> A lot of his rationale for going digital was convenience. He
> needs to get new images to his website quickly.
And if the website is a very important source of revenue and
timeliness of delivery is a factor, I would suggest that this is
reason alone for transitioning to digital capture.
> In another article on Luminous Landscape published in 2001, he
> defended 4x5 as the ideal format.
Except for the previous point, it probably still is--if large
prints are a very important source of revenue and turnaround
time isn't extremely demanding. Give him a couple more months
and you'll see an article from him about how to somehow get a
barely acceptable parallax correction or how to do a panoramic.
> Granted four years have passed, which is an
> eon in digital terms. But I wonder what his next "perfect"
> camera will be.
Chances are it doesn't exist yet. Probably a full-size sensor
to fit the 4x5. Who cares about ISO 12800 performance--just
give me a clean ISO 100 with 20 stops of latitude.
> He makes a living at it, I don't, so he can afford to
> change platforms far more rapidly than I.
If it means opening up new revenue streams or increasing the
number of available prints for sale, it would probably have a
decent ROI. If it's just a technology change, that's another
story.
> I don't think I've gotten the most
> out of my 35mm gear, much less my 4x5.
Who among us has?
AG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|