Rob, really, do you honestly think folk here buy cameras because they're pretty. You must have a very low opinion of your fellow contributors.
Keith,
"Yes, the new 'blad is a very pretty machine, but when it comes down to paying for such an item, I think it requires to be more than that. People hold it up as being great for landscape; well, I'm not a landscape aficionado, but even with the limited work I have done in that province I realise the requirement for camera movements to be important; hell, even on 135 format it helps, if only to get some rise or fall!"
I thought it necessary to post the entire sequence of words from which you quoted. My original reading of your post was that you were being tongue-in-cheek; I'm not so sure now, as this thread has progressed.
So just for the record: I am not expressing an opinion on fellow contributors at all; frankly I never gave them a thought when I penned those words. They are simply my view that the camera looks pretty, costs a lot of money, but doesn't deliver anything particularly wonderful in the sense of helping the landscape shooter do his shots any the better. He needs something different: movements.
And no, even 135 format couldn't come up with it, despite the introduction of something called a Kennedy - I think it was called that - a 135 monorail that turned out to be far too tiny to allow human fingers to operate it, and the bellows to handle wides.
If folks want to buy pretty why not? Far better doing that than pissing it against the wall somewhere. But not for me when it comes to cameras. If I spend on photography I still feel it needs justification, that I shall be getting something worthwhile out of it that's reflected in what I produce. It was exactly like that when I was working and could easily buy whatever I felt I needed. It wasn't about numbers, but about value to me. That's not been lost.
