[JJ_SO]

If a term doesn't say what it means, it IS weird, not matter what your opinion or the well-covered history is.  ^_^

Each format can be defined as FullFrame. Nobody has a copyright or reason to say that 135 film is the scale for everything.

[Brightcolours]

If a term doesn't say what it means, it IS weird, not matter what your opinion or the well-covered history is.  ^_^

Each format can be defined as FullFrame. Nobody has a copyright or reason to say that 135 film is the scale for everything.

If you find full frame confusing, then just say full frame 135 format.

[thxbb12]

If a term doesn't say what it means, it IS weird, not matter what your opinion or the well-covered history is.  ^_^

Each format can be defined as FullFrame. Nobody has a copyright or reason to say that 135 film is the scale for everything.

 

100% agree.

[obican]

I don't recall we ever had a discussion that long about MF here. I think mostly because these instriments are out of reach for us normal mortals.

 

 

 

 

$8K is certainly a reachable price, a 5DSr + a good lens from Canon costs about $6K anyway. Chip in a bit more and get yourself that Fuji but why? Is it reachable? Yes. Does it give me something amazing? Well, if it would give me so much benefit, I'd have a 645Z by now, wouldn't I?

 

On the other hand, had done some math the other day. IIRC, for the rumored GFX price of $8k, I can shoot about 24.000 frames of lovely 6x45 C-41 film and develop them at home, BW is even cheaper. As a hobbyist, that's certainly enough for me. Put a good digital camera right next to it and I'm done. There are plenty of cheap and very good 6x45 systems to pick up for any style, fully manual or some even with AF. You can even break the bank and go 6x6 if you're fine with shooting 16.000 frames instead of 24.000.

[Brightcolours]

I still have to fill up my 1st 6x9 roll of ISO 400 BW film. 2 out of 8 frames left.

[obican]

I still have to fill up my 1st 6x9 roll of ISO 400 BW film. 2 out of 8 frames left.

 

On my last vacation I brought a 500C/M with 3 backs and the 80mm with me, along with a Sony A7 and several lenses. My grilfriend brought her Rolleicord Vb, Fuji X-T10 and a 9xi. She also used the Minolta 7 body that I brought "just in case". We shot about 2-3k shots on digital and 25 rolls of film in total.

 

All those cameras (6 in total, including two 6x6 cameras) and lenses (quite a few from 24mm to 210mm) cost probably less than half what the Fuji GFX kit would cost. Again, GFX is certainly reachable but I'd rather have those 6 cameras and lenses.

[JJ_SO]

Would I print each frame I have on HD?

 

I didn't do back in the film times. And your dad, Obican, included scanning costs, archive materials to store the films and papers, he for sure also calculated the increase of costs because films and papers becoming rare, some already disappeared?

 

Honestly, nobody really would go back to film, it's so much more ado and the quality meanwhile is worse IMO. This calculation is much like how many pair shoes would I need to walk to Moscow instead of using the train.

[obican]

Would I print each frame I have on HD?

 

I didn't do back in the film times. And your dad, Obican, included scanning costs, archive materials to store the films and papers, he for sure also calculated the increase of costs because films and papers becoming rare, some already disappeared?

 

Honestly, nobody really would go back to film, it's so much more ado and the quality meanwhile is worse IMO. This calculation is much like how many pair shoes would I need to walk to Moscow instead of using the train.

 

Not dad, had. That was a typo

 

I wasn't even talking about printing btw. Just develop and scan them. One of the reasons nobody wants to go back to film is the cost associated with the whole process but shot by shot, digital medium format can be worse if you only shoot a few thousand images per year and don't make any money from the images.

 

I'm absolutely willing to stay in 24x36 digital format, I can even go to Fujifilm APS-C. I'm not at all convinced that 44x33 medium format is much more exciting than what we have already in smaller formats.

[thxbb12]

[thxbb12]

I'm not at all convinced that 44x33 medium format is much more exciting than what we have already in smaller formats.

 

Exactly how I feel about FF vs APS-C ;-)