In article<firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eric Stevens<email@example.com> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> https://www.dpreview.com/news/3631124733/the-chroma-is-a-lightweight... > >> >> 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 afford. > Just look at this one, for example (one of many). > https://fotodioxpro.com/products/hbh-4x5-pro junk. laughably so. why bother using a 4x5 camera if you're only going to mount an slr on the back? > or this one > > http://www.digital-photography.org/DicomedFieldProStudioProdigital/... > 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: <http://www.betterlight.com/products4X5.html> 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.