On 9/29/2024 at 9:58 PM, martin-w said:

 

Check this beauty out...

Beautiful price, too.  😃 £7,369 for the body only. Medium format 100 MP. 

 

 

 

 

 

Is it just me or does the granddaddy look SO much better?

 

Edited October 5, 20241 yr by speedyTC

6 hours ago, speedyTC said:

Is it just me or does the granddaddy look SO much better?

 

 

Used one proffesionally, years ago.

And as a former pro, I'd say give me digital any day of the week. 

23 hours ago, martin-w said:

And as a former pro, I'd say give me digital any day of the week. 

No argument there. The sheer convenience of digital is compelling.

It's the design language of the hardware that I'm not entirely sure about. It seems to be a case of form follows function (nothing wrong with that) whereas the film era cameras although basically following the same tenet, form played a huge factor too.
Think back on iconic cameras and each model stood on its own design and was instantly recognisable. Even more mainstream cameras (such as the Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta SRT101, Olympus OM1, Nikkormat etc) had a character all their own. Nowadays not so much. Kind of like modern cars. Without the badge it's not easy to tell one brand from the other. Bland. Most likely bowing to the laws of aerodynamics and efficiency requirements; but oh so boring.

Edited October 6, 20241 yr by speedyTC

5 hours ago, speedyTC said:

Nowadays not so much. Kind of like modern cars. Without the badge it's not easy to tell one brand from the other.

 

I guess. But its about the final result, the image, not the uniqueness of the tools design that gets you there. Modern mirrorless cameras look similar because the design is optimized. Having said that, there are differences between them. Nikon compared to Cannon for example.

 

Thys look different enough to me, apart from the fact they are both black.

 

 

Edited October 6, 20241 yr by martin-w