proof that mirrorless cameras don't always offer any size advantage ...

[arthurking83]

over reflex camera design.

A story of a large!! camera

Obviously I joke, the link is to an article on Petapixel.
I love those kinds' of articles.

Camera specs are 'an interest' of mine. Not necessarily the most important part of photography, but important nonetheless.
This holds true for all of us, as if it didn't you probably wouldn't have chosen what you currently have(ie. you may have chosen a different camera, or camera system entirely)

So for those not interested in some massive camera specs:

Camera in the article is a 'mirrorless' type, being a view camera.
The two lens options were a wide angle 1676mm, and a telephoto 3048mm.
To put that into persepctive, grab your average 800mm lens and add a 2x teleconverter and call it a 'wide angle' lens

Boggles the mind actually!

But, some things still don't make any sense(if you read the article as to why they used such a monstorus camera)
I can't see why they couldn't use stuff that was more readily avaialble back then(a time when 500mm lenses were used for wide angle landscapes!)
The never mentioned final output at all, and that's really about the only aspect of producing such a large camera for the job.
That is, if they wanted a lifesize wall mural of the image, say, on a train station wall.
If the final output was to only ever be seen in print in publications, it all seems like a wasted effort. But no mention of final output was made.

Anyhow, I suppose it may appreciate how good we have it nowadays with respect to camera size

[ameerat42]

I suppose it took some training to use it