"Matthew Winn" <*@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:3bnkl3lt6mlj2uu2tmjp3ao3debf0g4gna@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:33:45 GMT, "Lawrence Akutagawa"
> <lakuNOSPAM@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> enlighten me, o wise one - how is it that you all find discussion of
the
>> Nikon D300 relevent to rec.photo.equipment.medium-format? Is said
format
>> 4.25 x 6 , 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9?
>
> 6 x 9? The D300 is 4288 x 2848. That's 226152 times better than 6 x 9.
hmmm...very interesting numbers. But "better" in terms of what? Weight?
Cost? Image definition for a given print size? Size? *** appeal? Grain
size? Black & white print longevity? Space/volume? Convenience?
Battery
longevity? Total dollar sales? Please substantiate said comparison of
"226152" and basis thereof with appropriate references/links/citations.
Also - please - your lucid and well reasoned explanation for your touting
the D300 here in this specific newsgroup. As noted previously, I may well
learn something. And me being of the simple, naive sort - your use of
simple words, each no more than 12 letters will be much appreciated.
>> And doth it useth 620 or 120?
>
> What's wrong with 220?
wups...oversight on my part. But not an im****tant one, to judge from the
fact that the Nikon D300 gurus (pawelgolanski3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and
television@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
) - rather than explain to us in lucid and well
reasoned words as requested - seem to have retired to their mountain tops,
retreated into their caves, or crawled back under their respective rocks
to
gaze at and contemplate their navels, fingers, toes, knees, whatever. How
about hearing from you in their stead, as per my comment above?
|
