I will argue with that. MF users are: a. Wedding Photographers many who have gone digital, but some of them are actually going back to film; and b. Studio Photographers who have probably only gone 50% digital, some of them actually shoot digital and film in parallel. Actually the only area where digital is an overwhelming advantage are news, and event photography.
Oh, yes, and snapshooters who have to see their image to know if they got what they thought they got. Which brings up an old story. It was January 1961 I was in basic training, I had just bought a Kalimar A at the Base Exchange for $24.95, I also got a roll of Kodachrome. My first 35mm camera, and my first roll of color film. Over the weekend I wandered over the base taking pictures of everything in sight. I got that roll of Kodachrome back, it had 17 black slides and 3 dim ones. Back to the BX to buy a light meter, that was when I realized that photography was going to be an expensive hobby. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ----------------------------------- Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 28/09/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Pentax's pro users have been largely medium format for many years. >> Whether they can retain a share of this market is uncertain, but they >> probably have a better chance in MF than in pro grade FF SLR. > > I understand where you're coming from Paul but I sincerely expect that > any pro who used Pentax medium format equipment has likely moved on to > a new digital system of some type. I can't help but believe that the > vast majority of Pentax MF shooters these days are amateurs. Few of > which will likely shell out for a new P645 even if it comes in at > under US$5k (and as you may recall I've said similar before long ago > but it seem more and more likely as time slips by) > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
