I guess it is all a matter of what you want to do. If you want to do very quality landscapes your $10k Canon DSLR system is not going to be able to do it however. Now if you want to do what cant be done on 4x5 than that is another matter and the $10K canon system might be just the ticket. But why have the "one or the other" mentality? If you budget permits, why not use the best tool for each job and have BOTH formats at your disposal? JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 9:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers) i've pretty much made up my mind that i'm about to spend more than JCO's $10K on a Canon system to overcome the limitations of *istD. i don't see Pentax making a DSLR body that will suit the my needs for high responsiveness with acceptable image resolution within the next 4 or 5 years. i would prefer to go Nikon for a variety of reasons, but they are, if anything, more uncertain about their future than Pentax despite having a relatively safe and significant portion of the DSLR market. however, 8 megapixels speaks loudly too. a 1D Mk 2 with a set of fast long lenses will easily cost more than the digital 4x5 system that JCO talks about, but like you, i am not in the slightest bit interested in the larger format. Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 8:56 PM Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers) > On 25 Aug 2004 at 20:44, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > No, > > > > Cant Take away the cost issue, because it is possible to match 4x5 > > film quality with special digital backs that cost $10,000 and up. > > Can you afford that? I doubt. > > Herein lies your problem. > > > So IN THE AFFORDABLE domain, > > 4x5 film blows away digital..... > > Maybe for yourself and you still don't seem to be taking into account > the relatively limited scope of 4x5 equipment. Sharpness and absolute > print size > isn't all that makes a photograph.
