They're nice and quiet, especially on a Sunday Evening. This particular one is St. Johns Dixie Cemetery in Mississauga, ON (Canada).

Shot with..
Yashica-12, Copal-SV 80mm 1:3.5
Ilford Pan F Plus, ISO-50

Oh, look! It's a cemetery in black and white.

Love the light and contrast in #3 and the composition of #6, very nice!

No digital beats a MF camera, nice shots and great sharpness.

Posted by Uncle Goose No digital beats a MF camera, nice shots and great sharpness.

That's a very strong declarative statement and in many ways an incorrect statement.

Posted by EatsTooMuchJam That's a very strong declarative statement and in many ways an incorrect statement.

Guess you never worked with a good MF kit then, otherwise you would completely agree. Not even a digital back comes close.

Posted by Uncle Goose Guess you never worked with a good MF kit then, otherwise you would completely agree. Not even a digital back comes close.

I own and have used a Mamiya RB67 and a Hasselblad 500CM as well as 6x7, 6x8, and 6x9 backs for my large format camera (and my 65mm Nikkor lens makes some gorgeous negatives).
I also own a Canon EOS 5D Mark II (21 megapixel/35mm full frame sensor).

The MF is still (imo) superior to the 5D, but the margin is shrinking quickly. For one thing, saying "nice shots" has nothing to do with the format of film or size of sensor. That has everything to do with the photographer behind the camera.
For another, if I put ISO 800 film into any of my MF cameras, the 5D looks a lot better (even when it's set at ISO 1600).

So, we ca say that if we're shooting at ISO 100, the resolution and exposure latitude of a good film is still superior to a 21 megapixel digital camera. However, as film speed increases the scales tip quickly in favor of digital.

So no, I will stand by my assertion that your short declarative statement was inaccurate for a number of use cases.

You should know better then. Try enlarging to a very large (at least above 50x70cm) print, compare that to any digital and you will see the difference quite clearly.

I'd have to agree that medium format is superior, but thats mostly because I like working with film as opposed to digital. Camera vs. camera vs. camera vs. camera arguments are stupid. And boring. Use what you like best.

Posted by Uncle Goose You should know better then. Try enlarging to a very large (at least above 50x70cm) print, compare that to any digital and you will see the difference quite clearly.

Apples to oranges.

Digital (assuming were talking about 135 size sensors here), when enlarged to sizes like that you are really seeing the limitations of the resolving power of the lens, not the pure resolving power of the sensor. Not really an equal comparison at all. Plus the two prints would differ in type as well (cprint vs. inkjet), which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

To throw fuel on the fire, I have several exhibition prints wider than 44" (one is a 60" wide print) made from an 8mp point n shoot. When viewed from a normal viewing distance, I guarantee you that you can't tell the difference between it and shots from my medium format and large format cameras that hang next to it.

Just sayin'.

Posted by Uncle Goose You should know better then. Try enlarging to a very large (at least above 50x70cm) print, compare that to any digital and you will see the difference quite clearly.

I gave you a nice, balanced, and well-reasoned response and the best you can do is this idiotic pablum? Try harder.