3 ms·
You'd have to get a pretty expensive digital camera to get as overall high quality photos as a nice medium format (not to mention large format) film camera, to
by thatfunkymunki 5y ago
You'd have to get a pretty expensive digital camera to get as overall high quality photos as a nice medium format (not to mention large format) film camera, to be fair. But only a fool would use film instead of digital for this reason. I just like the hardware more and it's cheaper than an equivalent digital setup.
- NikolaNovak 5y agoI think it's still important to distinguish are we discussing process, or end result. If the end result is for photo to be viewed on monitor, phone, TV, photo album, or say 11x19 poster, I don't know if there's effective difference by the end between a 45MP FX digital, or a medium/large frame film. The process though is largely different, including the approach and the sensation and the sense of handling. I fully recognize the important of joy of process. (It's just that, if I swung that way, I'd go all the way and use the twin reflex film camera for a truly different experience :-D. )
- david38 5y agoI’ve shot medium format, had a lab at home, and now use a Sony a7R IV. The process of developing film was way more fun than my current use of Lightroom, but my $$ conscious self couldn’t stop thinking of how much practice cost. This thought process happened with my woodworking hobby as well :(. That said, my Sony rivals a medium format in resolution. If we take joy out of the equation, say we’re doing this as part of a business process, digital is better in all but a handful of cases.