From: Eric Stevens <>
Subject: Re: Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id t21mr3198621qtn.48.1519459551782;
Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:05:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Stevens <>
Subject: Re: Now all I need is a 4x5 digital back.
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <230220181614296758%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <230220181800258128%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <240220180029359140%nospam@nospam.invalid>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 57
Organization: Forte -
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2018 21:05:52 +1300
X-Received-Bytes: 2610
X-Received-Body-CRC: 3700455338
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-Bytes: 2466
Print Article
Forward Article
On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 00:29:35 -0500, nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid>

>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.

Changing the subject. You are the idiot who tried to tell me that my
post did not belong in rpd!

Go away and argue with someone else.
>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.


Eric Stevens