Hi,
What Ken Rockwell wrote is this:
....
"Medium format is just overgrown 35mm (relatively fixed lenses and finders), while large format is the instrument of the immortals. No one pays much attention today to Ansel Adams' most recent work, which was only shot on medium format."
....
I don't know about which of Ansel Adams' images were shot on different formats. My take on the issue the issue is that the image cares little about how it was shot. Some things are certainly better done with some equipment than others. What Ken Rockwell writes about is really cameras with movements vs. rigid bodies.
Now, much of Mr. Rockwell's writing is a bit on the shallow side. I would prefer articles with some more depth.
Regarding medium format, it is probably a niche, but a niche wide enough for some companies like Hasselblad and Phase One making a decent living of it. Companies like Alpa and Arca are also involved with MF digital, and hopefully they are doing well, too.
Several authors on these forums shoot different formats, from 4/3 to IQ180 and I presume that there is a reason they do. Something like horses for the courses.
Best regards
Erik
yesterday i read on a blogger site, whose initials are kr, that ansel adams work, when he used his hasselblad equipment, had no artistic value and not worth looking at compared to his large format work. i have seen many of the hasselblad images and i'm sure almost everyone has seen moon and half dome and for this person to say his work with this camera has no value is just lunacy.
