>>4268531Wrong. SLRs are awful. They were good enough for 35mm film when your other choices were rangefinders and the ground glass. DSLRs exposed some problems that 120 shooters were already dancing around with technique and technology (that 35mm and half frame DSLR shooters rarely got the memo about) and added their own. But if you really care about verisimilitude you shoot film anyways right? Light to chemistry, no signal processing :^)
>mirror box blocks lenses, especially symmetrical wide angles and apochromatics. just look at what pentax had to do to make a 50mm f1.4. it's actually about the same size as canon's f1.2, which also has superior autofocus motors and is much sharper. 80 x 106 mm 910g vs. 89.8 x 108 mm 950g.>mirror vibrations lmao>focusing, proofing, and image capture off anywhere from 2 to 3 different planes>viewfinding through the lens wide open, DOF preview to preview DOF or just not see some soft garbage dims the image, often significantly>distortion and vignetting visible in the OVF can hamper framing and even the visibility of DSLR information display>viewfinder has resolution and brightness loss through the focusing screen, prism, and eyepiece, and later, translucent LCDs to display focus points/levels/whatever and partial pellicle mirrors that passed light to the PDAF array>generally inferior metering>>4270179He's right. Film is technically garbage. Artistically make up your own mind, but if you're a glorified document scanner, by the time you've wasted your time shooting ultra fine grained BW, a $2000 sony already took a jewjillion such high resolution photos but in color at could do it at ISOs such as 800 instead of ISOs such as 10 and 20 with much better color accuracy and tonality. Digital outpaces film at every turn unless you're using 4x5 and larger (tonality and color accuracy still suffers, resolution is great), in that case it becomes ridiculously cost ineffective to replace with digital unless you take 100s of pics/week.