I've gone to digital and all manual focus by using A and M lenses with the *istD.
Nick
-----Original Message-----
From: "Tom C"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 27/07/04 18:57:58
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can 'craft' a
shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all manual
focus will help in that regard.
Tom C.
>From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:39:46 -0600
>
>>From: "John C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>4x5 is a far superior image quality SYSTEM, it is not because the
>>lenses are better, actually some of them are worse than the P67
>>lenses, it is just that the film size is so big you don't need as
>>much lens resolution to end up overall much sharper than P67.
>>Add to that the fact that film grain is way less visible with
>>the bigger negs and 4x5 pretty much destroys p67 for landscape
>>photography.
>>
>>I don't mean to sound harsh but your reply seems to be based
>>on all the classic myths and sterotypes associated with LF
>>by people who have never done any LF photography.
>>
>>JCO
>
>You are correct... I have never done LF firsthand, or MF for that matter.
>Here's the thing... let's say my personal "Keeper shots/Shots taken Ratio"
>is 1/36, or approximately one per roll (yeah, if I'm lucky). If I go out
>and shoot 100 frames of 35mm, I might come back with 3 keepers. If I were
>to only take 20 images on an outing I could come back with nothing worth
>keeping... what % of your 4 x 5 shots are throwaway?
>
>Tom C.
>
>
