I've gone to digital and all manual focus by using A and M lenses with the *istD.
Nick -----Original Message----- From: "Tom C"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 27/07/04 18:57:58 To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can 'craft' a shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all manual focus will help in that regard. Tom C. >From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:39:46 -0600 > >>From: "John C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>4x5 is a far superior image quality SYSTEM, it is not because the >>lenses are better, actually some of them are worse than the P67 >>lenses, it is just that the film size is so big you don't need as >>much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67. >>Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with >>the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape >>photography. >> >>I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based >>on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF >>by people who have never done any LF photography. >> >>JCO > >You are correct... I have never done LF firsthand, or MF for that matter. >Here's the thing... let's say my personal "Keeper shots/Shots taken Ratio" >is 1/36, or approximately one per roll (yeah, if I'm lucky). If I go out >and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were >to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth >keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway? > >Tom C. > >