>> |
Anonymous
I would much rather deal with shooting with normal four or sixteen gigabyte cards and reloading every four or sixteen shots instead of schlepping a computer around. What the fuck are they thinking with that?
Oh, and now looking on the company's website I see the news article is talking about uncompressed TIFFs (950 mb), whereas unprocessed raw files are only 307. So that's a really strange design decision to make you carry a computer with you to shoot. Who would shoot anything but raw with something like this?
But yes I would love to have one, even with schlepping the computer. But no, I don't want to part with 42,300 Swiss Francs.
As far as cheaper pano cameras with higher quality than>>234641, there's plenty of film ones. They're not cheap, for the same reason Leica's aren't: limited market, great craftsmanship. But someone who wanted one instead of a semipro DSLR with good glass could do it. The cheapest one with a lens on B&H is a kit of a Horseman 6x12 body with a 90/6.8 lens, for $3,874.95, just about $500 ahead of a D300 with 24-70/2.8 VR, or $800 ahead of the 5D with 24-105/4 IS L, or $300 more than the D700 with the 24-120. Not cheap at all, but there's at least several people on here who have found setups like those affordable. I guess it depends whether you want panoramic or digital, or whether you're crazily loaded and can have both.
|