>>4356819>"$5 sheet of film">forgets tens of thousands in scanning equipmentAgain, you prove you've never touched film or any camera for that matter.
>muh blog!!!It's ridiculous measurebating with wild inconsistencies proving the guy didn't know what the fuck he was doing. 4x5 clearly wins the line chart test but not so clearly in the real world. But even worse, he portrays a D800 as mush yet a 5D2 gets far closer to 4x5 than it ever should. How the fuck can a 5D2 be better than a D800 and an IQ 180 be both far away from and right next to 4x5???
>>4356820>imacon only slightly better than a flatbedAgain, you've never touched either. Never touched a camera. Never touched a film unless it was your mom's 35mm point and shoot as a child. Which is why you remain a nophoto posting other people's shit.
>inb4 NOOOO A BETTER SCANNER FILM TOTALLY WOULD HAVE WON! 