Your conclusion for the practicality of 4x5/MF vs. DSLR is where I've come to
also. 99.5% of paying customers don't want/need/appreciate the improved
technology or detail afforded by large format or medium format.
OT: I talked to a friend of mine this week who is shooting some race tracks for
the owner, Roger Penske, and using a Fuji 6x17, as the resulting prints will be
8-10 feet long! Now that's where you need something better than a DSLR for
real quality impact.
Most of us, given our druthers and an infinite amount of time/money, would
search out the best, most perfect, highest resolution equipment for everything.
This would give us the "best" results. But the dimishing returns offered by
such efforts and the lack of appreciation lead me to abandon 35mm, MF and LF
for most of my work. It's just too much of a hassle for little return. Now if
you're talking about personal satisfaction or high-end, fine-art photos, that's
something different.
Increasingly, I'm leaning towards the following for my photo needs in order of
usage. (Now that I put this down, it's pretty shocking to me.)
1. 85-90%: DSLR (E-1) for day-to-day shooting
2. 3-6% Hassleblad X-Pan I for panoramas or unique viewpoints
3. 2-4% Canon G2, Contax T2, or Olympus XA for carry-everywhere shots
4. 2-4% OM, Leica for B&W, slides, fisheye, or 14mm ultra-wide-angle
5. 1-2% Various old 6x6, 6x7, or 35mm for nostagia or fun
Skip
----- Original Message ---------------
Subject: [OM] Re: Selling out
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 07:07:41 -0700 (PDT)
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>
>What about the results? Well, that's another story. I'm
>working on a picture taken up in the mountains which I shot with
>both the M*nolta A1 and the 4x5. 8x10 comparative prints from
>each reveal something interesting: The 4x5 possesses incredible
>tonal depth. The picture almost comes alive and is 3D with
>almost the ability to reach in past the trees with your hands.
>But the M*nolta A1 shot held its own. The A1 shot was sharper
>and revealed details lost in the 4x5. Now granted, part of the
>problem is in the enlarger lens, but still this was startling.
>However, as soon as I stepped up to 11x14 print size, it was all
>over for the digital. The 4x5 became sharper. But when shown
>the 8x10 prints, probably 2/3 of my test subjects preferred the
>digital shot. What grouses me is that the digital shot will be
>the one that sells--even though I "KNOW" that it's inferior.
>
>AG
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
>http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|