3 ms·
MF is cheaper to acquire in film. Because of the big negatives, u do can make high resolution digital copies from them. Uninteresting for most photograhic fiel
by bebna 7y ago
MF is cheaper to acquire in film. Because of the big negatives, u do can make high resolution digital copies from them.
Uninteresting for most photograhic fields, because of the big and hefty equipment to a APS-C/FF system, but it could make sense for someone doing landscape or architecture. Those bigger lenses have less of a problem to keep the "resolution" high before it hits the sensor/film, that gives small things in big pictures more detail.
- Seenso 7y ago> MF is cheaper to acquire in film. By "MF", I take it you mean medium format. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format That a very excellent point that emphasizes how technology is often about trade-offs, not linear advancement. With film, it's far cheaper to increase the sensor size because the sensor is literally a consumable item. With digital, the sensor is an sophisticated electronic component that it's much harder and expensive to fabricate the larger you make them.
- mherdeg 7y agoYeah, basically for nostalgia and no other reason I prefer to shoot with full-frame sensors (like Nikon FX) rather than on the crop sensor (like DX). The larger-sensor digital bodies are considerably more expensive, even if they're years old and used.