On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Olympus wrote:
> 24mm x 36mm = 864mm^2
> 600mm x 700mm = 420000mm^2
>
> Given the difference.. WOW! I'm curious, I understand field work, action
> shots, etc.. BUT, why would someone use a 35mm in the studio then?? 6x4.5,
> 6x6 or 6x7, just has such HUGE advantages it's not funny.. Ok, I'm doing
> the math here..
Well...price, for one thing.
A decent pro MF camera body has about the same price as a Wunderbrick
Fxx with high-quality glass. With the reasonable fine-grained,
slow films available, plenty of light in the studio and the (usually very
limited) requirements from studio fotos), it's a reasonable compromize to
use 35mm. Fact is, that most studio prints probably do not go into very
high enlargements, and most customers are satisfied with what they get
from the 35mm (colored brochures are limited by the printing quality,
and family portraits rarely go into wall-size anyways).
More "dynamic" studio-types that I've known also tend to move about with
the camera in the studio (not on a tripod). That's easier with 35mm.
That said, though, I agree on your notion that MF clearly is better for
big enlargements. However I think that MF complements the 35mm format well
- they both have their uses.
<SNIP>
--thomas
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|