For the inadequate there is the new, very big and sturdy, Viagraview 10x8. It has a hair trigger though so you have to be careful not to set off the shudder to quick.
Since there is little to be gained in terms of image quality over smaller formats, and much is lost in the way of portability and spontaneity, it seems to me that the possession of a large camera, such as a 10x8 can only represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy. Would anyone care to comment?
Now Dave, I can't speak for everybody, but I can say that my 8x10 for sure doesn't represent a form of repressed sexual inadequacy.
Rather the opposite.
I have a tremendous sense of balance and proportion.
It only makes sense that I would use a very large camera.
__________________
--J Brunner, The Prints of Darkness
Well sure if all you want is boring sharp cereal box pictures.
Think about what people will pay for an f2.8 150mm lens that barely covers 4X5. $1200 bucks. Crazy. Yet with a 300mm f5.6 I have the same shallow depth on my 8X10 that they paid goboons of money to accomplish on their 4X5. That's just the jumping off spot. From there we could talk about Pinkhams and Petzval's that are just nuts for personality and good looks.
If all I wanted to do was make sharp pictures of the Grand Canyon I wouldn't even bother with medium format at this point. My Nikon D200 would suffice perfectly. Perfectly boring.
Look through the pages at my little web site. It's easy to see I've gotten a lot of fun from my $285 8X10 camera. That's right, 8X10, not 10X8. I think having the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car has affected your brains over there.
__________________
He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep..to gain that which he cannot lose. Jim Elliot, 1949
"The hypothesis I proposed in the O.T. included the deliberately contentious statement that there was no difference in image quality between the formats. I think I have shown that the gain from using larger formats comes only from the reduced enlargement required to get a print of a given size."
Wrong answer but I guess you're new to 8x10. Besides all the advantages of a view camera, 8x10 lenses were the 'flagships' of the lens makers, they were tuned up and tweaked a bit. When you get into the really large lenses, 80mm diameter and larger, they can actually 'see' farther around objects than 'naked eye' vision and product a more 'stereoscopic' dimensionality to a print that is not available to smaller formats.
"comes only from the reduced enlargement required"
What enlargement? 5x7 through an 8x10 enlarging lens (flagships again) can produce grain-less, tack sharp billboards but that is usually not the case or the point.
Have fun with the GAS attack, especially after the Portrait lens bug bites.
Well sure if all you want is boring sharp cereal box pictures.
Think about what people will pay for an f2.8 150mm lens that barely covers 4X5. $1200 bucks. Crazy. Yet with a 300mm f5.6 I have the same shallow depth on my 8X10 that they paid goboons of money to accomplish on their 4X5. That's just the jumping off spot. From there we could talk about Pinkhams and Petzval's that are just nuts for personality and good looks.
If all I wanted to do was make sharp pictures of the Grand Canyon I wouldn't even bother with medium format at this point. My Nikon D200 would suffice perfectly. Perfectly boring.
Look through the pages at my little web site. It's easy to see I've gotten a lot of fun from my $285 8X10 camera. That's right, 8X10, not 10X8. I think having the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car has affected your brains over there.
Not so Jim, mines an 8 x 10 too, but I didn't want to confuse folks.
Linear Mode
