Rob, I stand corrected. :) Certainly one could argue that the two aspects of MF are cost and image quality. Since the 645 is a smaller format than the 67, it should be encroached upon sooner than 67. The cost to get to 67 quality will be higher than getting to 645. The real question is whether 645 will fight 'em or join 'em (them being digital). I would argue that a less than full frame sensor for 645 makes less sense than a full frame 35mm sensor due to weight and size of the supporting lenses.
The other very interesting issue is who actually buys MF. 645 seems to be the realm of Wedding and location work where portability and speed of operation matter. From what I am seeing and hearing, that group is already abandoning their film cameras for digital now. There may not be that many users left by the time a digital solution is available for 645 and it might be way too expensive. When I shoot weddings, 90%+ of the prints are 8X10 or smaller to fit in albums. Once in a while a larger print to go on the wall but not usually. So if I were a studio, why not shoot 35mm digital (full frame or not) and have a 67 or 4X5 for the planned really big stuff? Bruce Monday, February 3, 2003, 3:33:52 PM, you wrote: RS> On 3 Feb 2003 at 11:28, Bruce Dayton wrote: >> Ryan, >> >> But everyone is already saying that Canon 1DS is competing head to >> head with 645 already. RS> That should read "But everyone with vested interests is already saying that..." RS> I do agree though 645 will be the first medium format to succumb to the advance RS> of digital cameras (on the SLR front). RS> Cheers, RS> Rob Studdert RS> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA RS> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 RS> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours RS> [EMAIL PROTECTED] RS> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
