Can we agree that almost any modern digital camera takes "good" photos (with the obvious exception of Micro 4/3)?
>>4492256Nope. Sadly digital will always be catching up to and never quite reaching what film produces image quality-wise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kekAUeoSo8U
>>4492260This really drives home the point that nikon users have literally no tasteThe oversharpened, flat, supersaturated look is all they do and it transcends formats by making every photo equally eye burning. Like, holy fuck, those prints as he showed them look cel shaded. It's godawful dentists office photography. He's not shooting anything resembling art. It could not possibly matter to him if full frame could achieve finer shading and better texture rendition because he fucking obliterates it anyways. Since he's a Z9 user, he likely shoots at high ISOs most of the time and then applies AI NR which would further obliterate any difference between the two cameras as he uses them (while also obliterating any semblance of quality and taste)Quality standards differ between people... between social classes.If you only want to do photography to the standards of a dentists waiting room like ken rockwell be my guest. If you want to aim higher, do that instead.
>>4492256The Canon 5D mkii was the perfect balance between film-like attractive photos and modern convenience to use. Before the 5D mkii the image quality was poor and the cameras were slow and difficult to use. After the 5D mkii they started producing soulless spec-sheet focused sterile images that require significant editing to look aesthetic.
>>4492259Modern FF digital absolutely beats the shit out of film up to and including 35mm. It's only when you start dipping into moderate ISO territory (800-3200) that 35mm film barely looks better because the amount of noise is now about the same as the amount of grain, but grain looks far more pleasant.The entire pursuit of medium format and large format film shooters was to get rid of the grain that smaller formats couldn't avoid (except for shooting slow, ISO 50 film or such).Of course, different stocks and color renditions can absolutely look good but you can counter that by saying that a nicely edited RAW looks better than SOOC JPEG Snapshits.An ISO 100 digital shot with great lighting is far superior to any film up to about 6x6/6x7.>>4492267The entire board can be safely divided between those who love the 5D MkII and what it achieved, and those who think it's the worst way to take photographs.
>>4492267>>44922695DII and 5DIII raws are effectively identical except the II has a void of noise and the III has stripes if you miss exposure too badly5DII and 5DIII jpegs are also identical if white balance is set off a grey card.The important differences are:the 5DIII can use auto ISO in manual mode without running MLthe 5DII has a basic rectangle shape instead of a fluid transition from the lens mount to the edges and can be easier to manipulatethe autofocusa few buttonsall five standard canon ff dslrs are basically the same IQ wise>5D 5DII 5DIII 6D 6DIIit really shows how good they got it the first time. even as sony and nikon blew past canon tech-wise people kept buying basically the imaging capabilities of the original 5D because the photos just looked better and nobody pushes shadows anyways
>>4492269Exactly. Film still has a major upper hand in everything that really matters. Anything above 6x7 in great lighting absolutely destroys even the most expensive digital cameras.
>>4492260>it looks the same but everyone uses ff and fine art is still mostly filmits not a conspiracy or mass idiocy, this guy is literally ken rockwell so he makes every camera look as bad as his first dslra camera can not improve a photographer but a photographer can easily turn a $60,000 hasselblad into a $60 nikon d200
>>4492256Camera is just a tool. A good tool gives utility which a shitty tool does not have.It's the camera user who takes the good and bad photographs. One who can not take a good photo of a slow or static subject in good light with a shitty camera likely can not do it with a good camera.(A holiday snap from 2002)
>>4492282Oops, wrong snap.
>>4492274I'm fine with our main points being in agreeance, but is "everything that really matters" only like 0.5% of photographs taken after we exclude phone pics (which reduces that to like 0.005%)? Idk man, I've seen plenty of studio-tier and natgeo-tier stuff that's been taken with Cannikons and look great.One day I'll do some 6x7 stuff but honestly fuck me it feels like the pricing on those cameras is scuffed lately.
>>4492318Medium format is held up as the be all in end-all of film photography and it never was even when it was at its most popular.I liked it mainly because you could crop a 6x6 in either direction and end up with an excellent photo whereas you couldn't always do that with 35 mm. It also made me work a little slower and more carefully so I ended up with better photos just because of the slower rate of work. Getting the camera out, caulking the shutter pulling the dark slide, getting a light meter out thinking about the scene critically..
>>4493638I never got the chance (too young) but thinking logically MF just seems to be the largest you can go for anything that can't be shot off a tripod.Show me some based 1970s news reporter or something shooting large format handheld and I absolutely consneed, but I see some good points for MF:>can be handheld>noticably finer grain than 35mm and higher resolution>accessible and familiar film stocks>not prohibitively expensive like LFI waffle on, but I can see why some anons get autistic over it.
>>4492274film users actually think this lol
>>4493641Check this out.
>lust-provoking image>time-wasting question
>>4492264Birds of a feather flock together. Peasants flock with other peasantsPatricians flock with other with patrician taste.
>>4493643Its true but its ironic, that to get the 800mp that was promised to the big film tribe 3000 years ago, all analog workflows and even partially analog workflows like drum scanning are worthless.
>>4492282>>4492283newfags never delete their fuck-up posts and it sickens me
>>4493686I've gotten an estimated 600MP of resolution from a flatbed scan of an 8x10 negative. Ive seen a wetplate tested to get over 1000MP. Does this make a difference on an 8x10 contact print or wetplate? Absolutely and it is called tonality.
>>4493686It was actually a 4x5 plate that got the gigapickle. Lolhttps://billrolph.com/wet-plate-resolution-1
>>4493645SEXY.But for what purpose would you do this? You need so much light for LF for any sort of DoF. Unless of course... there's a complementary off-camera handheld sodium-bulb flash which is based beyond all measure.>>4493691>I've gotten an estimated 600MP of resolution from a flatbed scan of an 8x10 negativeSurely this is just complete overkill right? Analogue processes might benefit if you're enlarging prints to... ungoldly sizes, but scanning only benefits up to maybe 8k and slightly beyond unless you're literally just peeping individual pixels.Maybe for insane resolution landscapes?
>>4493688Complaining about choosing to not delete a photo on /p/.
>>4493694The sinar handy only supports up to a 135mm lens(I think) with a 65mm being the most common. You can totally do zone focus with 65mm. There's a very expensive 47mm lens you can get that covers 4x5 as well. Lots of silly/fun use cases and I think it's sort of wasteful not going for gold with large format, but the camera is a fun one to use and very compact for large format. It has a ground glass in the back, so you could take it hiking to save tons of weight and space. Idk what their intended purpose was when they were made. Maybe architecture or something..>>4493694People will call me schizo, but if you compare a grain free 8x10 print made with enlarged 35mm film and an 8x10 contact print you will see an obvious image quality difference in the two prints. There are also 8x10 enlargers that you could make gigantic grain free prints with, but it is a very difficult and expensive process.If you're talking about the scan being so huge then yeah it's just overkill, but it can be useful if you're autistic about your technique and want to learn what you did right/wrong.
