On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:29:35 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


https://www.dpreview.com/news/363112...ightweight-aff
ordable-easy-to-use-5x4-field-camera

film, not digital.

Read the subject line.

read the name of the newsgroup.

You f***ing idiot! Why do you think I put the words "digital back"
into the heading?

Don't you know what a digital back is?

i do, but don't expect to find one that's any good a price you can
afford.

Just look at this one, for example (one of many).
https://fotodioxpro.com/products/hbh-4x5-pro

junk. laughably so.

why bother using a 4x5 camera if you're only going to mount an slr on
the back?

or this one

http://www.digital-photography.org/D...al/dicomed_fie
ld_pro.htm

that article is almost 20 years old, but at least they used a mac,
except that particular mac is long discontinued, so even if you can
find the back, it won't do you any good.

Changing the subject. You are the idiot who tried to tell me that my
post did not belong in rpd!

Go away and argue with someone else.

here's a bunch of backs, using that 'new high-speed usb 2' technology:
http://www.betterlight.com/products4X5.html

the cheaper ones have less resolution than modern slrs and their top of
the line model is about what a medium format camera can do. and then
there's that perfectly still subject problem.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens