R�diger wrote:
> At > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1700-frames.shtml > > is a review about the EOS 1Ds from Michael Reichmann. > > Here I quote his summary: > > Because I've been asked the question several times recently, let me answer > it straightforwardly here. I am moving away from medium format and film in > general, and expect that I will be doing 90% of my photography with the > Canon 1Ds and D60 from now on. I have recently sold my Pentax 645 equipment > and while I'm hanging on to the Pentax 67 outfit, I really am not sure when > I'll use it next. It too might get sold soon. My XPan and Leica M equipment > stays in the mix because they both offer unique capabilities, but frankly, > working digitally has become like a drug; image quality is so superior to > film and workflow so much more convenient that it's hard to look back. Film? > Oh ya, I remember film. This guy has been claiming the same thing since the D30 was released: that it as good or better than 35mm film and approaching medium format. The same was claimed by others about the original Nikon D1 (was it 2MP?). An equal valid claim is to insist that 35mm is as good as medium form at because on the small print from the lab you can't see any difference. What the guy is saying is that his digital camera is as good or better than his scanner judged after it has been through his printer. I doubt the 645 format is dead. If so, why then put companies like Pentax, Contax, Mamiya and Hassleblad serious money into this format?
