On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Olympus wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Not true. Mamiya RZ Pro kit's on evilbay are floating below $1500. That's
> cheaper than a N*kon F* and one or two lenses.. So I don't think that is
> true. Maybe the preception of price...
>
Sorry. Was thinking "new" prices. Last I checked (which is also a while
ago), it was possible to get a new Wunderbrick + 2 lenses for the same
price as a new (admittedly high-end, but so was the wunderbrick) MF body.
I dunno if the prices have changed since I bought MF and was up to speed
with the prices and all. Quite possibly. Although I still suspect that
glass for MF (almost by definition) is more expensive than for 35mm....
(Of course, I can come up with a 35mm kit that will outcost a
MF-kit...think Leica vs. (I think they're called) Kiev. Then again,
that wouldn't be a usefull comparison).
> >
> > 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).
> >
>
> Probably. Most consumers never seen things from an MF film, and so they
> probably have no idea the quality differences.. But now that I do, I'm
> going to ask for MF for my studio portraits..
>
Absolutely. If one doesn't know that better exists, one is happy with what
one gets ;)
> > 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.
>
> Agreed. If I'm running around, a RZ is probably not a choice. (An OM1n
> would be!) :-)
>
Heh. Actually, I can from time to time be seen running around with a
Mamiya 645...
--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 >
|