Bipod

Smaller format:
Pros--
* Faster lenses (for a given angle of view, e.g.,, a "normal". lens)
Cons--
* More diffraction (for a given f/stop)
* Fewer usable f/stops
* Less maximum depth-of-field (e.g. for a "normal" lens)
* Smaller sensor/film area = less resolution possible

Larger format:
Pros--
* More "pixels"
* Less diffraction (for a given f/stop)
* Higher resolution (for both the above reasons)
* More usable f/stops (for a given angle-of-view lens, e.g, a "normal" lens)
* Hence, capable of greater depth-of-field
Cons--
* Slower lenses (for a given type, e.g., "normal".)

Choices available right now range from 1"x1" digital sensor to 8" x 10" film
(80 times more area). Tradtiionally, these are classified as:

Sub-minature format: below 36 mm x 24 mm
Minature format: 36 mm x 24 mm
Medium format: 120 film (several different frames)
Large format: 4" x 5" and above

You pay your money, you take your choice. There is no single "best" format--
it depends on subject, lighting, location, your style and how you intend to display
or print the image. But the limitations of any given format are real: format matters.

Unfortunately, medium format digital cameras start at about $4500 with DSLRs
starting at about $5000 (body only). That's unaffordable for most photographers.
And large format digital cameras (4" x 5" and larger) are not available--sensors
that big aren't made.

By contrast, a sheet of 8" x 10" film costs about $5 and can be used in home-made
box camera: expensive per shot, but not per camera.

That home-made box camera can shoot at f/64 on its "normal" lens (about 300 mm)
-- with enormous depth-of-field. But a brand new, top-of-the-line, "full-frame" camera
can't (the image would be hopelessly unsharp, so they don't even put f/32
on the focus ring--let alone f/64).

Digital vs. 135 film has good points on both sides. But digital vs. large format film has no
points on the digital side--because there are no large format digital cameras, except in observatory
telescopes.

Large format was the predominant form of photography for over 100 years. Now it is
almost extinct. We shouldn't fool ourselves by pretending this is not a loss. The drop
in quality in landscape photography since the 1970s is very noticable.

le boecere

"Choices available right now range from 1"x1" digital sensor to 8" x 10" film"

Is there actually a camera sensor that measures 1" x 1"?

tdekany Loc: Oregon

This is typical gear head bs.

https://www.markmetternich.com - show me another photographer with what ever gear you believe that takes better pictures than Mark.

If anything, the quality of today’s top photographers are better than what was produced in the past.

I know you don’t personally have anything to show, you never show any photos and we are on a photo forum.


I will not hold my breath, because you just troll.

User ID

`

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Surely you must be joking. Those are horrible examples of landscape photography. Everything drowned in candy colors. Nothing looks real. That's fantasy photography, not landscape photography.

le boecere

duck72 Loc: Laurel Ridge, PA

I won’t be signing-up for any of Mark’s workshops any time soon. Yuck. Website images are antithesis of what *I* consider “state of the art” or desirable results. To each his/her own.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

Again the equipment is an expensive brick until it is put in the hands of an artist!
Bigger question is why am I even posting on this thread?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Interesting thoughts.
I disagree with your theory for today's equipment.
AZ Highways has very high standards for what they publish.
And in the era of film 35mm was only considered for publishing if there was an absolute reason it was the only option to get the shot.
4X5 was the preferred minimum. David Muench was the primary photographer.
Today that has all changed with digital.

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

"Pro" means a positive virtue, not a short list of your personally described short comings.

Duh, there is no question that a good big man will beat a good small man any day of the week, and so what. The talent of yesterday casts a long shadow on the work done by today's photographers, but alas it is but a shadow, we stand on the shoulders of giants true, but the cliche' machine needs a rest. You say nothing new, just curmudgeonly dictate your nostalgic regrets.

storm over Boston Mills

berchman Loc: South Central PA

I don't like overcooked pictures, but call them what you will, these are spectacular photos. If you have special criteria for "landscape" photos, then maybe we should just call these "art" photos.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I wish they had used something understandable for sensor sizes. We all know the term "35mm," so why not stick with that and refer to a "28mm" or a "13mm" sensor?

Below is a chart with the actual measurements.

AlfredU Loc: Mooresville, NC

No. There are bridge cameras that claim to use a 1 inch sensor, but the actual sensor only measures a little over a half inch. This is from an older format that counted the size of the frame and housing for the sensor which measured an inch. But the sensor doesn't come close. This fact was revealed to me on this forum a while back. I looked it up and it is true. Thank you UHH.

manpho789

This is rude and out of order here, just name calling. The points made were very reasonable. (I’m not refereeing the absolute correctness of everything, but the post was at least mostly correct). Large formats such s 12” x 12” WILL have Superior resolution. That’s why the CIA, U2 aircraft, etc. used VERY large film in their surveillance operations. If size didn’t matter, we would all use tiny sensors.

AlfredU Loc: Mooresville, NC

Wow, "horrible examples of landscape photography", "spectacular photos", "art photos"? It's interesting how subjective photography can be. But I don't understand the contradiction. If you don't like overcooked photos then how can they be spectacular? And although I don't prefer overcooked, too slick images like Mark's, I would be hard pressed to call them horrible. I would suggest that we try to at least be respectful of each other's opinions about what is good photography or not. And we kind of got off the topic of size matters. I thought the OP made an interesting and somewhat thought provoking comparison. Again, my opinion.