I'm sure you are aware that the opposite is true.
35mm was the last of the line in film photography (not counting 1/2
frame and miniature) starting with large sheets of various sizes
(after glass negs) from 11 x 14 to 4 x 5, then the 3 x 4 and 2 1/4 x 3
1/4. Roll film came later for the large and small folders, then the
box cameras for home use. Finally, 35mm, first 1/2 frame then what we
now call full frame. Then 126 (aps-c) and 110.
As technology continues to improve over the next 20 years, I suspect
the sensor density and size will make for smaller cameras (especially
in depth) with better images, and smaller and lighter lenses. Maybe
even usable cell-phone cameras with 30x micro-zoom lenses and 250 GB
of flash RAM. GPS, phone, LED flashlight & high speed flash combo,
inertial gyro stabilization (450,000 rpm 1/16th gram rotors) with
sensor mounted shake reduction, 3200 fps HD-Cinema capabilities. You
youngsters on the list will see this, and love it.
Me...
There will still be those of us who feel more "pro" hauling around 2
or 3 kilos of camera & lens, of course.
On May 11, 2009, at 18:42 , JC OConnell wrote:
None of this makes any sense to me. The point of medium format in
the film era was higher quality than 35mm. But it didnt skip from
35mm to large format, there was 645, 6x6, 6x7, then 4x5. Going from
aps to 645 ( asumming they do ff 6x4.5, less than that might as well
do 35mm 24x36mm) is like skipping the more reasonable sizes in terms
of cost, size, weight, and especially lens availablity. I think the
market for FF digital (24x35mm)would be much greater appeal than
going to 645 or 67.
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.html
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
