>>3495973Here we go, another pleb who thinks his DSLR scanner setup is superior to designed solutions. Firstly, any 35mm digital camera is limited to shitty 14 bit colour. I don't care if your A7R / D800 has the resolution - it's colour science is garbage. Secondly, stitching photos into composites automatically creates huge artefacts that are noticeable on large prints, and there is inconsistent sharpness across the frame due to lens performance dropping in the corners of every shot of the composite. Even with the best flat-field enlargement lnses this remains an issue. Stitching by eye is tedious, inaccurate for most people and the tedium is not what the art industry wants any more of. Fortunately the industry has the money for items like this that makes quality and consistency a breeze. You wouldn't understand, because you've only ever scanned your shitty slide collection thinking your duplicator setup is so novel when really you are just too poor or stupid to operate a drum scanner.
>>3495926We don't scan 3D objects you absolute moron. Also good luck trying to fly a scanner to parts of the world where artwork is stationary and cannot travel. How about when UNESCO send you to a photograph an ancient mutual or hieroglyphics for archival quality, how are you going to fly out and scan that? Going to pack your large format scanner and mount it against the wall on a bracket? You don't know this industry and it's embarrassing that you feel so emasculated that other people are being PAID to shoot 400mp photos that you prevent yourself from imagining why anyone would need to.
Both of you are so out of touch it is unbelievable. If Hasselblad were not selling these cameras, they would not be pushing the R&D to release a new model every couple of years, especially when the old Kodak CCD sensor backs remain superior in colour to any 35mm CMOS produced today.
