Is Large Format necessary?

Started May 10, 2008 | Discussions thread
Jon Stewart Senior Member • Posts: 1,230
Re: You bet...

Hi JonLee,

With regard to your comparison of Mpixels between MF and 35mm: There's much more to it than the number that so many people use to compare the two formats. I think if you'll read the responses in this thread, the people who use MF share the other many advantages, while those who don't use MF seem to fall back on the only comparison they know (not a criticism of your post; just an observation).

Generally, in life, we're most happy to compare things that we can quantitatively describe, but are very vague about making comparisons on issues that we can't put a number on.

I wish more people had a chance to savour the overall feel and quality of MF (digital or film), and then we would have less comparison of the number of pixels involved.

..and btw, if we want to talk numbers, much large format digital (done with MF backs) are stitched (perfectly; no transformation of any image, since the lens stays stationary) and runs at about 80-120Mpixels (there's a bit of variation here depending on your back and nature of the composition). This is somewhat different in nature from using a pano rail and physically pointing the lens (and camera) in different directions.

Hope this helps
--
Jon Stewart

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BAK
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow