While there are people using it in both larger format groups the same can be said for it's effect in 35mm. My brother, Kirk, the professional, who shoots mainly 4x5 and some Hassy MF, has taught classes in LF and MF digital, and teaches the Zone System at both UNM and occasionally at the Art Institute of Chicago will disagree with you. 6MP MF and 16MP LF backs are readily available currently. However the main problem is still the amount of info captured. Both formats suffer from the same lens aspect problem you get with the latest sub-full frame cameras from Nikon and Canon. He says that without much exception his major architectural clients are not happy with the amount of info captured by 16 MP digital backs when a good 4x5 film plate can get more than 64 MP when scanned if they want a digital product. In MF the problem is that in effect you are using a full frame 35mm array size. So you lose any info you might get from the advantage of shooting from 60x45 to 60x90. While the images are about as good as 35mm film they aren't as good as medium format film results. Unless of course you are shooting in a field like PJ in 35mm format where a loss in info capture isn't important due to the media result it is used in. My brother is fully ready to use the larger digital formats as soon as they get digital backs that can provide as much info as film. Till then it is still not ready for prime time. Kent Gittings
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? In a message dated 11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Subj:Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > Date:11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Tsai) > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Mafud, > > While it might be true that the digital print or picture quality may > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, cost is definitely > less of an issue when going digital." > I've found, and I have no way of knowing how typical I am, that downloading then "fixing" 50 "normal" low res images doesn't task me too tough. But when I edit out the fluff and stuph and want some 1200dpi scans, now the time factor...becomes a factor. But I'll repeat: "real" digital ~is~ here,in medium and 4x5 formats. > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 then I will even dare > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own over the last year that > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper (especially in Japan) > to shoot digital. OK, let's try this. By the time I actually reretired, I was shooting 28-30 keepers" per roll. In my business, maybe 2 of them would be chosen: one for newspaper/magazine publication, the maybe the writer (if not myself). "Keepers" to us though is just so much trash to the photo editor. I found one was to steer the selection toward what ~I~ thought was (or should be the "cover" shot: I learned to write captions which were minimalist in nature but thoroughly descriptive. " Also, cost of ownership really isn't that bad; so far, > I've spent: > Camera - US$650 (including charger and 1 battery) > Memory cards - US$80 (2 x 32MB) > Rechargeable batteries - US$40 (1 additional battery) > A far cry from those "battery-chewing" digitals you describe below... > Sure, I may not be using some of the great lenses I have, but you know > what? I've enjoyed immersing myself in the digital world and it's taking > Pentax way too long to get to market with a digital SLR because > technology waits for no one." I'll bet, but I probably won't be alive to collect, that you digital dies out before (any) PENTAX SLR conks out. Worse, in the near future (3-5 years), your camera's technology will be superceded, not so your chemical cameras. As long as they make film, you'll be able to shoot, especailly with K-1000s and the like. But everyone should ~enjoy~ their choices and their personnal pursuits. My howling rejection of digital also rests on three important (to me anyway) facts, other than them being small format: 1) Digitals cameras take (make) utterly lousy exposures-most of the time. That's why they all have "do over" buttons. The problem for a PJ (working or not), is most times there ain't no time to "do over" nothing. We ~have~ to capture the moment at that moment. I understand that most of the newer PJs using "pro" digitals, don't even bother to look or preview their images, uploading them sight unseen to their publications. So much for "do overs," by people who have an interest in the final outcome of their work: can we say: "Pulitzer"? 2) Without stand-alone flash, digital SUX 3) Without interchangeable lenses, digital SUX. Remember, those are opinions held by a very opinionated person who uses dinky digital all the time...just not for important things. > On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 10:54 PM, pentax-discuss-digest wrote: > > > How much have you spent on "AA" batteries for those dratted, battery > > chewing > > digitals? > - > Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com ********************************************************************** - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
