“Fine” is not what I seek. I can see the difference between 4x5 shot at f/11 versus f/22 versus f/45 printed to only 16x20. I’m trying to preserve the illusion of infinite detail in the print. It’s a demanding standard, and I often don’t achieve it, but I want to invite the viewer to come close without punishing him for doing so. I’m not that much of a believer in “proper viewing distance”.
The main advantage 6x7 has for me is that it will fit in my Nikon scanner, while 4x5 won’t. That evens it up. But I know what I see even with a 4x loupe, and I know what I see up close to prints.
Rick “who prefers to print at 720 pixels/inch, but is scanner-limited to about 500 printed to 16x20” Denney
---------- Post added 03-13-18 at 10:47 PM ----------
Originally posted by texandrews Tex, "who recalls 4x5 was", disagrees!
...
Ah. Well, with this I agree. But in film days I mostly shot 6cmx9cm and 4x5 in. I had the 645N and some lenses because I got a great deal on them, and the N was my gateway drug to the Z. And, like Matt out in beautiful Colorado, it was because I had those lenses that the Z wound up being weirdly more affordable than a total FF kit (at the time. That's changed with the K1...).
I had a 645N before there was such a thing as digital medium format. And I still use my 67. But film is too slow and too narrow to permit long lenses with the tripods I can get on a plane (including my Gitzo 3532). I don’t do much black and white. I have had trouble with even the 200 on a medium tripod. At ISO 100, I am shooting at 1/30 on a cloudy day at f/16, and I’d prefer to be at f/22. That is in the danger zone for a long lens. With the 645z, I can easily be at 1/1000, and will have another three stops of floor room in the shadows compared even to negative film. That is an enormous difference for travel photography that requires air travel, when I can’t bring my biggest tripods.
When I’m working out of my car trunk, I can use the big stuff. More and more, I’ll be using film only when at home or traveling by car.
As to cost, I don’t remember the source of the claim and I certainly paid a lot for the quickloads in my freezer. But part of it was the efficiency afforded by sheet film—never any wasted shots to get a roll out of the camera.
Rick “larger formats are less demanding of lenses, which makes the biggest difference in kit cost” Denney