>> |
Anonymous
>>62244 This man actually has a point.
>>62208 >nor actually needs one. Which includes the OP. I'd love to have a Hasselblad, even if for nothing else than for whatever the sick kick it is those strange Leica collectors get when they order some "special editon" and never take it out of the box.
But if the OP is actually going to be using it to take photographs, unless he specifically wants a "film look," a full-frame DSLR will give him better image quality, and even if not initially cheaper, will pay for itself pretty quickly because of film costs. The first is a fact, the second probably is, depending on the amount of shooting the OP will be doing.
>>62244 This man at least has a point. 4x5 film outperforms 35mm digital.
>>62254 And so does this guy. Unless you're a master photographer (in which case pony up a portfolio) or you're a master salesman, no one's going to pay thousands of dollars for your work.
And just to re-emphasize the above: a full-frame DSLR has better image quality than medium format film, and ergo would probably be able to make even larger prints. Unless you plan on getting a digital back, a DSLR is your best choice for image quality.
|