Everyone seems to think that digital is the way to go but, I just don't see it.
Is it really about saving money with no film costs or is it more about workflow and instant gratification? I have been putting together a portfolio www.tonyflora.com (critiques requested) using a Nikon D70 and I love the camera but my goal is to be shooting for architects and interior designers...The images look good on the website but I don't think they will hold water compared to 4x5 or high end digital. But I don't have the big bucks to buy the high end $3K plus cameras....and $3K is the low end. Even if I did.....why would I want to? In two years (or less) a $5000 D2x has dropped $2000 (ebay prices)........factor in programs to run it all and massive amounts of storage.....I just don't think it's cheaper or smarter for me. (considering god only knows how long before I can earn enough to make it worth it)
I'm just starting out and the idea of buying a camera for $1000 (LF) that will produce results on par or better to a $25K digital camera appeals to me. If I had money to burn and really wanted to stay on the cutting edge of technology I could see it but I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone just trying to break in to the business. Results are what matter for me. Anyway it's decision time and I need some clarity...(that's where you come in).....do I bite the bullet and buy the D200 or D2x and make do with quality that I believe to be sub-par to a 4x5 or do I buy the 4x5 and continue to shoot digital for the detail stuff? Sorry about the rant, my medication is wearing off, and thank you for the feedback.
Bookmarks