Pål Jensen wote:
Dario wrote:
Today, digital FF is more than enough for at least 99% of the pro market.
For that reason I think of digital MF as a niche.
But these kind of arguments are absurd!
Not quite, read further.
It they made any kind of sense we would still be driving Ford model T's.
I never said to buy a Ford T after a Ford T, and I never said to buy a *istD
after an *istD. Where do you get such an idea from?
Kodachrome was good enough for 99% of all 35mm outdoor shooters but still
virtually all of them switched to Velvia because it was "better".
I'd say "overall better", since someone (not me) could well prefer some
aspects of the 'chrome.
In any case, Velvia proved to offer comparable quality, lower price and,
most important, it is more practical/quicker to manage.
I think a 16MP DSLR in a 35mm size (body and lenses) can offer more or less
the same advantages when compared to a 18MP 645 system, both being a good
step over current 6MP DSLR's.
The fact is that people will buy the best there is as long as it is within
reasonable cost/hassle constraints. Whats good enough doesn't enter the
equation.
So everyone is driving Ferrari and Porsche cas over there? No one is still
buying current Fords, Volkswagens and Toyotas? Despite being just 100Kms far
from Maranello, I don't see Ferraris all the time.
If a "well more than enough" EOS 5D will be barely affordable by your money
at 3,000$ and another "well more than enough" 645D will be even beyond your
cash at say 9,000$, which one will you buy?
Then, having bought the 5D in 2006, which camera will you buy when an even
better 30MP camera (for instance a EOS 3D, not just another Ford T) will be
available in 2008 at say 3,000$? I'd bet another Canon.
I only wish in 2006 I could buy a 15MP Pentax K-mount body instead of the
EOS 5D.
Dario
