Originally posted by FozzFoster Might also add something towards this:
I believe back in the day, large format and medium format was used to make 1:1 large prints.
I believe it was Leica with their rangefinders that really made the 35mm a standard film size with the intent to enlarge prints.
Now with digital cameras, increasing megapixel count, and increased tech like AI and the noise reducing accelerator units - really makes those larger formats seem expensive and unnecessary.
imo, as a happy aps-c shooter, the above is how I even perceive a full frame 35mm camera..
Medium format roll film in professional cameras was intended for enlargement from the beginning, certainly before the Leica.
And 4x5 and larger enlargers have been made since the days of dry plates.
Miniature cameras (as 35mm was originally called) were looking for extreme portability, but even more looking for a cheap bulk film source, which is why Leitz used 35mm cine film. It’s not that they made enlargement a thing, it’s that enlargement made 35mm practical—35mm makes no sense without enlargement or projection. That’s why Leitz sold enlargers as well as cameras.
Larger formats generally provide more tonality, resolution and detail for a given optical, film/sensor, and printing state of the art, but at higher cost and reduced convenience.
The main reason for smaller digital sensors is yield—for a given wafer, one flaw ruins half the wafer for medium format, but only one of many APS-C or smaller sensors made from that wafer. Error reductions and production reliability have reduced costs, but volumes with large sensors are very low which increases cost.
Personally, I’m hoping for an affordable 4x5 digital back that will attach to a camera using Graflok rails.
Rick “Ansel Adams was making amateur enlargements from a quarter-plate camera before the Leica was invented” Denney