battered Nikon D3s as reference camera demonstrates enough how big the interest is in high MP at PZ. As well as not rating lenses which are in front of a 50 MP Canon - if you don't need more than 12 MP, why did you invest in that machine?
Most users use their cellphones anyway and make pretty good photographs with them, without thinking about lenses or other crap. They don't care about 36 MP DSLR - here we do and debate our heads off.
There's nothing wrong with buying what we think could be cool, but i daresay, that some of those posted portraits would suck on a big print if they were done with only 12 MP. Whereas most of these were taken with higher resolutions aka film, don't you agree?
Just out of curiosity, when have you been at a photo exhibition last time? How big were the prints? Were you touched or was it just some kind of eye-candy, sooner forgotten than done?
There's also nothing wrong with 36 MP at low ISO for lots of details and downsampling to 12 MP at high ISO and still being a lot better than any standard 12 MP body by default. To say the industry is doing one thing to sell more other products is at the moment only logical. Okay, Canon goes the other way and offers with the 5D Mk IV a camera at standard of 2012 with UHD I card, crippled 4K video but at 3500 $ - whereas Nikon goes to China for lens production and raises the prices anyway although the lenses are cheaper made.
Speaking of portraits: I'd really like to put some samples here, but I even more like to keep the trust of my "models" who didn't sign to be published. I actually don't think it's worth the effort to make the cheap vs. expensive camera+lens test. A high price camera doesn't make great pictures just by itself and cellphones are cheap yet delivering great portraits, so the evidence is already clear.
But the general tendency to centered portraits imo has more to do with "where are reliable focus-aids or AF-focus-points" than with composition.