Does size really matter?

[doigal]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3459/3208299851_9b7c166b91.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/doigal/3208299851/)

Click the image for notes on films, formats and cameras used.

[MarkChap]

Sorry doigal but I ma missing something ???

Don't get it ??

[doigal]

its a comparison of different sized films, from 35mm through to 6x17cm sized film.

[doigal]

Umm Doigal

What image???????

???

If it dosnt show up click here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/doigal/3208299851/) for the direct link.

[MarkChap]

ah ok i see ??

[ricktas]

I can see what you are trying to do, but for me. I think the best comparison would be if all cameras were taken to the same location at the same time and we had photos of the same scene taken with each.

All it does at present is show the different sizes of the various equipments output. Which most of us would already appreciate anyway.

Some nice shots in your set though, particularly like the urban pano at the bottom.

[Wyno]

I started out with 35mm, then went to 6x4.5cm. I went through all my 35mm slides and threw half out because it didn't look any good next to the bigger format. Then I got a 4x5inch camera and went through all my previous stuff. Threw out half of what was left of the 35mm stuff and half of the 120 shots because they didn't compare. Well you can guess what happened when I went to 8x10....and now I want to make an 11x14 inch camera. So for me, size does matter. Plus, looking at the image on a ground glass screen (upside down and back to front) is really pleasing. I also notice things on the screen that I wouldn't have seen with a 35mm or 120 size camera (bottles and other rubbish).
Mike