Depends on how you define quality. While medium and large format photography are extremely high resolution that’s not the only factor. Space age lenses were significantly lower resolution than the film. Modern mirrorless lenses are starting to come close to being able to out resolve film but still aren’t there. Meaning that you get more functional resolution out of modern digital. Digital also beats the pants off film for dynamic range and low light. That said the noise (grain) and dynamic range fall off in film are more pleasing than digital to most eyes. So it’s not all about technical specs.

> Digital also beats the pants off film for dynamic range and low light.

While this is true now, it took a surprisingly long time to get there. The dynamic range of professional medium format negative films is still respectable. Perhaps not so much in a low light, but it's very immune to overexposure.

Also, you can buy a cheap medium-format camera in a good condition and experience that "huge sensor" effect, but unfortunately there are no inexpensive 6x6 digital cameras.

In fact there is basically only one digital back ever made at that size, the dicomed bigshot.

Interesting. I didn't even know that. I had to look up what's the size of the modern Hasselblad digital camera sensor, and it 43.8 × 32.9mm.

It’s incredibly rare and specific, many people in the DB world don’t even know about them. 60x60mm sensor, larger than the actual film gate of 56x56mm There was also a version for the Rollei 6x6 6000 series, the Rollei Q16. I’ve only seen one for sale ever.

Technically larger than 6x6 film sensors have existed since the 80s or 90s at least but are typically only used for government things… Some digital aerial systems use huge sensors.

> Space age lenses were significantly lower resolution than the film.

Can you say a little more about this? Modern lenses boast about 7-elements or aspherics, but does that actually matter in prime lenses? You can get an achromat with two lenses and an apochromat with three. There have definitely been some advances in glass since the space program, like fluorite versus BK7, but I'm wholly in the dark on the nuances.

I find modern primes much sharper than their older counterparts not because of the elements or the optical design, but from the glass directly.

Sony's "run of the mill" F2/28 can take stunning pictures, for example. F1.8/55ZA is still from another world, but that thing is made to be sharp from the get go.

The same thing is also happening in corrective glasses too. My eye numbers are not changing, but the lenses I get are much higher resolution then the set I replace, every time. So that I forget that I'm wearing corrective glasses.

> I find modern primes much sharper than their older counterparts not because of the elements or the optical design, but from the glass directly

Even back in their prime, haha, the Cooke lens leaned into their glass manufacturing by calling it the Cooke Look. All of the things that gave it that look are things modern lenses would consider as issues to correct.

Actually, I'm pretty flexible when it comes to how lenses and systems behave. A lens with its unique flaws and look is equally valuable for me as a razor-sharp ultra high-fidelity lens.

All boils down what you want to achieve and what emotion you're trying to create with your photography. Film emulation has gone a long way, but emulating glass is not possible the same way (since you don't have any information about what happened to your photons in their way to your sensor), and lenses are important part of the equation, and will forever be, I think.

finally, someone that gets it! these different lenses are all just tools. using the right tool for the job is part of being good at your job.

Actually, anything we use is "just tools". IDEs, programming languages, operating systems, text editors, fonts, etc.

We all prefer different toolsets due to our differing needs and preferences. Understanding it removes a lot of misunderstanding, anger and confusion from the environment.

But, reaching there requires experience, maturity and some insight. Tool suitability is real (you can't drive a screw with a pair of pliers), but the dialogue can be improved a ton with a sprinkle of empathy and understanding.

The lenses also have to be better to compensate for the smaller sensors. All lens defects get more "magnified" the smaller the sensor is. So a straight comparison isn't fair unless the sensor is the same size as the film was.

I wrote a longer post a few months ago.[1] The tl;dr is a) computer aided design and manufacturing b) aspherical elements c) fluorite glass d) retro focus wide angle designs and e) improved coatings. Mirrorless lenses also beat slr lenses because they are much closer to the film plane — of course rangefinders and other classic designs never had this problem to begin with. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42962652

Edit: this is just for prosumer style cameras. If you look at phone sized optics that’s a whole other ballgame.

Film in big formats is incredible, gives great images even on shitty cameras...

These hasselblads not shitty cameras. A holga is on the other hand, and the images are shitty as a result despite being medium format.

Wasn't talking about those cameras umin particular, but about bigger format film in general.

Even on shittier cameras, like a Holga 120 leaking everywhere with a plastic lens, the results with medium format film is always surprising and gives you a lot of leeway.

Even the fuji medium formats don’t have sensors as large. They are more like 4cm x 3cm.