...i would not be surprised if a decade from now we would be able to get -- and afford! -- a digital 4x5 back for a view camera. they make something like that now, but i don't think it goes full 4x5 and it certainly is new-car expensive.
Not pocket change, but not that expensive either when compared to medium format. BetterLight
http://www.betterlight.com/ currently has three models, 144MP—$9,495; 216MP—$14,995 and 284MP—$17,995US. An old press camera off eBay will do fine, though any 4×5 will do. In studio it can be tethered to a desktop, or a laptop in the field. There is a rotator base, that can turn the camera into an actual panoramic camera, making enormous high resolution 360° images up to 8,000 x 65,000 pixels.
http://www.betterlight.com/panoWideView.html
it's also why it's good to think of current digital cameras as consumable items. if in 1930 you bought a leica, in 1990 you would still be able to use it exactly as it was used when new, with film available and even new lenses available. but photography had a certain maturity in 1930 that digital photography hasn't achieved.
All it took to update, was to buy the latest emulsion of film. By 1990 photography had been evolving for a century and a half, today digital is only around a decade and a half. However, digital cameras evolved at an incredible rate. The D700 is the sixth generation I have purchased and finally, it is a fully mature camera that I could live with the rest of my life. I expect that I will be able to say the same about the X100. Prior cameras left me longing for the next generation.
i have in the closet a sony digital camera, top of the line when new a decade ago, that writes to floppy disks. four to a disk in highest quality. as much as a minute between shots due to write time. it cost just about as much then as an X100 does now.
When people throw a fantod over the price of the X100, they show their ignorance of digital cameras in general—short though the history may be. I have a Nikon 8400 by my keyboard that was announced in 2004 and cost nearly as much. Battery grip and accessories put it well over the price, not counting a few years of inflation. Every company built "bridge" cameras back then in that price range.
so when getting a new camera -- be it an M9 or an X100 -- there needs to be added into the equation the fact that something better is just over a hill whose crest we are approaching rapidly. will we be able to take enough pictures between now and then to justify the purchase? ah, but i digress, bigtime.
The technology gap between generations was enormous ten years ago. Not so much now. Nikon is going to have to do something unimaginable to its full frame cameras to get photographers to buy. D3/D700 shooters are really very content with what they have. The market will depend upon the camera buffs and tech collectors for support. I have absolutely nothing on my wish list for the next model. The only thing it does poorly is street, and the X100 answers that. None the less, I have done some pretty good street with it, but with much extra effort.
http://larry-bolch.com/street/
anyway, i bet we'll have affordable medium- and large-format digital cameras before we know it.
Or not. At normal viewing distance, a D3/D700 shot can be printed any size. Eye resolution is exceeded by print resolution considering distance. If viewing at reading distance is desired, then stitching is a breeze. Enormous images can be explored on-line as well and are easy to create.
With film, big cameras were essential because film is a physical medium. An 8×10 camera was large because the film was large. Large format shooting is by its very nature lacking in mobility, whether you are toting a case of film holders and a big tripod, or a laptop today. The D700 will shoot at a practical resolution for general photography, as well as multiple shots for panoramic or mosaic images. It is quite portable and easy to shoot hand-held. Even a Hasselblad loves its tripod.
The x100 shoots at a comparable resolution to the D700, and it will fit into a pouch I have, that will be on my belt. I really don't want bigger cameras—no matter the price. I spent much of my life behind medium and large format equipment out of necessity. I much prefer my D700/X100(when it arrives).
I still have the big hardware, but it has been years since I have shot any film. The image quality I get from individual exposures with the D700 is at least the equal to the scans from medium format at comparable ISOs, and it is much more flexible and portable. Using stitching, it is vastly more convenient than shooting with a field-camera outside or a monorail in studio.
With film, view camera movements were vital to correcting perspective and so on—specially with chromes—but all that is built into Photoshop, and again way more efficient. Furthermore it can be done to the RAW image, prior to even opening it. Adobe has an ever growing database of camera/lens combinations that will correct distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting with a single click—also prior to opening the image. Lenses made for 35mm and digital photography are far higher resolution than those for large cameras. With stitching, you get quality that would be impossible with a view camera and even the finest of lenses. "Life is good Mon", as they say in the Islands.
--
larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/ 
