I believe a lot of it has to do with incredulity and experiences from other mediums. I made the comparison to high-end audiophiles in another thread. They are reviled by anyone outside that clique - and for a good reason, as their claims don't hold up in double-blind studies, and even the ones do are so marginal as to be meaningless in the real world. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138439\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've auditioned high end hi-fi and the differences and extra information you can hear with good systems compared to less expensive kit is
very, very noticeable. Just like when you use a 10x8 compared top a point and shoot camera.
But then I have good hearing and have looked after it, which may be a big factor in my ability to hear differences in hi-fi kit. Maybe you should get your ears syringed and go and have a listen for yourself, rather than base claims on spurious tests.
This is not to say inexpensive hi-fi cannot sound good or even better than more expensive kit as it can. Daft claims are made by salespeople in all industries so are all industries
'reviled'?
'
Reviled', what a ridiculous claim. Anyone who is not interested and therefore outside '
that clique', couldn't care less would be a more sensible and less hyperbolic phrase.
People who use 10x8 + 5x4 - are they also a clique who are reviled for their claims that they see more details in images created by their esoteric cameras?
My experience shooting MF (6x6 Provia out of my Mamiya C220 which is about my age) is somewhat limited, and I have zero experience with MFDB. I'd shoot a lot more, but I've come to the conclusion that spending money on travelling and dSLR glass is a better long-term photography investment than film for me. But the scans I have are absolutely stunning, and 35mm film or 30D doesn't come even close. So I have little doubt that MFDBs produce superior results.
Your limited experience is showing you up. You are making assumptions based on poor analogies.
36x24mm film = 864mm square
60x60mm film = 3600mm square
So MF film is over 4 times bigger and therefore much better.
48x48mm Sensor = 2304mm square the biggest current MF sensor size I believe which is just over 2.6 times the size, many are only twice the size.
Your view also ignores the fact that film cameras can use the same capture medium. Digital cameras have different sensors and some designs are superior. So if Canon or Nikon or Sigma...have the best sensors, they don't need to be as big as Hasselblad or Phase or leaf or...
I have used both A 48x48mm sensor [not too much admittedly] and a 35mm sensor. And you know what, I'm very underwhelmed by the quality. Even at 200 IS0 there is a nasty mottling like as if I used a tacky PS filter on the out of focus areas. The sharp bits are quite nice, but the background ugh! Add a bit of grain and it looks lovely, but that's not what most people want from a high res camera.