>>3900747>I think you'd be into half frame if you want to encompass a camera about being small and light.
But I am. I really like Pens and the other half-frames.
But the smallest, most pocketable camera I own happens to be a Minox 35. It's smaller than half-frames and folds absolutely flat.>The good film medium format lenses, cost 500-2000 today, not 150. Same with 35mm lenses from yesteryear.
Sure. But you don't need a good medium format lens, that's the point.
Even a mediocre medium format lens will result in higher res/sharpness images than the best of the best in 35mm.
High res is a losing game in terms of value for 35mm, that's all.
And I'm talking about film, where the sharpness gains are almost linear, since you have the same exact emulsion in a size that can be up to 5.5 times bigger than 35mm.
And the cost difference much smaller than digital.
All I'm saying is, spending thousands on lenses in 35mm for sharpness is a silly and losing game, yet people do it all the time.
MF might very well be overkill for that blogger's use case, I don't doubt that.
But I can't help but notice the hypocrisy of the people dissing medium format as overkill for resolution/sharpness, and then go split hairs between expensive high-end lenses because one might have marginally better resolution than the other, for an extra $500. And those people are much more plentiful than medium format users, so why not "tackle" that first.