ThePhilips: > it accepts 120 roll film.
I wish makers have actually tried to build a digital camera...
I gather the sensor and the IC are the problem - but that's precisely the challenge: to try to replicate at home the expensive manufacturing processes.
I think the principle used here is what can make a cheap camera cheaper and better. Just look at the highlights for example in the samples, keep in mind the lesser quality (stray) of the lens used here.Imagine using the same film in a high quality medium format camera.Digital is for ease of use and ease of editing... also for speed!
Amazing to see moonlight can actually look like sunlight!
Strictly photographic gear in my bag, there's no room for other things... since it's small and I like it that way. I Carry it around my sholder, no backpack because I like quick access.
Usually a Canon FTb, three fixed focal Canon FD lenses, a 28mm, 50mm and a 135mm. Mostly when I'm outdoors I put some films in that bag too... some Ektar and Portras, or the Elite Chrome Extra Colour (Kodak).
It's this that will fit the bag, or my Hasselblad 501C with the usual 80mm Zeiss lens, with lens hood and a Gossen Polysix 2 light meter in a pocket. In that case I have some Fuji Reala 100 or Kodak Portra 400 medium format film at hand.
Felix E Klee: To me, the photos in the article on wired.com have a look which I remember seeing in the print edition of National Geographic about twenty years ago. (We stopped subscribing.) What's the secret of this look? Grading? Composition? Are photos with people staged?
These photo's are shot on film, cited from the article on wired.com:
"All the work is shot on film with either 4×5 or 8×10 camera. Rich says he wanted to shoot larger format work because he liked the sharpness and depth of field you get on negatives that size. But it also slowed him down and created a pace to the photos that feels similar to that of the rivers he’s photographed."