On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 09:42:02PM -0400, JC OConnell scripsit: > None of this makes any sense to me. The point of medium format in > the film era was higher quality than 35mm. But it didnt skip from > 35mm to large format, there was 645, 6x6, 6x7, then 4x5. Going from > aps to 645 ( asumming they do ff 6x4.5, less than that might as well > do 35mm 24x36mm) is like skipping the more reasonable sizes in terms > of cost, size, weight, and especially lens availablity. I think the > market for FF digital (24x35mm)would be much greater appeal than > going to 645 or 67.
Full-frame digital means you have to beat the D700's imminent successor on technical value *and* outspend Sony in terms of price point. That includes a global pro dealer and service network, and starting from zero in that market. Digital Medium Format is a place where you *have* a niche -- fading, but still there -- and where the competition is rather less drastic. It also lets you put forward a value proposition independent of the rather cutthroat full-frame digital market. I would think it's a complete no-brainer to go with the medium format; a larger share of a smaller bucket of money is not usually the way to go, but sometimes that makes sense. -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
