Nikon D300 review

"Matthew Winn" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:33:45 GMT, "Lawrence Akutagawa"
wrote:

enlighten me, o wise one - how is it that you all find discussion of the
Nikon D300 relevent to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format? Is said format
4.25 x 6 , 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9?

6 x 9? The D300 is 4288 x 2848. That's 226152 times better than 6 x 9.

hmmm...very interesting numbers. But "better" in terms of what? Weight?
Cost? Image definition for a given print size? Size? Sex appeal? Grain
size? Black & white print longevity? Space/volume? Convenience? Battery
longevity? Total dollar sales? Please substantiate said comparison of
"226152" and basis thereof with appropriate references/links/citations.
Also - please - your lucid and well reasoned explanation for your touting
the D300 here in this specific newsgroup. As noted previously, I may well
learn something. And me being of the simple, naive sort - your use of
simple words, each no more than 12 letters will be much appreciated.

And doth it useth 620 or 120?

What's wrong with 220?

wups...oversight on my part. But not an important one, to judge from the
fact that the Nikon D300 gurus and
) - rather than explain to us in lucid and well
reasoned words as requested - seem to have retired to their mountain tops,
retreated into their caves, or crawled back under their respective rocks to
gaze at and contemplate their navels, fingers, toes, knees, whatever. How
about hearing from you in their stead, as per my comment above?

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"G.T." wrote:
Thanks for the lesson. I bought a Mamiya 645 Pro recently and was only
familiar with 120 and 220.

The 110/2.8 lens is real sweet if you like that focal length, and often
quite cheap (I paid US$200 or so over here for mine). I used the 35/3.5,
55/2.8, and 110/2.8 for landscapey/cityscapey sorts of things for a few
years.

Thanks David. I have the 80/1.9 and the 55/2.8. I'm having fun with
the 55, sometimes the 80, for now.

Greg