Hacker News Reader

MF is cheaper to acquire in film. Because of the big negatives, u do can make high resolution digital copies from them.

Uninteresting for most photograhic fields, because of the big and hefty equipment to a APS-C/FF system, but it could make sense for someone doing landscape or architecture. Those bigger lenses have less of a problem to keep the "resolution" high before it hits the sensor/film, that gives small things in big pictures more detail.

View on HN

> MF is cheaper to acquire in film.

By "MF", I take it you mean medium format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_format

That a very excellent point that emphasizes how technology is often about trade-offs, not linear advancement. With film, it's far cheaper to increase the sensor size because the sensor is literally a consumable item. With digital, the sensor is an sophisticated electronic component that it's much harder and expensive to fabricate the larger you make them.

Yeah, basically for nostalgia and no other reason I prefer to shoot with full-frame sensors (like Nikon FX) rather than on the crop sensor (like DX). The larger-sensor digital bodies are considerably more expensive, even if they're years old and used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com