>>3909532I was literally comparing a D750 to MF. You then said "If you can't see the difference between a phone and large format you're blind". I said there are differences, just that the returns are diminishing.
>Because my 66 and 67 cameras have a completely different look to the shots than my 135 setup'Completely different look'. Okay buddy. There is not a 'completely different look' between Micro Four Thirds and Full Frame. More bokeh? Yeah. Better low light? Sure. Better tonality? Maybe, why not. But a completely different look? Nah.
>Why do you use a separate camera when your cell phone does a find job anon?Again. Right tool for the right job. Size, weight and money are all concerns. Would you use a canon to shoot a mosquito?
>It's impossible to get the smooth gradients on 135, that 120 manages so easily; 'smooth gradients' really matter when most people look at your image on a portion of a 1080p screen. That's totally worth the extra $5k plus, weight and file size. Yup.
>Do you not think they look different?Broadly speaking? No. There is no 'full-frame' look. There are benefits to a larger sensor, but for me its mostly function. Better low light performance and better DoF control mostly. I've shot 'medium format' M4/3 (i.e full frame; a factor of say 3x). It was not life changing. Lets me get the shots better? Sure. But a different 'aesthetic'? What a fucking wanky thing to say.
Check out these pics from Petapixel (no idea why they are made for ants). Can you really tell me that any one of those 4 pics looks 'impossibly' different from another? Sure the image is cropped to oblivion and raeped through compression. But we're not just talking about bits, you're the one sounding like a faggot bringing up 'aesthetics' lol. Check out the article for 100% crops:
https://petapixel.com/2020/05/22/sensor-size-comparison-mf-vs-full-frame-vs-aps-c-vs-micro-four-thirds/Got any links to your portfolio?
