Obviously, only the photographer can decide whether the improved
image quality of MF outweighs all the obvious disadvantages of a
larger format. (Don't forget that National Geographic's photographic
reputation was built on a base of 35mm Kodachrome.)
Consider this... You don't go on vacation to do "serious"
photography. If taking great pictures _is_ the whole point of your
travel, then MF makes sense. If not, stick with 35mm.
If there were a pocket-sized 645 RF camera, I'd recommend buying one
and using it for shots that justify or require the larger negative.
But I don't know of one.
Of course National Geo is a small format magazine.
It would have been wonderful to see what Maitani could have done with
miniaturizing a 645. Of course to be small it would have to be slower
and you would need to carry that tripod.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|