opinions on this article? should this person stfu, is it just bait i’m falling for?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiImage Width1170Image Height1166
>>3899496>FStoppersProbably bait, but this guy is dumb enough to really agree with himself tho
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
>>389949635mm? the tiny phone sensor equivalent of film?
>>3899496>opinions on this article>doesn’t post linkcome_on_now.jpg
>>3899496https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines> Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."
I do think a lot of medium format shooters are using it in a silly way where they just take snapshot portraits that could easily be done on 35mm, but it's not really worth complaining about.
>can we all agree?Why? He makes valid points about 35 mm vs medium format, but why should everyone agree to use one over the other? The only way that the author stands to benefit from universal agreement is if it drives down prices of medium format gear so he can get more for himself, invalidating his own point.A title that would actually make sense is “consider staying with 35 mm instead of upgrading to medium format for these reasons”.
>>3899550i do think a lot of 35mm shooters are using it in a silly way where they just take snapshot portraits that could easily be done on mft, but it's not really worth complaining about.
Medium Format absolutely tears Full Frame cameras apart when it comes to image quality and it's not even close. I think someone with $20k worth of Snoy/Canon gear is getting really fucking sweaty watching what a $6k GFX 100S is capable of.
>>3899496It's a garbage article as expected from fstoppers.I shoot MFT but Medium Format has its uses.
>APS-C??? More like APS-Cuck hahaha fucking crop low image quality and dynamic range literally unusable>M-medium Format? N-not true medium format nobody needs more than fool frame! Why are they like this bros?
>>3899580Fun fact: camera on the right is cheaper than that go-pro lookalike on the left.
>>3899580it's the same dumb garbage gear circle jerk everywhere.x is less than y, so y is superior and you're stupid for not going for y. but y is also less than z and you dont need more than y and the benefits of y are so maginal.and in none of this discussion is there any talk of the fact that cameras can't see. cameras have no vision, dont know anything about light, knows nothing about moment or emotion or composition.its really fucking hard to buy a shit camera these days. buy whatever gets you out and shooting, stop larping and pretending to be a professional.8x10 is the last word in image quality, anyway.
>>3899582It's not just photography.Every technical hobby/profession has it's hobby horse debates about inconsequential nonsense.
>>3899582I take it you are never seen the Polaroid room camera.
>>3899593the 20x24 gimmick in berlin?if we're bringing up stupid examples why not send your subject up to space so you can get a ultra large array telescope multi-meter big sensor image.
>>3899496Stupid clickbait article, stupid thread
>>3899603I think it was at the Smithsonian, used to create high fidelity photos of irreplaceable art. It's very specific but it's no gimmick. As for the telescope thing, you have this thing called the atmosphere that would guarantee a worse shot, other considerations like practicality notwithstanding.
>>3899581Fun fact, the Sony is a professional camera, the Fuji is a consumer camera. 5 FPS burst and the worst af on the market, Vs 30fps burst and the best af on the market; what one are you taking to a sports event or wildlife shooting?I'm fully down with MF, once the sensors are actually medium format size and cost less than a new car. The smallest film MF is about 4 times the size of full frame, 2 full stops extra light gathering, Fuji MF is about one and a half full frame, giving you around half a stop improvement; and 645 was considered bitch tier baby crop sensor of its era.
>>3899647I'm taking the best sports camera in the world, EOS 90D. Fuck wormji, fuck söyny and most importantly fuck EVFs.
>>3899647Jurnos are all paid propagandist. Of course they are going do defend expensive a1, even if it has worse resolution and worse ISO performance.
>35mm is enoughFuck off with your tiny sensor. I'm waiting on digital 8x10 cameras so I can finally upgrade from my m43 setup.
>>3899657It's you who sound like a paid shill, tranny. You were shilling the X-T2 as durable. Fuji is the worst brand in the market, closely followed by Sony. I'd rather use a damn Panasonic G9 than any Fuji or Sony.
>>3899660>You were shilling the X-T2 as durable.When?>TrannyTake your meds
>>3899657But it can burst a lot of photos which is apparently much more important than have far superior image quality.
>>3899665Refute it then, shill
>>3899562But that doesnt get clicks and ad revenue
>>3899580Ahh yes I too remember the time when all I cared about was resolution
>>3899662Don't pretend your derangement goes unnoticed. I'd like to believe there isn't two people insane enough to take personal offense to criticism of Fuji and who shill it as if their lives depended on it, all within a couple minutes. Here: >>3899615>>3899640
>>3899665One day posting this and seeing cope will stop being funny.But this is not this day.
>>3899663>far superior Kek. Pro cameras have always been about FPS and noise optimization at the expense of resolution.
>>3899673Ah yes because nothing is tougher than a flat test chart in a studio. You don't even understand the phenomenon of aliasing.
>>3899672Larger than fool frame, call it whatever you want, refute the massive difference in IQ.
>>3899647>Sony is a professional camera>professionalyeah nah, at least with canon and nikon you get onsite support at big events. good fucking luck dealing with sony if you need professional level support for your gear.
>>3899671Anon. Maybe that whole ©™®§§§ is indication of trolling. Or maybe the fact that both of these post are made over 1 hour ago suggest this might be other guy.Either way, take your meds
>>3899675cope arrived early today
>>3899496I haven’t read the article but every time i do any research into the lenses i feel that they make some impressive cameras but then don’t have any lenses to back them up. I would see medium format as an option only if the big sensors came with equally big lenses. And they don’t. You can generally get the same look with full frame because of the lenses on offer>>3899544Haha i love this>>3899577This is true but how much quality do you really need? I’ve never once sent a full res file to a client that’s come out of my R5. Not once. None of them have ever needed to print large, granted, but even if they did, 45mp is nuts as is. 100 would be better but... better than the r5? At this point i don’t think i will need that. Don’t forget that having a 100 mp camera means you have to have an expensive computer to deal with the files too. >>3899593I haven’t but am curious. Do you have a link? A google search yields nothing but walls covered in Polaroids Anyway, no one actually makes a medium format digital sensor... unless... what the size of phase one? But that’s the price of an expensive car anyway haha
10 Mpx APS-C is still all I need.Pic unrelated
>>3899847What do you mean by the lenses? It is true so far there's little offering of ridiculously fast lenses for MF but in terms of resolution/sharpness they're far developed and can handle the sensors.
>>3899550this, a lot of the tubers with "unlimited" film budgets seem to shot mf without any good justification, not to say their results aren't aided by the negative size but it's obvious they do it because "why not???">>3899567silly willy, mft is digital, w're talking about film
>>3899647>2 full stops extra light gatheringYou dumbfuck, the design of the lens is what determines the intensity or f-stops of light that comes to the sensor/film, not the size of it.
>>3899676I have a Gfx, the difference is not massive, it's honestly splitting hairs, i am just gay for Fuji, the ease of life of every other high MP FF out there is worth more to 99% of pro's.
>>3899496>opinions on this article?fshatters should be banned from the Internet.
>>3899496This article is about film. Why is everyone talking about digital?https://fstoppers.com/film/medium-format-unnecessary-can-all-agree-just-stick-35mm-566452
>>3900033Nobody shoots film, film sucks.
>>3900033>This article is about film. Why is everyone talking about digital?Because fujislugs are paranoid, lol. See >>3899580
>>3900033So the author is even more retarded than I originally thought?>For the smallest of the more common formats, 6x4.5 offered the chance to shoot what felt like 35mm in its aspect ratioAuthor has never shot 645.>the increased size of the negative that results in increased resolution of prints compared with 35mm and the wonderfully shallow depth of fields.Author completely fails to mention grain and tonality which are far better on MF. I would rather shoot 645 for this even if there wasn't a resolution gain or a DoF advantage.
>>3899567this comparison doesnt make any sense lol, 35mm is the budget way to shoot film, its what literal disposable cameras use
>>3899550to follow up on this, of course there is a USE for medium format. Huge prints - advertising, commercial photography, professional landscapes that will be printed and hung in galleries or sold. A lot of contemporary medium format users are just taking snapshots that they post at web resolutions for social media etc, which kind of defeats the purpose. That said, I don't think it's worthwhile to take an anti-medium format position because it is fun to shoot, the process itself is worthwhile and rewarding, and I am glad they are still manufacturing the films.
>>3899496Depends.Medium format film is better than 135 film in a huge way.If we're talking digital though, medium format film is going toe to toe with a full frame digital camera. At that point it becomes a question of which you prefer shooting personally; some people prefer the experience of medium format film cameras and it's perfectly valid. But I wouldn't tell you that MF film has a distinct IQ advantage over full frame digital, because it doesn't. Yeah, you can over expose by three stops if you really want to, but that's not an IQ advantage nor is it a DR advantage (remember that film sucks ass at recovering shadows; it has stronger highlight exposure latitude, it does NOT have "higher DR" than modern digital)
>>3900033Because nobody linked article before?
>>3899577>$6k GFX 100SI notice you mention the cost of a whole camera kit for the FF side, but only the camera for the medium format side. You aren’t trying to mislead us are you, anon?
>>3900298Sony a1 is 6.5k body only
>>3900298>it was real in my snoycel headThe Sony A1 body only costs more than the GFX 100S body only at major retailers. I'm sure LingLIing (40% approval rate) on Ebay has a better deal but I'm not too interested in that one.
>>3900016Aperture is the amount of light transmitted per unit area.More unit areas = more light gathering.Hence why mf has much higher snr.I'm going to upset you even more now, as the fastest lens on gfx is a whole stop slower than a standard f1.4 FF lens, but the sensor is less than a whole stop larger, as soon as you need to start bumping iso because you're at the limits of SS and aperture, the FF option will have better SNR.>>3900082>Film doesn't have more DRYes, it does anon, can you overexpose your digi cam by 6 stops in a scene with a large dynamic range and still get a shot that's not blown out at all? Or, to make it fair, as Digi has its latitude in the shadows, can you under expose by 6 stops and not have any crush?Lmao.>>3900361>Imagine living in a country without fair consumer protection lawsLol!
>>3900373Fastest gfx Lens is 85 F1.2 speedmaster, which is equivalent to f 0.94. Unless you actually mean fastest first party lens, which is gfx 80 f1.7, that's equivalent to 63 F1.34.
>>3900382Fastest full frame lens is f 0.7
>>3900393Cool. Post some bh photo links
>>3900382You can always adapt FF lenses to it and some will cover it, but are you all really just buying a format to shoot at the fastest f stop?
>>3900373Your country's consumer protection laws don't matter when you buy from abroad as you are the importing party.
>>3899883because it sounds cool and why bother caring their are people to impress"
>>3900403Shooting wide open at your minimum ss for your situation is part of anyone's low light photography, an extra stop means you can get shots in HALF as much light.>>3900405They do count if you buy through eBay, AliExpress, Amazon, or any company that's a registered business in the UK. I just took Amazon UK to court over an item I purchased from a Chinese marketplace seller, both of high refused to accept responsibility for warranty, Amazon lost and I came away with a few grand.Consumer protection laws don't just protect me, they make me richer.
>>3900373>>Film doesn't have more DR>Yes, it doesPut down the Kool Aid and re-read what I said. I already addressed your meme about over exposing. Yeah, in theory you can over expose multiple stops and "nothing blows out". There are problems with this though that people like yourself never want to address1.) Sometimes, you have to do this or your exposure is fucked. That's why I clarified that exposure latitude in one direction=/=DR advantage. All that "higher DR" means nothing if you can never hope to recover shadows. Yes, you can clip shadows to pitch black on digital and recover them in photoshop, which is something you can't do on film, period. Alex Burke, who's been the only consistent professional large format film photographer on this board, uses graduated ND filters, despite all the "high DR" in film, and for a damn resson.2.)It's not always possible or desirable to over expose by multiple stops. What if you don't want to add exposure time because the light is too low and you loaded a base ISO film and don't have a tripod, or you simply want stillness and not any long exposure effects? Which brings up the point that you can raise ISO into the five digit values on digital, but not on film.3.) Over exposing on film causes colors to wash out and contrast to lower, and this isn't always ideal either. You might just assume everyone accepts that modern, popular, Portra over exposed look, but they don't. Ignoring even the first two points, it actually pains me when I see a film photographer shoot something with a beautiful, striking color palette like a gorgeous sunset or a really nice shade of paint somewhere, only for it to all de-saturate and lose it's appeal because they had to (or chose to) over expose by multiple stops.
>>39004144.) Never had a real issue with highlights on digital that couldn't be solved with under-exposing and raising shadows in post, except when photographing a scene with a full moon visible in the frame. Ironically, not even film can keep from blowing out the moon, despite having "infinite highlight exposure latitude". Bit funny how that works.tl;dr - the need or desire to over-expose everything is a feature to some, but a defect to others.
>>3900411So the Sony A1 is not more expensive than GFX 100S because the Poo K has consumer protection laws which somehow extend beyond it's border?
>>3900414>Latitude in one directionThat's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, latitude is a range separate from exposure.>You can recover digital shadows but not film highlightsYes you can, you just need to merge multiple exposures because a digital sensor doesn't have the dynamic range to squeeze it all into one shot >You can raise iso on digitalAnd you can raise sensor size on film>Overexposing film causes contrast lossOh no, at the extremes of my 20+ stop DR I lose some contrast, better revert back to the 11 stops of digital!And no, overexposing doesn't wash out colour, and why are you overexposing, dumbass.>>3900415>If you badly scan film your digitised copy can still have blown areasLmao, you're dumb >>3900419If I can get an A1 cheaper through a gray market seller with a registered UK business, even if the actual item is being sent from china, they are tied to the consumer rights act 2015, which entitles any purchaser of an electronic item to a minimum 2 years warranty, maximum 6 years if there is "an expectation of quality". This warranty is up to the retailer to cover. Even grey market dedicated sites like panamoz explicitly offer a 3 year warranty on all products as standard.Fwiw brand new grey market a1's go for as little as £5k, retail it's £6.5k and retail only offer the standard Sony 2 year warranty.Consumer protection laws are fantastic!
>>3900428I take it the GFX 100S is 4.500 British Rupees then
>>3900428>Latitude is separate from DRI didn't say otherwise, film fanboy. I said you are the one confusing the two because you are. Your ability to "over expose and never blow anything out" is a half truth at best, and a misleading myth at worse. >You need to merge exposures On what camera and with what scene? This isn't an issue on modern sensors in most scenes, and if the DR is too much for digital in one shot it would be too much for film. The only scenes that are too much for any camera are ones with insane contrast, like shooting into the sun. Read my post again and note the bit about a pro landscape shooter needing a GND for his large format camera. >Sensor size Has nothing to do with how a medium responds to light, nor does it address the issue of film not handling shadows well, but keep being retarded I guess. >20 stops of DROh I got it: you're a fucking idiot. I was giving benefit of the doubt but now I know you don't know shit about any of this. >Over exposing doesn't wash out color Yep, your IQ is about room temperature. In the winter time. In degrees Celsius.
What a fruitless debate. If you want higher resolution and you're ok with lugging a MF kit then go for it.
>>3900456But how else will I know I did the right choice, but by shitting on "lesser" gear?
>>3900468by shooting and looking at your photos. I get your point, tho.
>>3899861Sounds like a camera that you actually bring with you to take photosbased
>>3899876Resolution yes. They’re good for the sensors. But that’s just part of the theoretical benefit of mf. The others are more light collected, and since these aren’t true medium format, the increase isn’t that great, and i’m very impressed by the full frame cameras now anyway. More is always better, but it’s not a huge leap. This is where the lenses really let mf down - there just aren't any i’m aware of that come close to what we have on ff, so the increase in brightness from sensor size is negated. The other potential advantage of mf is shallower depth of field, if this is what you want to make use of, and personally i go balls to the wall most of the time, and their lenses as mentioned don’t take advantage of this. I was looking at speed boosters from mf to ff... but there’s basically no reason to do it. The image becomes brighter for a given aperture, yes, but the aperture isn’t particularly wide, so the images would still be objectively kind of dark compared to the n mm any f1.2 lenses on ff or even wider in rare lenses. I see it more as a luxury i can’t afford and have no NEED for.
>>3900373>Yes, it does anon, can you overexpose your digi cam by 6 stops in a scene with a large dynamic range and still get a shot that's not blown out at all? You can't overexpose film by 6ev without losing some highlight detail.With the exception of certain B&W films specially developed, the highest DR films hit about 12.5ev total dynamic range (Portra). That's the same as Canon's older sensor architecture which people bitched about. Canon's newer sensor architecture, along with certain Sony/Nikon sensors, can damn near hit 15ev. And MF sensors are now exceeding 15ev. (Note: this is going by DxO's scale, which is closer to a Stouffer step wedge tests in results, as opposed to PtP's scale.)
>>3900428>That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, latitude is a range separate from exposure.Latitude is just another way of expressing DR. It's kind of a retarded way to be honest, which is why people get confused about it. Latitude was a way for film manufacturers and film developing services to express how much under/overexposure a film could tolerate with an average scene, i.e. how much John Doe could be off with his family vacation pics and still get acceptable prints back.>>Overexposing film causes contrast loss>Oh no, at the extremes of my 20+ stop DR LMFAO no film with normal development has 20ev of total DR. Even if you soup B&W film for maximum DR you will only hit 17 or 18ev and your contrast will be shit. It will be damn near impossible to print optically, though if you have a scanner that can capture the entire range you can make use of it in PS.>And no, overexposing doesn't wash out colour, and why are you overexposing, dumbass.Dude, overexposed Portra wedding photos are a trend precisely because they wash the colors yielded a bright, pastel look.
>>3900592>You can't overexpose film by 6ev without losing some highlight detail.I should qualify that this depends on the scene. If your scene has practically no highlights...one or maybe two zones above middle gray...then you could potentially overexpose Portra by 6ev and still recover everything in the scene.Anything with higher zones and you are losing detail.
>>3899496Yeah let's stick to 35mm and obsess whether a $3,000 Leica or Zeiss lens gives a sharper image than a generic $150 SLR one, while a basic bitch medium format system that obliterates it for $400.
>>3900674>Biased, the subject.
hay guise is this the medium format thread[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3900692Simple observation anon.I like 35mm: it's small, light, has faster lenses for low light, cheaper, more shots per film and greater film choice, and the gritty/grainy aesthetic has merit on its own.Those are 35mm's strengths and what should be emphasised.Yet see what virtually every single new lens (and cameras too in digital) is all about: resolution this, sharpness that, etc etc. . Same about all the commentary on the lenses in fora: constant obsession over minimal res/sharpness differences and the minimally different resultant photos, when discussing lenses that are routinely over $1,000.Even in film, same shit: obsessing over diminishing returns in lenses for an extra $1,000, obsessing over super slow microfilms and magic bullet developers that might eek some more resolution out of them, etc etc. .All the while a $150 medium format lens and a run of the mill film in general purpose developer will give much, much better results if resolution is your goal.So the author should take his own medicine and stop obsessing over resolution and sharpness, but instead play into 35mm's strengths, which the above 2 aren't.Then and only then can he start arguing in favour of 35mm.
>>3900705I think you'd be into half frame if you want to encompass a camera about being small and light.I don't see a reason why a format can't be both, why should there be a clear line between use cases by format?Those 150usd medium format lenses didn't cost pennies when they came out, in current day, all medium format lenses cost quite a lot, meanwhile, you can pick a brand new A7ii for less than 1k and a kit lens for less than 300.The good film medium format lenses, cost 500-2000 today, not 150. Same with 35mm lenses from yesteryear.
>>3900747That's like comparing how far can 5k get you when buying a car and coming up with an old full specced Mercedes S class, no shit it's got more stuff for less, and it's also 30 years older than what the newest stuff I could buy.
>>3900747>I think you'd be into half frame if you want to encompass a camera about being small and light.But I am. I really like Pens and the other half-frames. But the smallest, most pocketable camera I own happens to be a Minox 35. It's smaller than half-frames and folds absolutely flat.>The good film medium format lenses, cost 500-2000 today, not 150. Same with 35mm lenses from yesteryear.Sure. But you don't need a good medium format lens, that's the point. Even a mediocre medium format lens will result in higher res/sharpness images than the best of the best in 35mm.High res is a losing game in terms of value for 35mm, that's all.And I'm talking about film, where the sharpness gains are almost linear, since you have the same exact emulsion in a size that can be up to 5.5 times bigger than 35mm. And the cost difference much smaller than digital.All I'm saying is, spending thousands on lenses in 35mm for sharpness is a silly and losing game, yet people do it all the time. MF might very well be overkill for that blogger's use case, I don't doubt that.But I can't help but notice the hypocrisy of the people dissing medium format as overkill for resolution/sharpness, and then go split hairs between expensive high-end lenses because one might have marginally better resolution than the other, for an extra $500. And those people are much more plentiful than medium format users, so why not "tackle" that first.
>>3900705>super slow microfilmsIsn't microfilm a format?
>>3900693I love shooting medium format too![EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width639Image Height480Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3900786My MF camera is best because cheap.>>3900761Question, are people who shoot film, and 35mm at that, really obsessing about image quality and not character? I honestly haven't seen these same discussions of IQ on digital cameras on film forums.
>>3900764Kek you're actually right but it wasn't really standardised (most used 16mm and 35mm), aside from the punched card versions.I'm referring to the very high res, high contrast emulsion used for such applications. Maybe "technical film" is a more appropriate term.Stuff like Kodak Technical Pan, or Adox CMS etc. .
>>3900786>indescribably based and compurpilled>>3900793post snaps holgabro i wanna see
>>3900793>I honestly haven't seen these same discussions of IQ on digital cameras on film forums.Thankfully not that much, till you discover the Leica forums and blogs.But to an extent they do and always have, though the focus of their obsession was films and developers and not lenses. "Fine grain film X with fine grain developer Y gives an almost medium format quality on 35mm" has been a common trope.Fortunately the loudest and most obnoxious res whores have moved to digital or larger formats though.
>>3900705>those are 35mm's strengths and what should be emphasizedAre you talking about 35mm film, exclusively, or all 135 format cameras including digital?>resolution this, sharpness thatTo a big degree yes and I see where you're coming from. But there's another side to this>$150 medium format lens and run of the mill developer will give much, much better resultsWill it? Does it come in the desired focal length range? Will the film provide the preferred ISO speed? All these theoreticals about which are sharper between formats and plane or sensor sizes, but it ignores a whole lot. Yes, large format delivers "superior" results.....when affixed to a tripod, on a slow speed film. Same, to *some degree* with mf film (and I'd argue the difference between it and high res digital is pretty much ignorable sharpness wise). But what if you actually need to hand hold the camera and raise the ISO into a 4 or 5 digit value to get your shot, what happens then? What if the general focal length you require isn't available in another format? What if in general, what you're doing isn't really suited by the medium or large format film style of shooting (generally lower ISOs, wider angles, on a tripod, not even getting into the weight of those formats). Then the high res full frame digital becomes attractive. Sure, the lens you're shooting may be outresolved in lpmm by some other lens in *theory*, but in practice the camera was still small, light and versatile enough to make getting the shot possible at all, and the fact that the attached lens was designed with sharpness in mind means you're getting pleasing, acceptable acuity while also getting the shot, as opposed to not getting it because your camera got in the way.tl;dr sharpness is among many considerations in investing in a format, and just because someone cares about it at all, doesn't mean they only care about it at the expense of everything else.
>>3900804you type like a faggot
>>3900804t. goalpost shifter
>>3900798>>3900802I'd love to not be so obsessed with image quality, I'd enjoy cheaper gear that way ):
>>3900805>>3900806You're like the bench racers on /o/ who think that a car with more horsepower is always superior to one with less, ignoring other properties like center of gravity, weight distribution or suspension tuning, then wonder why the "slower" car won the race.
>>3900813DREAMY AND CREAMY HOLGABRO ABSOLUTELY FUCKING BASED AS FUCKING FUCK >>3900816i don't even know what you are trying to say it's just that anyone who talks about cameras and says shit like "investing in a format" is a faggot basically
>>3900804>Are you talking about 35mm film, exclusively, or all 135 format cameras including digital?Mostly film, since digitals don't get the same sensors across formats (although theoretically possible), or such a big increase in sensor size.But the core point is still relevant.If you're chasing resolution, a larger format is the answer. Of course as long as the focals you want exist, or any other functionality that is crucial (maybe you need a waterproof housing), otherwise it's not even an option so it's a moot point.Anything whose limitations make it impossible to get the shot is not a choice to begin with, even if it has 10 times the resolution.Everything is a compromise obviously, but if the thing you want to not compromise at all (at the expense of everything else) is resolution, then a larger format is the sane choice. That's all.>>3900813Nice anon.Yeah cheap gear and lenses are really fun, same for practical effects like hairspray on lens, diffusion filters, etc. .Wish there were cheap soft focus lenses on 35mm t.b.h.
>>3900824>Wish there were cheap soft focus lenses on 35mm t.b.h.Most 28mm f2.8 are absolute garbage so you can have fun with that.
>>3900818>If you talk about things in a realistic and practical manner you're a fag Brainlet take. People invest in formats. Not bodies or lenses, but entire systems and formats. >I don't even know what you're trying to say The Chad photographer uses the system that consistently provides the shots he requires. The virgin 4channer (You) buy a camera then go online to shitpost about it's superiority in test charts, in situations nobody actually photographs in. >>3900824Yes that's what I was getting at. Unsure why the other anons got so angry other than that I provided a nuanced take, which the current internet and it's obsession with binary thinking can't handle. Tbh I don't even think most medium format film shooters care as much about sharpness as they do about the overall look and rendering of the shots.
>>3900833you are not investing in anything my dude you are literally buying an elaborated empty box and then you type a bunch of faggot reddit soomer shit in order to elevate it to some sort of heightened level of advanced discernment but it is literally an empty fucking box lmao
>>3900033the author is poor and wants everyone else to share his poorfag mentality.
>>3900411>Shooting wide open at your minimum ss for your situation is part of anyone's low light photography, an extra stop means you can get shots in HALF as much light.And how often is that? Mind showing some work from well known photographers that do this? I really can't recall any pro I've seen shooting that way.
>>3900414Any lab will tell you to overexpose color neg by 1/2 stops for a good negative. You’re outing yourself referencing portra.
>>3901022>How often do photographers come across low light situations?Well there's one way to out yourself as someone that's never left their basement, let alone taken a photo.>>3901023Guys a straight up dumbass, pic related is portra 400 from -3 to +6, there's pretty much zero differences in tonality up to +4.People on the internet just love mindlessly regurgitating shit they read on the internet.
>>3901025>Lowlight photography>Shows picture outside with bright sunAt least show good photos to back up your argument and not this trash that doesn't require wide aperture.
>>3901023Over exposing multiple stops for a meme look=/=over exposing one half a fucking stop to avoid crushing shadows. Quit trying to isolate little random things out of context in a post you're replying to so you can try to sound smarter than you are.
>>39010251.) There is obviously a tonal shift 2.) Way to ignore the way it gets btfo by under exposure 3.) It must have shit colors of this is how it looks outta the box anyways
>>3899603>why not send your subject up to space so you can get a ultra large array telescope multi-meter big sensor image.What do you think I did to snap a selfie of my dick for grindr?You think earthly tools were used? Hah.
No, never, never settle.
Also digital vs film DR isn't even about physical differences, digital is just meant to be exposed to the left like slide film because there is no negative step.
>>3904610Wrong, film behaves differently than an electronic sensor.Digital is raw linear and easily clipped, film has reciprocity failure and non-linear exposure and that's why it's more forgiving in terms of highlights. Film tends to still do perfectly well when over exposed a bit, but it can be worse than digital when underexposed.