You're an idiot if you don't shoot using medium

more like (You)'re an idiot

>>3105006
no, I'm just poor

>>3105006
Ok, thank you for your contribution.

>>3105016
*shivers* w-woah.

>>3105006
More like you are not a rich bastard if you don't use a digital back.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (123KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1920x1080px

>>3105006
no thanks

>>3105078
>4k dpi
Why is it good?

>>3105078
THREE
HUNDRED
DOLLAR
FILM
HOLDERS

File: iq3100-1.jpg (171KB, 800x712px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x712px

>>3105125
>$43,990
>40mm x 53mm

>>3105006
>i got money for a medium format digital back but not enough to buy myself a friend: the post

>>3105006
if I had the money I would. Don't have $30,000.

>>3105137
>tfw you can get the same result on a bentax k1 pixel shift

>>3105262
yeah, you sure can shoot portraits of people using pixel shift

>>3106771

>having people willing to let you take pictures of them
>as a /p/ user

Love the fake complaints.

>>3105006

Buy one for me and I will.

>>3105006
>digital back
>price of a car
>film
>price of a beer
>also better image

test

>>3106812
This. I can afford to shoot film for 20 years with the price of a digital back.

>>3107266
Yeah but the best MF film is only ~40MP or so at best. And the only reason to shoot MF is for the higher resolution. No such thing as a "medium format look"

>>3107300
wrong, lern2optics

tonality is much smoother overall too

File: IMG_4186_edited.jpg (1MB, 5184x3456px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 5184x3456px

why does one make pictures?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS REBEL SL1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Express 9.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:03:30 22:43:56
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	75.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3107302
placebo.

>>3107311
potato

Used to shoot an h4d-40...sucked balls compared to a mkiii with low light high shutter use. Application is important...unlike the OP

>>3107300
>40mp
where did you come up with this?
perhaps a moderately poor exposed colour 645 neg yeah, but 6x6, 6x7, 6x9 all jump up significantly if you are printing full frame. Then say shoot Delta 100 and holy fuck the resolution.

scanners also suck compared to wet printing

>>3107300
>only ~40MP
>only
>implying

Also
>No such thing as a "medium format look"
>square format
>high resolution
>high dr
>shallow dof

>>3107344
Color film realistically goes up to ~15 MP per 35mm frame, which should give 60 MP for a 6x7 shot. More for B&W. But scanning or optically enlarging printing to actually get that resolution to a print is a PITA, and there are really few cases where having more than 20 MP matters for a hobbyist.

>scanners also suck compared to wet printing
Scanners scan, not print, duh.

>>3106781
I've had different people ask me to take pictures of them after I mentioned I do that
I loaded a MF raw file into C1 for the phase 1 competition recently and boy would I like a MF camera, but sadly I'm poor

>>3105006
Bc there is no digital booty for my rollei sl66

>>3109311
i Dont know what this thread is about, i didnt even open it nor do i care, i scrolled past it looking for something else, but for some reason i opened this webm and i need the backstory asap.

>>3109332
That's Köksal Baba, a famous Ottoman general.

>>3107367
Eh. Color film has worse resolution than slide, and velvia slide tops out at about 12 MP IME, with 8-10 being more more typical for normal real-world scenarios. I'd be really interested to see a scanned 35mm color negative with 15mp of real resolution.

Also have to remember many medium and LF lenses often don't resolve as highly as 135, so other than theoretical maximum, it's not really useful doing just straight area conversions.

>>3109345
t. never used ektar

File: koksal.jpg (59KB, 539x960px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 539x960px

>>3109311