Full-framer logic

Anybody remember your full frame SLR when most film  had an ASA/ISO of less than 100.  TriEx was a wonder at 400 ISO when it came out - and you could push process it up to about 1600 ISO if you didn't mind the grain.  Now we complain if we can't get clean picts at 6400, 12800 or higher ISO, sometimes MUCH higher ISOs.

Like film days, lower ISO works if you have any sense about what you are doing.  FFers say they NEED FF to get clean pics at high ISOs, but they also preach that to get really good shots - shots that are even "acceptable" - you should only shoot at the lowest possible ISO.  Kinda talking out of both sides of our month, aren't we?

Fastest lens, fastest focus, highest ISO, fastest shutter speed, no lag time - Heck, if you had all that, you'd probably still miss the shot do to lag time from eye to brain to finger.  Maybe the future of photography is in robotics - but only if they are FAST, and only ONE can be the "BEST."

Oh, yeah.  Handheld, perfect pictures of bullets in flight at midnight on a moonless night - at the cost of all the assets of the Federal Reserve Bank.  And, we want to pack it all in our carry-on luggage.  We NEED this stuff.  Camera makers are just letting us DOWN.

(Anybody remember when 35mm cameras were consider so TINY they could not possibly produce a "good" picture?  Maybe someday the 'standard" will be m4/3.  How ironic would that be?)

Peace.  ...and be happy.

John.