[Silent Street]

Digital has yet to make any serious inroads onto a 5x4 or 8x10 negative, and print scans from transparencies are not that far behind either. That's why these formats (and bigger) are the preserve of artisans rather than flashy technocentrics. Furthermore, sharpness is inherent in the larger formats and there is nothing to speak of adversely, apart from the dedication that is required in actually making an image, rather than taking it.

Holding any big camera offers no great advantage over putting it on a tripod and guaranteeing an image that you know, from experience, will have the appropriate clarity and sharpness (all things being equal) that you desire. This clumsy business of people hand-holding big 67 cameras and crowing over "super-sharp" negatives belies the existence of vibration/blur which will only be seen at larger magnifications — at print sizes of 100cm, the slightest blur/vibration is going to look appalling. So if you're careless with that, forget all about the 'holy grail' of sharpness. A beautiful image is much, much more than that.

[tuco]

Holding any big camera offers no great advantage over putting it on a tripod and guaranteeing an image that you know, from experience, will have the appropriate clarity and sharpness (all things being equal) that you desire.

I'll take exception to that. That is an ideal view. In reality, I take many handhold shots with my medium format of people that need to be done quite quickly and setting up and hauling around a tripod is both not desirable or feasible.

Here are some Pentax 67 shots I absolutely and positively would NOT want to be hauling around a tripod that day. And since I use a waist level finder, I didn't even use a light meter on any of them to speed things up.

[Nuff]

Who said 3200 iso film is grainy ?

It is in 35mm, but I like it that way, so I push it more. I shoot it in 120 and it's fine. I have 10 rolls of each in my freezer.

For me ultimate sharpness is not a goal.

[wombat2go]

For me it is 35mm film vs 6x7 film

SMC Pentax -M 1:3.5 28mm on the Pentax MX
Kodak GC-400
https://app.box.com/s/axujcts3r6jptf7ul69u
( posted before on ..film shots)

This was scanned at 3200 dpi with the PrimeFilmPro120 with grain filter de-selected (default)
I am sure a print would look fine, but on the Eizo, this film has a bit much grain in the sky for me.

I am planning a trip to Australia and deciding whether to take a 6x7 instead of my usual 35mm + 2 lenses
I have never taken a 6x7 on air travel. I would not take my home-built cameras, considering the security checks.

The only 6x7 camera I could take is the Baby Graflex 2x3 Crown which has the side Kalart,and the Graftar 1/4.5 103mm in the Century shutter.
Here is photo using it on Ektar 100 with about 2 degrees down tilt to get the lower fence and on to nearly infinity.
. There is no grain showing. (Posted last year)
https://app.box.com/s/71zle4bsq15813bwvbjf

The 2x3 Crown is quite small, not much more than an MX plus 2 lenses, nice to use and that old press shutter is much more discreet than an slr!

[aurele]

So if you're careless with that, forget all about the 'holy grail' of sharpness. A beautiful image is much, much more than that.

All in all, my best pictures (to me, or my friends) are far from being sharp : most are taken with a delta 400 film pushed to 3200 (hello grain !), with the DA*55/1,4 at 1/30s. It's never sharp because of the too thin DOF, sometime a slight shake, etc ... But geez, the rendering, the smooth transition between in and out of focus, the color, the bokeh, the micro-contrast, everything juste make me drool.

For the same reason, i want a 67, with just the 105, some Ektar or Portra loaded. And i'm set. nothing more.