4 ms·
they're getting really close simulating shallow depth of field with depth sensors and computational photography, but in the same way there is no replacement res
by bigdubs 7y ago
they're getting really close simulating shallow depth of field with depth sensors and computational photography, but in the same way there is no replacement resolution-wise for 8x10 and other large formats, its better just to use the real thing
- mc32 7y agoIf people demand it they may simulate medium format. But yeah seeing large prints from LF or MF cameras the whole image looks very different, more immersive of the scene.
- i_am_proteus 7y agoThe available resolution of LF, even from "only" 4x5, beats full-frame digital handily. It's also simultaneously cheaper (dollars) and more expensive (time).
- foldr 7y agoThere are no real differences beyond those arising from differences in aperture and focal length. For example, here are two very similar shots, one shot on a DX format DSLR and the other shot on 4x5 film: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5uUThuRm9tVWhGNUE https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5uUThuRm9tVWhGNU... https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5ua1BlMzNHVlRUUHc https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B4v6yNyRkl5ua1BlMzNHVlRUUH... The one exception would be movements: most 4x5 cameras can do tilt and shift, whereas tilt/shift lenses for DSLRs are very expensive and specialist.