This debate simply matters to too few people. A 35mm comparison would, of course, be of greater general interest.
Jack --- Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mar 14, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Tim Øsleby wrote: > > > The downer for medium format is, according to him, that this > quality > > does > > not help if the tool is the back of the car when you are on top of > a > > mountain. > > Didn't he mention leaving it in the car because his wife was waiting > for one shot, and not using it because the light was changing too > rapidly for another? My impression was that he was using a studio > camera in the field and was hitting his head against its limitations > in > terms of set up speed -- those are not limitations of the *format*, > but > of the specific camera he chose. > > It would be like me dismissing the Pentax 67 as useless for > hand-holding because I used a Mamiya RB 67 and it was hard to > hand-hold. > > But I do agree with Cristian in that it's a pointless debate. > > -Aaron > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
