From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.
Full headers:
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Subject: Re: Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:29:35 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <240220180029359140%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <> <230220181614296758%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <230220181800258128%nospam@nospam.invalid> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info:; posting-host="eb2291a7d72718e24c31efb8ec73a7c1";
logging-data="23248"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19CbWCPLaERGXMNvVkXmVbT"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1qcQbR/wipSdXlJ5K5k5IjYPN98=
Print Article
Forward Article
In article<>, Eric Stevens<> wrote:

> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ordable-easy-to-use-5x4-field-camera
> >> >
> >> >film, not digital.
> >> 
> >> Read the subject line.
> >
> >read the name of the newsgroup.
> You f***ing idiot! Why do you think I put the words "digital back"
> into the heading?
> Don't you know what a digital back is?

i do, but don't expect to find one that's any good a price you can

> Just look at this one, for example (one of many).

junk. laughably so.

why bother using a 4x5 camera if you're only going to mount an slr on
the back?

> or this one
> ld_pro.htm

that article is almost 20 years old, but at least they used a mac,
except that particular mac is long discontinued, so even if you can
find the back, it won't do you any good.

here's a bunch of backs, using that 'new high-speed usb 2' technology:

the cheaper ones have less resolution than modern slrs and their top of
the line model is about what a medium format camera can do. and then
there's that perfectly still subject problem.