>>3216729>Dude. You just don't get it.I am 100% certain you are the one who doesn't get it.
> You don't compare cameras by moving the god damn subject matterI didn't move the subject matter. I moved myself and my camera. If I hadn't, it would have been one of:
1. Full Frame shot that got my whole study in frame with the subject-cameras tiny in the center (with the same tele-compressed perspective as on the properly-framed P&S shot, just with a lot of random shit on all sides) or
2. P&S shot that got one tiny corner of one subject-camera in frame (with the same perspective on that tiny corner as in the properly-composed wide shot from the FF camera, although you wouldn't really be able to tell because there wouldn't be anything else in frame to judge compression against).
> What I am saying is that using medium format gives access to a equivalent field of view using a longer lens.Yes, which is correct.
> Why the hell do you think medium format has always been the champion for portraiture and landscape?Less grain, with higher resolution and the more subtle tonal shifts that come along with that. Overall better image quality. Nothing at all to do with perspective.
> I can shoot an 80mm for an environmental portrait and still get the same flattering compression I would out of a similar lens with a tight shot on a 35mm.If you have a 6x7 with 80mm (moderately wide) and a 24x36 with 80mm (medium telephoto), and you shoot from the exact same spot, then yes, the two are going to have the same amount of compression and the medium format is going to have a wider field of view and get a lot more in.
HOWEVER. If you stay in that same spot and shoot the 24x36 with a 35mm lens, you will get THE EXACT SAME telephoto compression and field of view (well, plus or minus a smidgen on FoV, since it's like 34.4mm equivalent) because that telephoto compression comes from the camera-to-subject distance, not from the focal length.
