Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/10/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 10:44 PM, you wrote: >Perhaps true, but what Ted and Donal were getting at was that art=20 >directors often request MF when in many instances 35 actually works=20 >better.=A0 When the finished product is running 1/2 to 1/4 of a magazine=20 The old Darkroom Photography magazine did an article on architectural photography with 35mm cameras. Fred Maroon, a long-time Leica R and M user offered his stories over why 35mm is better for architecture than larger formats. Not only did National Geographic pic his 35mm pictures over his larger format pictures because they were technically better but because the depth of field was much deeper with 35mm, the ability to use available light, and using ultra-wide and ultra-long lenses have no alternative in the larger formats. So it is the job that counts, as well as the absolute image quality one might be shooting for. Sometimes it just can't be done in the larger formats. Although the argument here presupposes we're talking about the Leica R system being more flexible for this kind of subject. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Eric Welch St. Joseph, MO http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch It's never too late to have a happy childhood.