|
Actually, I am strongly considering a new camera body myself now. And I have been trying to pick up the slack in the changes in technology since the last time I purchased a camera body. The last one I bought (outside of video-centric camcorders and my GoPros) was a Fujifilm Finepix S3 Pro, which is 2004 technology. So I've got 12 years of advances (?) to catch up on.
I believe the issue with the loss of *fast* lenses for the new DSLRs, meaning F/1.2 and the like, is that the digital sensors that have replaced 35mm film are just not as large as the film surface, so the actual amount of light able to be delivered to those sensors is just less than what 35mm cameras were designed to deliver.
I've been a Nikon user for a long time, and the reason I chose the Finepix camera body back in 2004 was because it accepted my Nikon lenses, and reviews actually indicated that Fujifilm had a better design than Nikon was able to come up with at the time. So, in order to retain my Nikon lenses, I am focusing on Nikon compatible bodies.
So in the Nikon lingo, I am hearing the terms "DX" and "FX" lenses and bodies, that seem to indicate lenses and bodies that are providing a cropped image compatible with smaller sensors (DX), and those lenses and bodies that provide a "full" sized sensor (FX). From what I have been able to determine so far (I think), is that DX lenses on a FX body will produce vignetting on the image, which indicates that the barrel of the lens that light travels down to the sensor is too small for the sensor. Some people are saying that FX lenses on a DX body will work, but may introduce some distortion as a result.
So, of course, looking to the future, it would probably be a safe bet to say that eventually DX will be completely replaced by FX as the cost of the larger sensors comes down. With electronics, this is a pretty sure bet. So does it make sense to invest in a DX body and lenses that will most certainly become obsolete in the pretty near future?
Of course, if I discover that I need all new lenses anyway, because of the loss of compatibility with those lenses to the new digital technology of the latest generation of camera bodies, then all brands will wind up on the table. I am still on the upslope of the learning curve, trying to figure out if that will be the case or not.
Never really considered doing video from a DSLR body, but it seems to be that camcorders I have used that are designed for video just seem to do rather poorly at still photos. So it is worrisome to me that a DSLR designed for still photos just might not be able to do all that well with video. So I am scrutinizing YouTube videos closely. Honestly, from what I can see, even considering the compression and alteration that YouTube inflicts up videos uploaded to it, the video I see from DSLRs are quite acceptable. Of course, at this stage of the game, it wouldn't make sense to get anything video related that cannot do 4K. Unfortunately, finding a DSLR that can do 4K/60fps will get you digging REAL deep into your pocket to pay for it. So I am trying to figure out if 4K/30fps will be "good enough". I just don't see myself spending $6,000 for ANY camera body for the amateurish stuff I would do with it.
Of course, some practical questions are smacking me alongside the head right now about this entire idea. Seriously, with the trend for the internet leaning heavily towards handheld mobile devices, what future does 4K video really have? What use will it be to have a camera that can take 25 megapixel images if the audience will be looking at images that could NEVER be anywhere near that size on their viewer?
Just seems like the photo and video increases in technology are now heading along a path that will be completely incompatible with the vehicle best able to spread the fruits of that technology to an audience.
ps: I will likely move this thread to the Photography and techniques forum, since it is kind of leaning towards that kind of a discussion.
|