>> These same issues must have been fought over tooth and nail as 35mm
>> began to displace medium format.
The same questions arose when 6x6 (mainly Rollei) took over from 4x5. The
truth is, each succeeding format gave up image quality for another perceived
advantage. I, for one, recognise the superiority of a new vinyl record to a
CD, but am willing to take the lower initial quality for the knowlege that
the CD will sound the same after a hundred playings than the vinyl record.
It's also why I reach for the Hasselblad first when taking a photo. We all
have to make trade-offs.
I got into photography when the 35 SLR takeover was complete. The
photojournalist's camera of choice, as Canon is today, was the Pentax
Spotmatic. Rangefinders were out, and the Nikon F was poised to squeeze out
the Pentax. But, it was a differnt time.
The wealth of mf comeras we had until kjust a few years ago didn't exist.
The dominant 6x6 was the Rollei, used in lots of newspapers, and it was
hobbled by its lack of interchangable lenses. It those days, the Hasselblad
was still mainly the 2000 with the giant focal plane shutter with the slow
flash sync. Things like Bronicas and Mamiyas may have been around, but were
not in any way established.
So, the advantages of handling made the 35 SLR's a real advantage for the
photojournalist. But remember, for commercial, industrial, and wedding and
protrait photographers, 35 didn't come along in a big way until the last ten
or so years.
I think the rapid move to digital is more due to marketing than anything
else.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|