I'm living in the wrong & right place

[Rob C]

That film image in the review looks like a keeper - I must be getting nostalgia

Edmund

Always said; a 500 series with a square, film-sized format sensor is the perfect answer. Rotation of a cut sensor would be a step ahead, but that costs a lot of visual opportunities. Regarding cost: for those really using the format every day and with good clients, I don't think costs means squat.

Studio: I would hate to have had coloured walls like that all over the place in either of the studios I ran, especially the smaller, last one.

Rob C

[eronald]

Always said; a 500 series with a square, film-sized format sensor is the perfect answer. Rotation of a cut sensor would be a step ahead, but that costs a lot of visual opportunities. Regarding cost: for those really using the format every day and with good clients, I don't think costs means squat.

Studio: I would hate to have had coloured walls like that all over the place in either of the studios I ran, especially the smaller, last one.

Rob C

Yeah, I dunno, the weakness of the 500 is the same as any dSLR: the focus path is not the same as the image path. It shows in these pix, and the pain he relates in getting them.

Mirrorless/liveview is the way to go: a box with a lens. If only they made one with a large square sensor, and a wire to clip an iPad on top

Edmund

[landscapephoto]

Yeah, I dunno, the weakness of the 500 is the same as any dSLR: the focus path is not the same as the image path. It shows in these pix, and the pain he relates in getting them.

That is just a question of adjustments and tolerances. Photographers have worked with cameras with a focus path different of the image path for decades and have managed to get perfectly focussed pictures with them.

For example: I use an Hasselblad H4D. With true focus, I can point at the eye of a model and will be sure that I focus on that eye and not on the other one, or the tip of her nose. It is quick, efficient and simple. There is no need for me to fumble with an electronic image on an LCD. Sure, it needs the camera to be built to tight tolerances, but this is what I paid good money for. Why would I want to replace that quick, efficient and simple system by something else?