Comment Re:A sign of change (Score 1) 627
The 'professionals' that have switched to digital are those that only do shots that don't require extremely high resolutions; i.e. newspapers and other print publications, wedding photographers, etc, and it's mostly because of convenience and immediate results.
That's not true. Sure, professionals who shoot medium format aren't switching to digital SLRs. But they ARE switching to digital medium format cameras. Digital backs for Mamiyas and Hasselblads are crazy expensive, but a lot of professional photographers use them. I'm pretty sure digital backs are even available for those huge 8x12 cameras.
Oh, and another point about comparing resolutions of 35mm film and digital SLRs - in most cases the limiting factor is not the "resolution" of the film grain, but the resolving power of the lens. All those film grains won't do you much good if your lens can't give you crisp lines at that level. So saying "35mm film is equivalent to 20 megapixels" really isn't true, because unless you have a super-duper super-expensive lenses, you won't be able to take advantage of all those film grains/pixels.
That's not true. Sure, professionals who shoot medium format aren't switching to digital SLRs. But they ARE switching to digital medium format cameras. Digital backs for Mamiyas and Hasselblads are crazy expensive, but a lot of professional photographers use them. I'm pretty sure digital backs are even available for those huge 8x12 cameras.
Oh, and another point about comparing resolutions of 35mm film and digital SLRs - in most cases the limiting factor is not the "resolution" of the film grain, but the resolving power of the lens. All those film grains won't do you much good if your lens can't give you crisp lines at that level. So saying "35mm film is equivalent to 20 megapixels" really isn't true, because unless you have a super-duper super-expensive lenses, you won't be able to take advantage of all those film grains/pixels.
