Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/08/17
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yep I'm sure you were Mark. I was saying that, given those mentioned factors, you can't write off or judge other formats or options as impractical or say that one is superior to another. Some years back people decried that new miniature format invented by some guy named Herr Barnack. The market disagreed. Do you consider then that the squares were ideal for cropping from for your output? Worked best because you didn't need to turn the camera on its side for portrait format? You could afford to use part of each frame to allow for composition error and output proportions? 645 seems so rational and efficient to me, but then I've only shot casually with a Mamiya 645. I am getting the new Bessa III to try for a couple of weeks. That should be fun. 2009/8/18 Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> > > Mark I certainly wasn't questioning your experience there, as I said. > > What I was saying was that, given all of those varied conditions and > uses, > > you really cannot make valid judgements about this format or that > > format, lens brand, sensor size or type. Certainly you can not make any > > reliable judgement about resolution or IQ. I bet there are even some > wedding > > shooters out there right now using four thirds crop circles ;-) > > > > I had lots of friends using all kinds of systems and we were all pulling > our > 16x20 prints out of the same Kreonite so our perspective on just what > system > could do what was very interestingly acute. > > Wedding photography like stock photography is dominated by the 24x36 > digital > format. > > > Mark William Rabiner > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Cheers Geoff Alles was eine gute Kamera braucht / Everything a good camera needs: http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/gh/ http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman