On 1/13/02 5:43 AM, "dreammoose" <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was simply supporting to my overall point about matching the tool to
> the job, not saying that any format is better or worse in any sense
> other than suitability for a particular task. Miniature, Half frame,
> 35mm, MF and LF each have tasks they excel at compared to the others and
> jobs for which they are ill-suited. Vive le differance.
I definitely didn't mean to disagree with you on this point. I completely
agree here, each format has it's own uses. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes
they don't. Each also has a set of sacrifices (be it speed, weight, cost,
etc) that one can be willing to work with. The key is to find a format (and
then system within that format) that works best for you and to turn as many
of the weaknesses of the system into strengths. A good example would be the
slow pace in working with larger formats. For many applications, this is a
disadvantage. But for other uses, the slowing down is quite useful and many
who use larger formats cite it as an advantage. But a lot of that has to do
with matching the subject to the format and then adjusting your shooting
style accordingly.
--
Andrew "Frugal" Dacey
frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tildefrugal.net/
< 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 >
|