Re: K/M on *istD

[Paul Stenquist]

Ditto.

On Jan 17, 2004, at 8:08 PM, William Robb wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: K/M on *istD
I felt pretty much the same way about 35mm as you do. The work I do is
better suited to larger film as well.
Truthfully, I think most of the people on this list would be better 
off with
larger film cameras.

The digital SLR has to a great extent, made me enthusiastic about small
format cameras again.
While there is no way the quality of the istD image is as good as 
medium
format in terms of absolute resolution (it doesn't come close), the 
lack of
grain is very enticing.
In many ways, it is as good as shooting medium format film, without the
medium format price tag or size penalty.

I think it is very good for colour portraiture, especially since 
portrits
invariably need retouching.
I much prefer the clone tool to a paint brush.

For black and white, I still don't like the digital solutions that are 
being
produced.

William Robb




To tell you the truth, I am not so hot to buy ANY more 35mm SLR
bodies DIGITAL or film because of my recent adventures
with 35mm technical pan. While it squeezes every last bit of
resolution out of the lenses and eliminates grain for
all intensive purposes, there still is not enuff resolution
in the final images from my 35mm lenses to satisfy me any
more.  I have been playing around with 4x5 and 8x10 pretty solid
for the last year or so and once those become "normal",
35mm becomes a big blur IMHO. This is especially painfully
true with wide angle landscapes. 35mm SUCKS for that compared
to LF.  I doubt I would be happy even with a full frame, 10Mp jobbie.
This isnt to say that 35mm DSLR wouldnt be nice for some things,
especially
wildlife
or sports with long lenses, but I dont do much of that. Actually
the one thing I might like to do is MACRO with a 35mm DSLR, but once
again I dont do much of that at a serious level.
I think I'll just stick with my 1.3Mp digicam for now just for
ebay advertisement photos as I have for the last 3 years and
stick with mostly large format film for my "real" photos the next few
years.
Now if they made a "cheapie" say $500 Pentax DSLR, it would probably
be worth it for me, even if just for the occasional 
wildfile/sports/MACRO
stuff....