> > Given the difference.. WOW! I'm curious, I understand field work,
action
> > shots, etc.. BUT, why would someone use a 35mm in the studio then??
6x4.5,
> > 6x6 or 6x7, just has such HUGE advantages it's not funny.. Ok, I'm
doing
> > the math here..
>
> Well...price, for one thing.
Not true. Mamiya RZ Pro kit's on evilbay are floating below $1500. That's
cheaper than a N*kon F* and one or two lenses.. So I don't think that is
true. Maybe the preception of price...
>
> A decent pro MF camera body has about the same price as a Wunderbrick
> Fxx with high-quality glass. With the reasonable fine-grained,
> slow films available, plenty of light in the studio and the (usually very
> limited) requirements from studio fotos), it's a reasonable compromize to
> use 35mm. Fact is, that most studio prints probably do not go into very
> high enlargements, and most customers are satisfied with what they get
> from the 35mm (colored brochures are limited by the printing quality,
> and family portraits rarely go into wall-size anyways).
>
Probably. Most consumers never seen things from an MF film, and so they
probably have no idea the quality differences.. But now that I do, I'm
going to ask for MF for my studio portraits..
> More "dynamic" studio-types that I've known also tend to move about with
> the camera in the studio (not on a tripod). That's easier with 35mm.
>
> That said, though, I agree on your notion that MF clearly is better for
> big enlargements. However I think that MF complements the 35mm format well
> - they both have their uses.
Agreed. If I'm running around, a RZ is probably not a choice. (An OM1n
would be!) :-)
>
> <SNIP>
>
> --thomas
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|