One other thing to consider is "good enough" - for the client, that is. If the clients are happy with it, then all the other positive factors about digital come into the equation. I have moved from 67 to 6mp digital for my portrait and wedding work just very recently. Right now, from my experience, it seems that 67 has an edge in regards to detail - especially in landscapes, but when the subject is rather dominant - like people - the digi does just fine. Those who have seen my digital stuff so far have commented at least as favorably as my 67 stuff - usually slightly better. This is due to the spontinaety that I get from the smaller, faster camera and the generally closer focusing of the lenses that I use.
So my advice would be that if you are shooting landscapes/scenics for fine art, that MF is still a better approach. If you are shooting people and events, the digital factors are well worth the difference in image quality (if it can even be seen). -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, January 1, 2004, 9:27:16 AM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> WR> ' WR> Subject: No grain as a digital advantage? >> Did I hear right in posts earlier this week? >> >> Did somebody suggest that digital was replacing medium format in Wedding >> photography because the results looked better -- smoother or whatever? >> >> A post by Bill Robb made me aware of different needs for sharpness in WR> Wedding >> Photos, for coming down the aisle snaps vs formal portraits. >> >> So does a 6 megapixel Pentax digital replace a 6x7 for the formal WR> portraits >> based on the lack of grain - textures & tonality, and the sharpness of the >> photos is not an issue? >> >> Regards, Bob S. WR> I know that for several photographers in my area, 6mp Canon's have replaced WR> Pentax, Bronica and Mamiya 6x7 cameras for their wedding work. WR> Where did you get the idea that pictures from 6mp digital cameras are not WR> sharp? WR> William Robb
