Quote Originally Posted by steve
The false perceptions about digital are always amusing.

The beauty of these 'retro' photo journalists is that their work takes what we view as common and adds a richness that was, in a time gone by, taken for granted (viewed as common).

Yeah, sure....it's all about the equipment. Yep, equipment, that's what makes a great photo. If you can tell the difference between a photo that's shot with a Speed Graphic or Canon 1DS 2 that's reproduced in a weekly magazine or newspaper - you must be psychic.
No it isn't only about the equipment it is about the selective focus due to thinner DOF. It is about film speed plus larger apertures on longer lenses. Its about the inherent differences between LF lenses and 35mm lenses. Its about the inherent differences between LF film and digital. Its about having to think more and shoot less. Its about making the shot count.

For the most part I think the DSLR is great for PJ -- that is not to say it is the same as or even close to LF or roll film with regard to image quality. Just as 35mm can not stand-up to LF or MF. Your post, in general, is insulting and in this instance ignorant. I can say this without being psychic, just as I have seen the LF PJ work and found it to be rich and unique without having an ax to grind.