[font color=\'#000000\']Yesterday I read Michael's article on - and ongoing love affair with - the D1s. There's no question that the D1s is a remarkable achievement. Views are practically unanimous on this. But the article raises, for me anyway, some points.
First of all, if I may quote:
I have the versatility of 35mm equipment and lenses along with image quality that previously was only available from medium format. No, I can't make 36 X 48" poster sized prints the way I can from 6X7cm scans. But I can make stunning prints up to 20X24", and that's just fine for my needs most of the time.
But if we reverse that statement, then it is also true to say that you can make stunning 20x24" prints from 645 scans. Obvious, isn't it ? But somehow it seems that what held true 12 months (or even 3 months ago) on this site no longer does:
Earlier this year, Michael was singing the praises of his new Pentax 645Nii, which apparently, was (is?) due to be featured in the LLVJ at some point, and which he has now sold. Clearly Michael's financial means are somewhat stratospheric, which is absolutely his own business, but then again in the context of the readership of this website, which I assume is not all in the millionaire bracket, it does have some relevance. The point is, the 645Nii, which I have been hoping to buy "real soon now", i.e. when I've put aside the money, is apparently yesterday's player, and doubtless now will not (sob) get it's moment of video journal glory.
The actual value for money of the 645Nii, if they objective is 20 x 24" prints, and assuming the picture taking methodology is not always "spray & pray", is something like 3 time that of the D1s.
This web site has one primary goal — to provide photographers with a place where they can immerse themselves in the art and technology of photography.
Seems that the art bit has dropped off a bit recently. For example, to me the most interesting thing about the 1770 Frames article is the first photograph - it is really striking. I'd love to read at least 1 paragraph about it, and I'd happily trade off 1 paragraph of so-so 1Ds evangelism. Honestly, if I had US$6000 spare, plus another $6000 to buy the lenses & whatever, I'd order a 1Ds tomorrow. Who wouldn't ?
I have to add that 35 mins of monologue on the same camera (here's the shutter release, here's the white blance window, here's camera geek option 35678, oh, and that's John Knoll there as a scenic prop, back to some more knobs) was also pretty tedious. Pity that we had to give up dual view angle images to make space for it.
I'm sorry if I'm sounding like a bad tempered envious sourpuss - I'm really a great fan of the video journal and the web site, and on the evidence Michael is a nice guy and a serious enthusiast - but really, couldn't we now accept that digital has well & truly arrived and that those than can afford it will make their choices...and then get back to the photography ?[/font]