For the sake of justice. Aaron. Are you reading the same article as me? If you do, I find your conclusions a bit... odd. He does not say 4x5 is a dinosaur and a bad choice. He says he loves his D200 with IR, electric ignition, implemented coffee machine and so on, for - it's _convenience_. But he also says he loves his 4x5, for - it's _superb quality_. The downer for medium format is, according to him, that this quality does not help if the tool is the back of the car when you are on top of a mountain. Personally I am a bit with him on this. I have one steady and heavy tripod, and one light and wobbly tripod. To me that makes sense. But it does not mean that my steady tripod was a bad choice. Or does it?
I never thought I'll defend "Rocky the Clown" in public ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: Aaron Reynolds [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14. mars 2006 17:39 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Really Really OT: Hooray, finally, balanced film to digital > comparison > > > On Mar 14, 2006, at 11:26 AM, Christian wrote: > > > At the risk of being flamed.... He DOES have some nice pictures > > there... > > Sure, but his premise and conclusions are odd -- since he didn't > buy/bring the correct 4x5 camera for the style of shooting he wanted to > do (run 'n' gun, apparently), 4x5 is a poor format choice. > > Had he brought a field camera with a multiple-shot back, I can't see > the process being so much slower than with a tripoded DSLR. > > But ultimately, it's the same old song -- don't shoot film if you want > it in less than a day. > > -Aaron >
