jim_collum1

I agree. Some of the areas where this back would not work well is

with water, or very windy days with things moving. But there's

nothing stopping me from carrying along film holders, or ReadyLoads

to take care of those situations.. just as I might take along a 35mm

to deal with wildlife or extensive zoom situations.

that depends. I bought a Nikon D1x at $5200 when they first came out,

and it's already paid for itself in film and processing alone (within

the first 7 months). With just Provia readyloads and processing, you

pay for it after about 2-3000 exposures. That's not figureing scans

in if you're printing digitally. If fits your subject/shooting style,

and the business model is there, then it's just a matter of coming up

with the $15,000 up front instead of paying it out in film/processing

over time.

I don't think it's for everybody. but I know 35mm photographers who

don't understand why people lug around big view cameras all over the

wilderness either.

I've seen the prints in his gallery, and i've seen the Better Light

back at work. I'm not sure where the 30 minute exposure time came

from. Exposures range from 60 seconds to a couple of minutes.

<p>

I've seen prints from drum scanned 4x5 chromes compared to the output

from the Better Light. You'd be closer if you compared the Better

Light to an 8x10 chrome.. The Better Light output is significantly

better than the 4x5 scan, as well as a 4x5 enlarged print (analog).

The other major difference is that the Better Light back will capture

11-14 stops of light. What's impressive about his prints in a

gallery, is that there's a hyper realism about them. There's no color

bias due to a particular film, and you have the entire range of light

that you see when you take the image.

<p>

I'll agree that movement is an issue.. wind, moving water, and such

is not a good thing. the resulting artifacts are very unusual.