Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/02/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]For me the square is an important tool for previsualization and execution. The framing provided by a 4x5 media is also an important element of the composition. While yes it is a rectangle, it is still not a 35mm format, or a 645. Once they get a decent 22meg+ camera, I'll have the sensor, and screen masked off to make a square. All the relevant innovations have been directed at the 35mm style SLR end. Getting a hybrid digital 120 is not a realistic option anymore. Furthermore, If I wanted to shot with a Fuji I would of done it a long time ago. I did, and their EBC lenses are total crap. Even tried their EBC darkroom lenses. A Componar does better. s.d. http://sdimitrovphoto.com/ On Feb 24, 2007, at 9:45 AM, Frank Filippone wrote: > A sorry event..... but you have to go back to why we ( me and a > bunch of others) still shoot 6x6..... > > I shoot 6x6 for the bigger negative. Dust is less prominent, > requires less blowing up to reach a certain size, and basically it is > a studio camera best suited for a tripod mount. None of this is > true for 35mm SLR or RF. Yes, it all can be done, but not best > suited. It is just easier in the darkroom. > > Now comes in these digital pixels thingies...... With the > realization that MOST images are never blown up past 8x10, the need to > larger image capture than ( whatever this turns out to be in > capture pixels ) XYZ MP, is gone. Once you have enough pixels, more > is not required. Yes, for us traditionalists shooting film, the > 6x6 or 6x7 or 6x9 format is more "ideal" than 35mm. But if the > pixel count is enough to do what you want, then you do not need a > bigger sensor. The fact that film has needs of ABC and digital > has needs of XYZ. They are different. > > The other side of the coin... IC products yield goes down by the > square of the chip size.... a 1/2 x 1/2 inch sensor has 4 times the > yield and 4 times the number of chips as a 1x1 sensor... 16 times > the number of good chips per wafer. Cost is less. > > Also, lens design is less stringent and easier to fabricate for a > smaller sensor...... smaller sensor = smaller elements = smaller > cost. > > Lastly, what Mark said.... Imacon is Hasselblad. They could care > less about us film folk. Obviously from a business standpoint, > maybe they are right... but it does not mean that us film guys > deserve the royal Danish bum's rush. They are not interested in > making a large format digital back for us 6x6 guys.. cost, fit for > purpose, market acceptance are all against us. Heaven forbid, > they should make a 6x6 back for us 500 Family members. Even though > the potential market is absolutely huge. > > However, if you are willing to use film, the Hasselblad deals are > absolutely great.....The last lens or 2 to keep its value high is > the 40mm Distagon and the 30mm Distagon. They have yet to fall. > The rest are in the tank ( lucky us film folks....) > > Anyone got a 30mm Distagon Fisheye they want to sell cheap? > > Frank Filippone > red735i@earthlink.net > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information