Getting back to sports, many people seem to forget that there were sports and photographers taking pictures of the players before the '70s when the spray and pray film bodies and 250 shot film backs started to appear.
I remember using manual advance and manual focus to shoot at the drags and coming home with plenty of good stuff.
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
That is your situation, which is well covered by my exception, and which you seem intent on projecting onto all of us as a general statement of fact. Instead of blankly stating that that is just the way it is because that is the way it is for you, why not just say that that is the way it is for you? I can get get dip-n-dunked, proofed, and even scanned film of any type back in four hours here, but I don't go around trying to tell everyone that film results are only a four hour turnaround because that is my situation.
Additionally, I will reassert that the only one of your criteria that causes you to choose digital is the turnaround time in your neck of the woods. All the other stuff ("speed, fast AF, flash control") is more than available with many film cameras.
I am not disagreeing with your choice to shoot digital for quick turnaround in your situation – just your opinion that this argument holds for everyone to the point that we might as well shoot digital if we want to shoot 35mm.
Chill. Your reality may differ; I'm simply reporting mine, OK? What's up with the Grand Inquisitor tone, anyway? I refuse to pay for crap 35mm C-41 processing and printing. I'm all but done with it. MF is where my time, money and energy goes now. Think you're wide of the mark taking this as a digital-vs-analog pissing contest.
personal[/I] view there isn't much difference between 35mm and 6x4.5... It's a 1cm or 10mm height difference which is about a 20% difference where I feel I can use slower films and proper processing to make up that difference
35mm Vs 6x7 is almost 1.8 or double the size... Now that's a difference... No amount of processing in my ability or film speed could make up for that large of a difference
Just my 2 cents
A 135 negative is 24x36mm = 864 square mm
A 6x4.5 negative is 42x56mm = 2352 square mm
A 6x7 negative is 56x69.5mm = 3892 square mm.
So the ratios are:
a) 6x4.5 is 2.72 times the size of 135;
b) 6x7 is 4.50 times the size of 135; and
c) 6x7 is 1.65 times the size of 6x4.5.
All medium format sizes are taken from the manuals for Mamiya equipment.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2