I'll try to avoid the general opinion and will limit this to my personal experience...
I do not photograph for a living - but I do take photographs almost every day. Over the years I have acquired some ;-) cameras with a variety of film formats (including a Minox and a Plaubel 4x5). I use many of them - not at random, but I often pick a different camera for the next film, sometimes even knowing that it might give 'inferior' results. Anyway, I just like it that way. What I have found since I bought the *ist D (my second digital camera) last October, is that I hardly use *medium format* any more. I didn't expect that (even though I sold a 40mm Distagon to fund the *ist D...) but my 35mm usage has not changed that much - I still do slides and happily continue to put negative film into a Spotmatic or a Rollei 35 or whatever, every now and then. As for less (almost no) medium format film use, I dont really know why this is so. One idea is that it is so *easy* to produce good quality prints with digital. True, you can match that quality with 35mm film, but everything needs to be right : The right film, the right lens, the right framing the right exposure, the right lab... I had always found it *easier* to produce a really good 12x18'' print from medium format as it has more reserves, but now digital has made this even simpler. Sven Zitat von Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I realize this list has a number of clairvoyants and unlicensed > psychologists (hahaa), but I'm still interested in a general opinion. > > I have planned to buy a 67II for a number of years. I am now trying to > determine the practicality of that course. > > What if in five years most photography is being done digitally as opposed to > film? What if it's impractical for amateurs, even pros, to use MF/LF > photography for any but the most eliteist of applications? > > Even considering the potential quality of MF over 135, it seems history may > tell us that potential quality is not the sole factor in longevity and > success. Both 620 and 828 saw their demise, even though they were a larger > format than 135. If major players (camera and film manufacturers) are/were > to move away from 135 film, how long is it until they move away from larger > film formats which currently represent a smaller portion of the market than > 135? > > For a fraction of the price of the price of a decent/complete MF system, > there are other things... hot tub, SCT telescope for astrophotography... a > surgery my wife has always wanted... > > I'm curious, what people think... is it possibly throwing money down the > drain to 'invest' in additional film equipment? I'm not making a case for > this, just wondering. The world is currently changing at a faster pace than > most imagined was possible. > > Tom C. > > >
