Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, R Murai
<rmurai@e...> wrote:
...
> Unless you never change lenses or have dedicated bodies for each lens
> dust on CCDs can be, in my experience, just as bad, if not worse,
than film.
> The same dust pattern on a CCD will be on ALL files.

Rick is hitting all my major hot buttons with his posts. This is a
major problem.
> 
> > And, mainly, *much better prints* (but I don't print 40x60).
> > The quality issue is fundamental - sensors are many times more
> > sensitive to light than any film, in some styles of photography this
> > matters, in others it matters not at all.
> 
> Sensor sensitivity is only part of the equation. Contrast and exposure
> latitude and tonal scale and palette of a given recording medium are, I
> think, more important. Similar to the difference between cinema and
video.

Exactly, and as I've said before, I have countless images that I love,
that would not be possible to capture at all with a digital camera for
that reason. Even if I could, the image quality will be better on MF
film, unless you jump up to a MF camera back. This difference will be
less dramtic as you come down in print size.
Many have advised several MF cameras, sounds like you had your eye on
a Pentax67. I associate those with certain needs, many of which some
of these other cameras can't meet. For example, you may be able to
hand hold the Pentax in some situations you will certainly not be able
to hold the RZ, etc..
One advantage to the DSLR, there is a tendency to shoot more, and give
in to your instincts and try things. You may not bother to get out the
MF camera unless feeling more confident of an image. So I think the
DSLR may lead to more growth.
Tyler