Tariq Gibran
Registered: Oct 01, 2006
Total Posts: 5856
Country: United States
|
hubsand wrote:
It's all about the price point, and whether you can live with it's light-gathering limitations. At ISO 50/64, I don't think anyone has proven the superiority of the more expensive backs over the ZD: to most intents and purposes they're the same.
What the extra money buys you is the ability to shoot in lower light, at longer exposures and/or higher ISO, and perhaps a little faster. Without the technical hiccups.
I've just completing the review I started at the outset of this thread, which is a summary of my experiences with the back, and an explanation of why I returned it. See the second link to the right of the main story here: http://www.16-9.net
Mark, two remarks got my attention from your conclusion. First this:
"Basically, any low light situation demands a better medium format back, or a Canon DSLR . . . actually, no: this is a habit I must break, because the best low light camera at the time of writing is – for the first time ever – a Nikon!"
And then this:
"You may even find that a 1Ds III with very carefully matched lenses offers a more acceptable blend of convenience and quality for a relatively modest investment. I did."
Have you used and tested both these cameras because your statements make it sound like you have. I did not think either one of these were shipping as of yet. Seems early to make conclusive statements about non shipping cameras.
|
