exactly a problem I have faced.....
Interesting solution!
...which of course impacts on your flash and you find yourself needing a higher GN flash for the same job ... "giveth with the right and taketh away with the left"
That's a pity, because in some circumstances my flash (Canon 430EXII) is already only just powerful enough, given what HSS + reflection/diffusion can reduce it to. Given that I'm thinking of switching brand of camera, a new Canon (or compatible) flash is not a runner just now. Makes the Metz 58 AF-2 look like it wouldn't be overkill if/when I move to Panasonic.
Essentially its why I think there remains a need for the simple 6x6 Hassleblad with its 500th of a sec flash sync. You get more shallow DoF, because of the larger format and be able to balance outdoor lighting (like weddings) while giving pleasing renderings. Where a focal plane shutter may need f11@160th the iris shutters allow you to set something like f5.6@500th which on the 6x6 is a nice rendering
Very interesting. This touches on another option (at the opposite end of the spectrum) that I have been pondering - but I may need to run for cover after explaining what it is.
I keep wondering about the FZ100, and its possible replacement with a similar camera using the new 1/2.33 chip that Panasonic have scheduled for mass production in December.
Now I know, I know, FZ100, terrible IQ, smeary, noise in a clear blue sky at ISO 100 etc etc. And yet, for my purposes, it seems to have some distinct advantages, one of which is an iris shutter - flash sync at all speeds.
Another advantage is that its adaptor would hold my achromats at a constant distance from the subject as I zoom in and out to change the magnification/framing. That was how it was with my previous camera, a Canon S3, and it is definitely advantageous given the sensitivity of achromats to the distance to the subject.
10 fps would increase the options for stacking for noise reduction/detail enhancement/dof extension.
And RAW, which I don't have currently, would be nice too.
Oh, and a 1.7x teleconverter would take the reach out to 1020 mm in 35mm equivalent terms. I might even capture some birds.
And it would be much less expensive than a G3 rig would be (especially if I went the whole hog with the G3 and included the 45mm and 100-300mm). I am not kind to equipment, and clumsy to boot. I drop things. Potential replacement costs do figure in my equation.
The G3 would obviously give me options of deeper cropping, but then again I tend to compose in-camera quite close to the final result, so that isn't as much of an advantage for me as you might think.
But back to the IQ issue. Surely this rules out a small sensor camera? Well, I'm used to handling poor quality originals, for example when using ISO 200 on the SX10is in poor-ish light, which I do quite often. But careful PP is giving me results that print to my satisfaction at A4, and the local wildlife trust happily used a (ISO 100, good light) 16" x 12" print along with A4's at a recent event, and there was apparently good feedback about the pictures.
There is obviously a huge difference in native IQ terms between the G3 and the FZ100, even if/when that is replaced with a better sensor. But, it's a horses for courses thing, and a complicated set of factors to juggle. Just now, as for many months, indecision rules.
(Oh dear, I hope I haven't started a religious war with this.
)