I just got my first medium format camera!
 

That IDIOT "J?rg Preddimann" posted:
"...
You can get better results if you buy
a Sigma SD10 DSLR. Not only will you have 10.3 Megapixels of
resolution to work with,
...."


Bull-Pucky.

I just scanned a couple of 120 frames that I took with a Rollflex ... way back in the days
of the original Ektachrome "E-1" film.

At a *very* sharp 7,000 pixels by 7,000 pixels (49 MegaPixels ... FWIW), I don't think any
digital camera based on a 35 mm body will come close. Andrew's "Yashicamat 124-G" is
probably capable of the same level of image quality, especially if fed with some of the
professional level films such as Fuji Velvia 100F or Provia 100F.

Oh ... BTW ... that Fovion sensor in your "SD10" is actually producing a 3.4 MegaPixel
image ... NOT 10.3 Megapixels as you "claim." That's only roughly 0.0693877 th of the size
of a 6x6 image scanned in a mid-range flatbed scanner. Yeah ... roughly 7%!

[Isn't the "Internet" wonderful ... even idiots like "J?rg Preddimann" ... or whatever
alias he/she's using on a given day ...are free to post their blatent lies completely
without recorse!]

I just got my first medium format camera!
 

In article , Edge wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

He's a silly troll, and apparently has no idea what 120 film is
capable of.

and yet you insist on answering and wagging your willy at the same time ...

My post was on topic, and contained relevant information. One has to wonder
why *you* replied.

And BTW, if I was trying to engage in "willy wagging", as you so delicately
put it, I can hardly think of a more inappropriate piece of equipment to
do it with than a second hand 1970s "obsolete" camera that most people
wouldn't even look twice at, and which can be picked up for less than the
price of a pretty basic digital P&S. I bought it to take pictures with, not
to engage in equipment sonbbery contests.

Sheesh!

I just got my first medium format camera!
 

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Chris Brown wrote:
In article , Edge wrote:
Chris Brown wrote:

He's a silly troll, and apparently has no idea what 120 film is
capable of.

and yet you insist on answering and wagging your willy at the same time ...

My post was on topic, and contained relevant information. One has to wonder
why *you* replied.

And BTW, if I was trying to engage in "willy wagging", as you so delicately
put it, I can hardly think of a more inappropriate piece of equipment to
do it with than a second hand 1970s "obsolete" camera that most people
wouldn't even look twice at, and which can be picked up for less than the
price of a pretty basic digital P&S. I bought it to take pictures with, not
to engage in equipment sonbbery contests.

What has any of this stupidity got to do with rec.photo.equipment.35mm ???


Sheesh!

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++