That may seem fair at a 20000 feet level. Quotas may seem fair today, but they create unequal opportunities. I simply state the obvious: if we simply agree on equality, there is no further need to make differences. I’m set in life - I am in a very furtunate position I know.
FULL FRAME VS MEDIUM FORMAT SAMPLES SKIN
I personally have no skin in the game nor could the skin be taken away from me. I don’t feel like people take power away from “me”. Adding to the mix, the larger the format, the lenses are generally slower and there's a larger disparity between the focal length and the full frame equivalent.Īt the end of the day, deciding on the camera that's right for you is hardly ever as easy as a this or that comparison however, this video offers a great introduction to comparing medium format and 35mm photography. Do you shoot medium format as well as 35mm? What are your thoughts? In addition, as noted in a previous article about film cameras, there are multiple formats that fit under the "medium format" umbrella - the 645 being the smallest format. As I'm sure you know, the lens choice makes a huge difference in the sharpness and depth of field. It should be noted that this comparison, while helpful, is not the end all, be all comparison - that would be impossible. With that said, medium format cameras, particularly 67 cameras, are considerably larger and heavier. Further, with the bigger negatives of medium format, grain doesn't disappear but is generally considered more pleasing. While the lenses are generally slower, the depth of field is generally more pleasant with some lenses, offering a full frame equivalent of f/1.2-1.4 maximum aperture. For photographers who have not shot medium format, the appeal is pretty strong. In this video, Film Supply Club does a nice comparison of a 35mm camera (the infamous Canon AE-1) and a 645 camera (the quintessential film camera for wedding photographers).
0 kommentar(er)
