Vic, I'm not sure that any of us on the list that have/use MF or LF think that it is ONLY way to go. I still have my 35mm gear and use it. Just not that often. When the situation calls for it, that is what I use. My Coolpix 990 digicam also gets a fair amount of use for snapshots or instant needed images.
To answer your other points - I make lots of 8X10's and some larger 11X14, 16X20 and 20X24. Beyond 8X10 is mostly for commercial stuff. I tend not to hang my own work - prefer book/portfolio presentation. For that, I use 8X10's. I can see a difference in prints at 5X7 and more so at 8X10 or greater. A good example of 5X7 was shooting a concert with Delta 3200. The 5X7 blowups from the 67 negs were almost grainless looking. The 35mm stuff was painfully worse looking. Now, generally I try to shoot 100 speed (Reala, Optima II) type films on 35mm, but differences can still be seen. I tend to go with the philosophy of use the biggest negative you can in a given situation. The situations become very obvious. Longer telephoto stuff, quiet stuff, low res shots (for web or slide shows) where I will be taking lots and lots (need quantity to tell story of the even), some macro, size & weight impacted shoots all push me to 35mm. I am happy to have both systems and be able to choose when I need to. Not sure I understand your last statement "You can be shooting with the best medium format or large format camera in the world but it doesn't mean your pictures are any better". If you mean someone else with a smaller format can take a better picture than you, I would agree because content, composition, etc are all important factors in the final image. But the same photographer, shooting the same picture with small and medium/large format will have a technically more usable image due to the amount of detail captured and the lack of blowup needed for enlargements. I do believe having a fun, usable camera is important as the process of creating images is part/most of the enjoyment for me. I haven't cared for the TLR or waist level square box style camera that is prevalent in the MF world. Both offerings from Pentax handled in a manner that I found enjoyable. I can use my 67II just about like I was using my MZ-S. My niece (working wedding photographer), on the other hand, almost never uses her 'Blad because she doesn't care for how it handles. All the working pros in her area told her that is what she should use. Bruce Sunday, December 15, 2002, 12:50:53 PM, you wrote: Pac> Very good points Mike. Well said. Agree wholeheartedly. Pac> Let me ask these questions: How many photographers on this list who think Pac> that MF or LF is the ONLY way to go really blow up their images beyond 8X10 Pac> and 11X14 on a regular basis? Pac> And of those who do, how many are doing it commercially and how many are Pac> doing it to hang on their own walls? Pac> And what type of photography do they do...static, action, pictorial ... Pac> These are (in my opinion) valid questions. Because it's really the type of Pac> photography you do and the end use of your photography that dictates the Pac> appropriate type of system. You can be shooting with the best medium format Pac> or large format camera in the world but it doesn't mean your pictures are any Pac> better Pac> Vic Pac> PS I have medium format Yashica and larger format Crown Graphic and never use Pac> them, ever....
