review of 22 Mpixel medium format digital back

Mr 645 writes:

how do you figure? After working with the Imacon 132C I don't think you could
match the results with a 4x5 sheet of Provia, much less smaller formats.

You could blow away the results with a 4x5 sheet of Provia, and with
smaller formats as well.

But it's your choice. If you're happy with digital, stay with it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

MATT WILLIAMS wrote:

Which Digital did you buy Stacey ?


Olympus E300

--

Stacey

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
MATT WILLIAMS wrote:

Which Digital did you buy Stacey ?
Olympus E300

We have four Olympus 8080s at work for the staff, and while it is an okay
unit, I cannot for a moment recommend these digital cameras over even 35mm
when one needs real control. I hate the autofocus (manual override sucks),
not having DOF controls typical of 35mm film, and I'm not about to buy a
big-$ DSLR until users get a clue regarding the language/controls of lens
and shutter control. If I didn't make a living by it, I'd resent the whines
such as "Why do you want the background out of focus. It takes so long in
Photoshop", and of course, it's still not the same as the real thing.

Back to MF.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
MATT WILLIAMS wrote:

Which Digital did you buy Stacey ?
Olympus E300

We have four Olympus 8080s at work for the staff, and while it is an okay
unit, I cannot for a moment recommend these digital cameras over even 35mm
when one needs real control. I hate the autofocus (manual override sucks),
not having DOF controls typical of 35mm film, and I'm not about to buy a
big-$ DSLR until users get a clue regarding the language/controls of lens
and shutter control. If I didn't make a living by it, I'd resent the whines
such as "Why do you want the background out of focus. It takes so long in
Photoshop", and of course, it's still not the same as the real thing.

Back to MF.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bill Hilton writes:


Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is
close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film.

When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it.

$15,000 for the Sinar 54M

jjs wrote:

and I'm not about to buy a
big-$ DSLR until users get a clue regarding the language/controls of lens
and shutter control.

So far I like the interface this camera has. For most of what I shoot,
having more DOF is a good thing!


If I didn't make a living by it, I'd resent the
whines such as "Why do you want the background out of focus.

I'm not going to sell my medium format either. This type of camera isn't
going to produce the type shots a 6X6 shot with a 180mm F2.8 sonar wide
open would do..

--

Stacey

$9700 for a 'blad V96C.

"aw" wrote in message
...
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Bill Hilton writes:


Nice images. All it takes is $40,000 to get something digital that is
close to what one can obtain for $1000 with 35mm film.

When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it.

$15,000 for the Sinar 54M

That's "only" 16MP, right? The 54M is 22MP

"nathantw" wrote in message
m...
$9700 for a 'blad V96C.

When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it.

$15,000 for the Sinar 54M

But it's less than $10,000, so it's closer to "the real world" prices.

Also, the V96C may "only be" 16MP, but how many other 16MP backs that go for
less than $10k will you be able to use Zeiss lenses? Also, look at how many
people are going ga-ga over the new Canon 1DS. How many MP does that camera
have? 16.7. Also, it costs $8000. So for $1800 more than the Canon you'd be
able to use Zeiss lenses and Hasselblad accessories. In fact, you can even
use a 905SWC, an Arcbody or a Flexbody if you have one handy. You also
receive the handy, dandy Image Bank that will hold 1550 images. What a deal.

"aw" wrote in message
...
That's "only" 16MP, right? The 54M is 22MP

"nathantw" wrote in message
m...
$9700 for a 'blad V96C.

When the prices move closer to the real world, I'll consider it.

$15,000 for the Sinar 54M