David Parsons wrote: > Photographers that want to shoot MFD are going to use MFD, not FF > 35mm.
I agree with that. > It doesn't matter that the D800 has a similar number of pixels. It might. By far and away the biggest reason for shooting MF film was the increase in resolution and the ability to capture finer gradations in light and color as opposed to smaller media. Upper end 24x36 digital pretty much fulfills that for numerous photographers. > The DoF is different, handling is different, sensor performance is different. That's true. Are those differences always desired, or are they often just part and parcel with moving to a larger format for the gain in resolution and range? For the price difference, there'd better be some pretty specific attributes that aren't achievable or able to be duplicated in a smaller body. For a large number of MF film photographers, there wasn't enough difference to prevent them moving to high resolution 24x36 format Canon's. Especially in terms of nature, landscape, non-studio modeling, action, the portability and weight makes the smaller format mighty attractive. Price surely makes a difference. > Having held and looked through a D700 (close enough to a D800) and a > 645D, they are nothing alike. You'd never want to pick one over the > other without actually using them. Deciding only based on specs is > foolhardy. I suppose there will always be a reason for MF digital, and given that sensor technology and usable resolution continue to improve, there will no doubt be some applications that demand MF digital. However, the lines blurred and they continue to blur. True, deciding only on specs would be foolhardy. Tom C. -- 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.
