Are they better than SLRs and 35mm? They have better quality images due to larger film but less shots on a spool.

>better than 35mm
yes, higher resolution mainly and the bigger image are has some implications that give it a different looks
>better than slr
idk of you know there are medium format slr from your post, but some say they have better quality because of film flatness I don't think it's a big issue though

>>4433682 (OP)
>>4432190

>>4433682 (OP)
seems more fun than slr

>>4433682 (OP)
35mm is good for 100mp scans, but with lenses that bad and such an inaccurate focusing mechanism you might as well make contact prints

>>4433810
>35mm is good for 100mp scans
Lmao, 35mm barely resolves 15MP

>>4433898
this has been debunked by independent fact checkers

>>4433810
lol you're getting 16 mp. If what you were saying was true the transition to digital would have taken much longer

>>4433810
>35mm is good for 100mp scans
lol

>>4433691
>film flatness
Maybe. Some medium format SLRs have better designs for the film plane than others. For example many people use the press backs from the Goose and such on the RB67s as they hold the film flatter than the regular 120 cassettes. Some people also use the 220 backs as they have a stronger pressure plate. I would say the real advantage of MF SLRs over MF TLRs is the obvious: better lenses, only needing one lens, real TTL image viewing. The fact that SLRs replaced TLRs also means that pretty much all of the lenses for SLR are much newer and better than TLR ones, with the exception of fossils like the C330s that managed to hold on until the 90s or 80s or whenever they stopped making that thing.

>>4433898
@grok is this true

>>4433810
6x9 = 100mp
35mm = 25mp