Mike wrote: > I'm not sure what the eventual form of the digital camera will take, but of > one thing I am certain: it will not be the same form as the 35mm SLR. It > just isn't a very flexible application of the new technology.
I agree. This is one of the reasons why I'm reluctant to jump onto the digital bandwagon; I don't know where (and when) it will settle. The disadvantage of the 35mm system became apparent to me after starting using the Pentax 645 system. A four lens 645 Pentax system covering focal length range from 20mm to 200mm (in 35mm system terms), including a heavy macro lens and a zoom plus converter, weight less than an Nikon F5 with three of the popular pro grade zoom lenses covering the same focal lenght range. Or about the same as an F100 with the same lenses. The "pro" 35mm lenses from Nikon and Canon are of the same size as the Pentax medium format lenses for the 645. 35mm doesn't really start to shine until you get past 300mm. Taking into consideration that 645 MF cameras can be made significantly (about 35%) smaller by removing the film path, and even more by removing the film transport, it is clear to me that MF is an excellent platform for high quality digital with even less trade-offs than for MF film. Hence, making DSLR's with smaller sensors than 35mm has potential of outpreforming 35mm film while being significantly smaller and cheaper than high quality 35mm gear. Full frame DSLR's based on 35mm system can never really be huge, or even just big saleswise, as long as sensors cost as much and lenses that can do the better sensors justice cost thousands. P�l
