cunim
Well-known member
No leaks. Is blackened - poorly. No answers from customer support. Not a fan.You mean it has light leaks or no internal black paint?
I agree, and a refreshing comment from an equipment dealer. It's all about use cases. If the purpose is to make photos that push technical limits, we are very sensitive to minor changes. Ask any audiophile about equipment cables. If, in contrast, the purpose is to make photos, we are very insensitive to gear. Musicians are rarely audiophiles.Of course I’m biased. Just saying I don’t think that’s more than a crude rule of thumb. I think the amount of impact/value of a change in resolution is probably a lot more dependent on whether a given use case has more than enough already -
Sadly, the things that would be game changers in MF (eg. larger sensor area, field-usable EVFs, user interface improvements for tethering) are too expensive for our present MF companies to tackle. Maybe Leica? So, these little companies rely on sensor suppliers to do the big spend in driving product evolution. The sensor suppliers do what they know - pixel miniaturisation - and are doing an impressive job of pushing the limits of what is possible. But does it matter? Seems to me we are stuck in a silly tail chase in which ever smaller pixels are stuffed into the same size sensor. Smaller pixels have both advantages (theoretical resolution) and disadvantages (many). My own opinion is the IQ4 is already at the point where the disadvantages of small pixels can outweigh the benefits of higher resolution. As much as I love the IQ4, my old IQ180 may have been a better balanced imaging tool. That said, I am a gear nut and I might buy an IQ5, just because I can, Maybe P1 are hoping that most MF users are like me, because real photographers won't benefit from an IQ5. Just my own view.