-
Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Well thanks to everyone who helped with the planning and analysis of the testing. All of the results and analysis are now up at
http://www.landscapegb.com/issues/lgb-0028/
The bottom line? 8x10 rules the roost and the challenge is really 4x5 vs IQ180 - personally I think the 4x5 wins but it's close..
Tim
p.s some interesting conclusions about differences between 10x8 and 4x5 in my report bit (i.e. almost no difference in resolution once you stop down to an equivalent depth of field of f/32 on 4x5).
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timparkin
(i.e. almost no difference in resolution once you stop down to an equivalent depth of field of f/32 on 4x5).
What constitutes an "equivalent" DoF?
DoF calculations include a fudge factor called the Circle of Confusion, which changes with negative size, getting bigger with larger formats.
- Leigh
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Leigh
What constitutes an "equivalent" DoF?
DoF calculations include a fudge factor called the Circle of Confusion, which changes with negative size, getting bigger with larger formats.
- Leigh
I've worked it out based on the same visible depth of field in the image - i.e. so all of the images look the same. (so CoC will scale with sensor size).
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Wow Tim, a lot of testing obviously, your efforts are appreciated by all. The use of the 80x stereo microscope was helpful with showing absolute film resolution and I'm sure us 8x10 and other Large Format photogs are not surprised.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
I don't understand any of this!
Can you see any difference between any of these in a 16x20/24 print?
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Hi Tim,
Do you think Portra is resolving much more fine detail than Velvia? Looks like it to me... or is it because of the 400 ISO vs. 50 ISO that allows for faster shutter speeds? I'm talking about the landscape shots. If Portra is better, than Portra 160 looks like it would kick ass in the studio with 8x10. I'm still messing with Provia chromes...
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
I don't believe it for a minute. My 33 megapixel Leaf Aptus 75S is just a shade behind 4x5 in terms of resolution. Dynamic range..no contest.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill_1856
I don't understand any of this!
Can you see any difference between any of these in a 16x20/24 print?
Just look at the pretty pictures then ;-) I've talked about print assessment in my editors conclusions. And yes you can tell a difference.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Robert Jonathan
Hi Tim,
Do you think Portra is resolving much more fine detail than Velvia? Looks like it to me... or is it because of the 400 ISO vs. 50 ISO that allows for faster shutter speeds? I'm talking about the landscape shots. If Portra is better, than Portra 160 looks like it would kick ass in the studio with 8x10. I'm still messing with Provia chromes...
Yes Portra does seem to out resolve chromes and Portra 160 out resolves Portra 400
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ed Kelsey
I don't believe it for a minute. My 33 megapixel Leaf Aptus 75S is just a shade behind 4x5 in terms of resolution. Dynamic range..no contest.
Go try some Portra 400. Make sure you place darkest shadows at -3. Did you take a look at the dynamic range test on the Portra 400 page? A 10 stop bracket of a sunset directly into the sun with no grad! I know the phase can't do that. Do you think the leaf can?
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Thanks for taking on this project Tim. It looks like an exhaustive comparison. I'm still working my way through it.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Tim, quite excellent. These are results that I would have expected. I think you were successful in taming the focus capture beast and the vibration beastie and so got to the intrinsic properties of each of the systems quite nicely.
Good description of image quality differences too, giving us a sense of why both film and digital capture have their place.
Great thanks
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Yes, I've just spent a couple hours with all this. Great work, Tim, on a very difficult testing scenario.
Of course everyone else's conclusions may differ, but for me this test really confirmed my hypotheses made in other threads... that it is probably with about a 120MP digital back (with subsequent up-rez) that 8x10 finally gets summarily blown out of the water for real world outside subjects/conditions. I am, of course, assuming dynamic range and highlight handling will improve as we get further up the digital chain. And for now, 8x10 wins by a (noisy) nose in terms of resolution. Would love to see large prints made from each.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John NYC
Of course everyone else's conclusions may differ, but for me this test really confirmed my hypotheses made in other threads... that it is probably with about a 120MP digital back (with subsequent up-rez) that 8x10 finally gets summarily blown out of the water for real world outside subjects/conditions.
There is the current Hasselblad with 200Mp "effective resolution." I posted about it in the Lounge (link). Since it uses a current generation sensor, the reflections of the overhead lights on the chrome banisters just goes into the toilet. I wonder what it would actually do with the "trumpet" pattern, but I suspect that it would break down here just like the IQ180 did. It would certaintly not be able to cope with the windy outdoor conditions like the other cameras did.
Tim, thanks for this excellent test! Too bad the weather wasn't nicer.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian C. Miller
There is the current Hasselblad with 200Mp "effective resolution." I posted about it in the Lounge (
link). Since it uses a current generation sensor, the reflections of the overhead lights on the chrome banisters just goes into the toilet. I wonder what it would actually do with the "trumpet" pattern, but I suspect that it would break down here just like the IQ180 did. It would certaintly not be able to cope with the windy outdoor conditions like the other cameras did.
Tim, thanks for this excellent test! Too bad the weather wasn't nicer.
Thanks Brian - in many ways I think the fact that the test conditions were windy helped as it debunked a major myth about not getting sharp images in real world conditions. I think the Hassleblad may get over some of the issues with the trumpet pattern as in one of its modes it shifts a full pixel hence making sure it gets a red, green and blue pixel at every location in the grid. This would get rid of a lot of the colour fringing issues (as long as everything stayed in 5 micron alignment in between shots!)
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Tim, this was an excellent test and article. Since I never enlarge to more than 16X20in seems that there are currently many options available to me. Until my finances greatly improve I will be sticking with 4X5 sheet film and 120 roll film on my 4X5 camera. If I won the lottery I would move to the IQ180 on a high end Medium Format system.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Edward (Halifax,NS)
Tim, this was an excellent test and article. Since I never enlarge to more than 16X20in seems that there are currently many options available to me. Until my finances greatly improve I will be sticking with 4X5 sheet film and 120 roll film on my 4X5 camera. If I won the lottery I would move to the IQ180 on a high end Medium Format system.
Hi Edward,
yes indeed, if you are printing at 16x20 then your roll film will probably be OK to get nice crisp prints if scanned on a half decent scanner (preferably not a desktop). I'm going to be running another comparison soon about smaller prints to see how 4x5 compares with lower end digital and medium format/small format (I've printed a few half decent 16x20's from 35mm velvia when drum scanned and critically sharpened - I wouldn't call them 'sharp' but acceptable, maybe so).
Tim
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian C. Miller
There is the current Hasselblad with 200Mp "effective resolution."
Yeah, I don't think that will get us there yet in the tonality part. As I mentioned, I am also assuming the other aspects of sensor design (handling of dynamic range and highlights) will also be improving as we move to 120MP+ one day.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
One other thing to consider is how you have to upgrade your hardware when you go to bigger digital camera. For example, my D7000 - raw images at 16 meg convert to 80 to 90 meg TIF files.
You know what kind of processing power, hard drive space and the minor fortune you have to invest in SD cards? Not to mention, I had to upgrade the cooling fan on my new computer, the procesor was over heating.
My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.
In the meantime, my DeVere 504 is still going great, and doesn't need upgrades.
:)
Don't get me wrong, if enough money fell into my hands, yeah, i would be silly enough to get a new D800, but the bottom line is, when you upgrade your camera to "match" what LF film can do, you have to "upgrade" everything else along the line, and strickly from a business point of view, in today's economy, can such outlays of cold hard cash be justified?
joe
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joseph O'Neil
My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.
joe
I think your computer guy is trying to sell you something. My recent base model iMac with 4 gigs of ram can easily handle my 256MB 8x10 scans. And it is tolerable with my 500MB scans.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
I concur. My 4 year old MacPro handles 39Megapixel Phase One files just fine without any problems. The new iMacs are more powerful than what I am using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John NYC
I think your computer guy is trying to sell you something. My recent base model iMac with 4 gigs of ram can easily handle my 256MB 8x10 scans. And it is tolerable with my 500MB scans.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Very interesting work. I have found in my own tests that a 6X7 cm negative made with good Mamiya 7 optics equals or beats 4X5. Your tests seem to suggest that as well.
Sandy
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joseph O'Neil
One other thing to consider is how you have to upgrade your hardware when you go to bigger digital camera. For example, my D7000 - raw images at 16 meg convert to 80 to 90 meg TIF files.
You know what kind of processing power, hard drive space and the minor fortune you have to invest in SD cards? Not to mention, I had to upgrade the cooling fan on my new computer, the procesor was over heating.
My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.
In the meantime, my DeVere 504 is still going great, and doesn't need upgrades.
:)
Don't get me wrong, if enough money fell into my hands, yeah, i would be silly enough to get a new D800, but the bottom line is, when you upgrade your camera to "match" what LF film can do, you have to "upgrade" everything else along the line, and strickly from a business point of view, in today's economy, can such outlays of cold hard cash be justified?
joe
I'm one of those computer guys. Fans fail when they get old (and clogged with dust). Chances are your computer is >2-3 years old for that to happen or you have an unusual dust problem.
You would want something newer for next years high end DSLRs. Needing it watercooled is a bit of hyperbole to put it nicely. A new computer with 6 processor cores and 16GB ram and a 64 bit OS can be built pretty inexpensively and will nicely put to shame most anything sold two years ago.
My quad-core 8gb ram PC can handle 250 MB scans just fine, but the speed difference shows when handling raw files from different cameras. It's a speed demon running batches of adjustments/conversion on 6MP raw files compared to slower and more intensive work dealing with the much larger 12MP files of higher bit-levels. With LF, you don't have a big volume to deal with, but it's easy to have a big volume of photos to process with a DSLR. I would want to upgrade it for a d800 as well, but it wouldn't be critical.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joseph O'Neil
My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.
joe
I work with scans of MF and LF films that are 200-500 mb on a two year old iMac without any big problem. More speed is always helpful but unless you are involved with production schedules processing a 500 mb file with a current generation iMac with 8-16 gb of RAM is no problem at all.
By contrast, a 36 mp file from a nikon D800 should be kid's play.
Sandy
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
John NYC
I think your computer guy is trying to sell you something. My recent base model iMac with 4 gigs of ram can easily handle my 256MB 8x10 scans. And it is tolerable with my 500MB scans.
Agreed. I have a Win 7 workstation with 6gb of ram and I have no problem with 1gb 4x5 scans.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Great work; thanks for posting this! Very interesting. "if you are printing at 16x20 then your roll film will probably be OK to get nice crisp prints if scanned on a half decent scanner"...then I would assume (I know I'm not the brightest) that you could print larger if it's a straight negative>paper print?
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joseph O'Neil
One other thing to consider is how you have to upgrade your hardware when you go to bigger digital camera. For example, my D7000 - raw images at 16 meg convert to 80 to 90 meg TIF files.
You know what kind of processing power, hard drive space and the minor fortune you have to invest in SD cards? Not to mention, I had to upgrade the cooling fan on my new computer, the procesor was over heating.
My "computer guy" bascially told me if I went to this new Nikon D800 with that is rated at 36 meg, a new computer with a powerful enough processor woudl need a water cooled system for the CPU.
In the meantime, my DeVere 504 is still going great, and doesn't need upgrades.
:)
Don't get me wrong, if enough money fell into my hands, yeah, i would be silly enough to get a new D800, but the bottom line is, when you upgrade your camera to "match" what LF film can do, you have to "upgrade" everything else along the line, and strickly from a business point of view, in today's economy, can such outlays of cold hard cash be justified?
joe
I don't understand what you mean when you say 18 mpx raw files convert to 80 and 90 meg tiff files. Tiffs converted from raw from my 21 mpx Canon 1Ds MarkIII camera aren't anything like that size. Are you talking about stitching? Saving a file with a lot of layers after editing? Either I'm missing something (if so please let me know) or you have something in mind besides just converting a raw file to a tiff.
Upgrade hardware and everything else because you move to a bigger digital camera? I've been using a $1,000 or so Dell computer with 8 gigs of RAM for five years and a very similar HP computer for about five years before that. I didn't have to upgrade my computer or anything else when I went from a Nikon D100 camera with about 8 mpx IIRC to a Canon 5D with 12 mpx to the 1DsIII with 21. I've upgraded my printer, my external hard drives, and various other things over the years but not because I bought new cameras.
Water cooled CPU for a 36 mpx camera (that doesn't exist)? You need a new computer guy.
Minor fortune in SD cards? You've got to be kidding. An SD card costs maybe $20 - $50 depending on size and grade. And with it you can make thousands and thousands of photographs.
I'm not going to argue about quality of prints or cost or any other aspect of the digital vs film quarrels that pop up here so regularly. But frankly nothing in your message makes any sense at all to me based on my experience except the part about your Devere enlarger not needing an upgrade (though your wallet may need an upgrade to keep buying film for it).
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill_1856
I don't understand any of this!
Can you see any difference between any of these in a 16x20/24 print?
My answer to this is absolutely.
:eek:
I visited a gallery recently where the photographer used a 8x10 tachihara extensively for color landscape photography.
The prints were far and away better than anything I have seen from digital capture devices.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lightbender
My answer to this is absolutely.
:eek:
I visited a gallery recently where the photographer used a 8x10 tachihara extensively for color landscape photography.
The prints were far and away better than anything I have seen from digital capture devices.
This is a pretty meaningless statement without telling us what images from what digital capture devices made by what photographers/printers you've seen.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
from shooting over the years... 4x5 Ektar100, Aptus 75S, & Betterlight scanning back..my experience has been Ektar100 & Betterlight are about even. The Aptus was pretty much on par with scanned 6x7 Ektar.. with the Ektar getting slightly more detail, but with a little more background 'noise (grain)'. nothing scientific along the lines of comparing MTF curves of each of the lenses used. Regardless of the lenses used thought, the Aptus was never a competitor with the 4x5, and i'd wouldn't expect the Betterlight to surpass 8x10
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
OK, I worked my way through the entire test. It's quite an interesting piece of work.
I have one minor quibble with the testing methodology. It appears lens hoods were not used for any of the test photos. My reading on this forum tells me proper lens shades can make a big difference.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
"My, my! A lot of oxen being gored around here."
Thomas
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark Stahlke
OK, I worked my way through the entire test. It's quite an interesting piece of work.
I have one minor quibble with the testing methodology. It appears lens hoods were not used for any of the test photos. My reading on this forum tells me proper lens shades can make a big difference.
I can see your point but the brightest light sources were in the picture. the only areas outside the picture for the studio shot was the ceiling (where there were no lights) and the walls and floor (which were darker than the walls in the scene). I've only seen flare as a problem when substantial areas that form the image circle are brighter than the normal parts of the picture. If there were any flare, I would expect to see Dmax affected but there was no evidence of tonality difference outside the rebate of the film.
The scene outside should possibly have used a lens hood, I agree - however, again, no evidence can be seen in difference between dmax of hidden rebate and edge of frame. Funny you should say that because I nearly always use when shooting outside.
http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...dmax-flare.jpg
Here's a sample showing the rebate and an area of darkness in the image. If there is any veiling flare it's beyond the scanners ability to differentiate. Well spotted though!
Tim
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Thanks for taking the time to do this so carefully. Very interesting results. Think I'll keep by HR8000 scanner for a while longer.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Ellis
I don't understand what you mean when you say 18 mpx raw files convert to 80 and 90 meg tiff files.
An uncompressed TIFF file has 48 bits per pixel, or 6 bytes (two each for red, green, and blue). 6 x 18M = 108M.
But I agree with your conclusion. I make 90-megapixel files (>500MB 48-bit TIFFs) by scanning 6x7 at 4000 spi, or 4x5 at 2400 spi. No problem dealing with those on my cheapie quad-core, 8GB RAM Win7 box that you guys laughed at when I bought it at Costco.
Rick "noting that layered PSD files are even bigger" Denney
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Out of interest I have an old MacPro and a new MacBook Pro and they have both coped quite nicely with my 1Gb 5x4 scans. It was only when I started playing with 2Gb layered scans and a 7.6Gb 8x10 scan that I needed to upgrade my mac. I've not got dual raid 0 SSD scratch drive and 16Gb of ram. Still not particularly nippy but it handles layered 2Gb files OK now. When I open 500Mb scans on my Macbook pro they positively fly..
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Thanks for the comprehensive work, Tim - much appreciated!!!
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Tim,
Do I need to give you my email, name etc before viewing the results?
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Patrick Raymore
Tim,
Do I need to give you my email, name etc before viewing the results?
No.. Would be good to have more subscribers though :-)
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rdenney
An uncompressed TIFF file has 48 bits per pixel, or 6 bytes (two each for red, green, and blue). 6 x 18M = 108M.
But I agree with your conclusion. I make 90-megapixel files (>500MB 48-bit TIFFs) by scanning 6x7 at 4000 spi, or 4x5 at 2400 spi. No problem dealing with those on my cheapie quad-core, 8GB RAM Win7 box that you guys laughed at when I bought it at Costco.
Rick "noting that layered PSD files are even bigger" Denney
Thanks Rick, I understand that there's an increase. I was questioning the order of magnitude. I should have done the math first.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
timparkin
. And yes you can tell a difference.
What is the difference (are the differences)?
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill_1856
What is the difference (are the differences)?
Well at 20x24 I could see a crispness of texture that was different between the P45 an Sony A900 and then the IQ180 and large format. The smaller formats had a look that was almost like a dabbed on oil paint. The strokes looked obvious. Whereas the larger formats looked more photorealistic. It was subtle but I asked a few people on an area that had similar colour (i.e. so that they wouldn't be influenced by tonality) and most people chose the larger formats as looking more 'real' but occasionally some would choose the smaller formats and say they looked sharper. This seems to be because of a spike in the frequency near the limit of the sensor resolution, hence creating larger contrast around that frequency. Hence, for people who's eyesight wasn't quite as good their limit of resolution corresponded to this frequency. For some people, they also chose the IQ180 over the film because of it's lack of grain. However, as many people chose the 8x10 over the IQ180 'because it looked more real' - this was at very large enlargements though, 50x70 ish. The sample size isn't great, only about 8 people so far, but most chose the IQ or LF out of the selection that included P45 and Sony A900. They also chose the 8x10 over the 4x5 (which surprised me).
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
The article demonstrates something I've been talking about for a long time, which I think is true regardless of format: the huge difference between maximum possible quality and typical quality.
A small handful of my 4x5 negatives are almost supernatually detailed, while the majority don't come close. It's because depth of field vs. diffraction compromises, wind, or sloppiness of unknown origin. 8x10 gives an even wider spread between the possible and the typical. The article shows that group f64, if we take their name literally, worked with the equivalent of not that many megapixels.
I haven't worked with a digital MF technical camera, but from what I've read there are similar issues, largely revolving around focussing precision. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has field experience with one of the technical cameras and big backs.
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
THANK YOU, Tim & Team...for all your hard work...your planning...your considerations...your execution...your analysis. Wonderful! We will all, in our own ways, use your work as a reference...and hopefully build an even more creative world together.
Let's do a similar comparison in five-years...Yes??
Cheers!
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
The article demonstrates something I've been talking about for a long time, which I think is true regardless of format: the huge difference between maximum possible quality and typical quality.
A small handful of my 4x5 negatives are almost supernatually detailed, while the majority don't come close. It's because depth of field vs. diffraction compromises, wind, or sloppiness of unknown origin. 8x10 gives an even wider spread between the possible and the typical. The article shows that group f64, if we take their name literally, worked with the equivalent of not that many megapixels.
I haven't worked with a digital MF technical camera, but from what I've read there are similar issues, largely revolving around focussing precision. I'd be curious to hear from someone who has field experience with one of the technical cameras and big backs.
Well I can say from the experience of running the test that focussing on the medium format backs isn't that easy. I found perfect focus on the 10x8 ground glass in seconds because the back could render the details at such a fine level, it was easy to see peak focus come in and out. However, the medium format backs had a cap on resolution and hence you are working to maximise contrast, not detail. This is often difficult to see on a small ground glass (although the Alpa ground glass is very, very nice!). Live view helps but with only a one second refresh you can't focus by 'sweeping' like you would on a ground glass, very often it's only really useful as a confirmation of focus rather than as a live focussing tool. Saying that, it's good enough to get you 95% of the way :-)
I was quite surprised at quite how aperture kills resolution on the 4x5 (and even more surprised at the 8x10 drop off). I'm less obsessed with 100% sharp focus throughout anyway and like the creativity of focus that focal plane control fives you. Good job really! :-)
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
In a review of the Arca Swiss technical camera there was mention of some kind of laser focussing device. Unfortunately the reviewers didn't get their hands on the thing in time for the article. I have a hard time imagining what it would be like to work that way.
Do any of the Phase One backs allow tethering to a laptop or ipad?
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
paulr
...Do any of the Phase One backs allow tethering to a laptop or ipad?
Since their beginning, digital backs have been designed to be used tethered. Only in the last ~10 years have CF/memory card capability been included with SOME digital backs, now making them more field-ready and portable. Having hi-resolution screens(like on the IQ180) aids with assessing focus post-capture, further eliminating/removing the need to tote a laptop into the field w/ your camera gear. Lots still tote their laptops into the field though.
-Dan
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
My 11x14 will smash any digital camera out there...;)
Happy Holidays!
Vaughn
-
Re: Large Format vs Medium Format Digital
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vaughn
My 11x14 will smash any digital camera out there...;)
Happy Holidays!
Vaughn
Six or seven years ago, I'd have said: "My 35mm camera will smash any digital camera out there..."
:)