>>4308893>I figured the answer would be film. I’ve been using the same d7000 for 10 years, I was going to upgrade to FF but it seems like I better keep saving my money for LF?Most likely not. You're getting knee jerk answers here.
LF potentially beats high resolution FF (45mp or higher) on two points.
- Resolution and max print size.
- Movements.
As for resolution: high resolution FF can make excellent 36" prints and good 60" prints, and that's before AI scaling algorithms. Do you need to print to larger sizes/higher quality than that? If not, then LF is not going to be better. In fact it can potentially be worse due to:
- Lack of film flatness.
- Poor lens IQ.
- Errors during development.
- Limited scanning capability.
And to that last point: high rez FF is going to beat 4x5 scanned on a flatbed. If your budget is flatbed, LF is not going to benefit you.
As for movements: you can't beat 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras for movements. But you can get close. Canon EF, for example, has native T/S lenses and 3rd party T/S lenses, and RF adds T/S adapters for MF lenses. On top of that PS has tools which are excellent at correcting perspective distortion. This digs into your resolution a bit, but unless you're printing huge it won't matter.
tl;dr - you will almost certainly be more productive with FF and T/S lenses or adapters + PS tools than you will with 4x5. And while 4x5 has an edge at the very limits of performance, you have to ask yourself if you will ever exploit and see it.
Now if you just want to play with/experience film, that's a different question. 4x5 is fun.
