Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 3 … 6 7 end

Archive 2020 · Medium format: is it worth it?

motorhead9999
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Medium format: is it worth it?

So, First off, if i missed a medium format thread or group somewhere, I apologiZe. I did a search and didn’t find much other than people selling gear or the Fuji group.

I’m mostly a landscape photographer. I have a Sony a7riv, and I’m perfectly happy with it and the photos I get out of it. Just getting that out of the way.

I have, however, been very interested in medium format photography. I always hear about people talking about the medium format look and how it’s different from full frame. I understand the technical advantages of a bigger sensor. Bigger pixels, more detail etc.

I’ve never seen a medium format picture in person. I’ve seen stuff on the internet, but we all know that seeing stuff on the web isn’t a great way of making decisions. I’ve also read several reviews online where people say that in comparisons with the Sony R series, they’ve seen little technical advantage when comparing images.

I recognize that there’s a significant cost involved in getting into digital medium format, and that lens options are certainly going to be different and more limited and that there aren’t many bells and whistles. I think if I were to make the leap, I would get an older model Phase One digital back, and put it onto an older Mamiya 645 or Hasselblad body. I don’t think I would go the Fuji route.

I do sell my prints, so this isn’t strictly a hobby thing (although it’s certainly not my primary line of business).

Also, I wouldn’t be getting rid of my
Full frame gear for this. This would simply be an addition to my tools.
So, all you medium format people: what are your thoughts? Is it worth the dive, or is staying firmly within the full frame world the way to go.

Nov 07, 2020 at 10:08 PM

Audii-Dudii
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Medium format: is it worth it?

motorhead9999 wrote
So, all you medium format people: what are your thoughts? Is it worth the dive, or is staying firmly within the full frame world the way to go.

If ever there was a time to spend a few hundred bucks to rent some gear before buying it, this appears to be it!

That said, I made the jump to medium-format digital way back in 2010 and then jumped back in 2012, as it simply wasn't the correct tool for the type of photography I do (i.e., long-exposure-at-base ISO photos of urban and suburban street and alley scenes taken late at night.)

YMMV, of course, but based on my experience, medium-format digital works quite well for traditional landscape photography, so if that's your preferred subject matter, it's definitely an option you should consider.

Personally, I would steer clear of using older digital backs with older film-camera bodies in favor of using more modern, all-in-one combos, such as those from Pentax and Fuji.

While you can often buy older digital backs inexpensively, the cost of repairing them is still keyed to their original MSRP, which means that even a minor repair could justify writing-off the back entirely. Heck, with some backs, even the cost of replacing the internal battery (most of which are now at the end of their expected lifespan) can exceed the price you paid for it!

Nov 07, 2020 at 10:37 PM

AcuteShadows
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Medium format: is it worth it?

From an optical standpoint, you can realize the same depth of field with a larger aperture number (i.e. a smaller aperture relative to the focal length). Thus, you generally have less aberrations at a given depth of field.

With current medium format sensors, you get a larger dynamic range, which may be important in some cases.

You can use the full frame center to take pictures with less swirling or cat's eyes bokeh.

The slow pace can be useful to get the best out of each picture with regard to color and noise reduction, but that's not always the case.

For some medium format systems, you get post-processing tools that are parameterized differently from standard post-processing tools with regard to color rendering and other aspects.

Some of the advantages above are only present in expensive medium format systems. Some medium format lenses have aberrations despite the smaller relative aperture. Some don't have more dynamic range than the best full frame sensors.

Nov 07, 2020 at 11:16 PM

rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Medium format: is it worth it?

motorhead9999 wrote:
So, all you medium format people: what are your thoughts? Is it worth the dive, or is staying firmly within the full frame world the way to go.

There's a medium format thread over at DPReview https://www.dpreview.com/forums/1067/ and another one at GetDPI https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?forums/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs.10/

The DPReview participants are mostly Fujifilm, with a few Hasselblad and Pentax users. The GetDPI thread is mostly Phase One and Hasselblad, with the occasional Pentax and Fujifilm user.

If you ask your question at one of these forums, lots of people will be happy to tell you that your life will change for the better if you buy a medium format camera. I doubt it will if you buy one of the 50MP cameras, and I say that as a Fuji GFX 50R user. I like 4:3 aspect ratio, the files are terrific, and I like Fuji cameras. But I use the GFX 50R for some narrow technical reasons rather than because I think it's better than what I can do with a full frame camera. It's a different story once you start really spending money (GFX 100, modern Phase One backs, etc.)

The advice to rent before you buy is really solid. If you rent something like a GFX 50R/S camera, I think you'll discover that the lenses are outstanding, but that you can get equally good results with great lenses on your existing equipment.

As an aside, you might be interested to know that the recent winner of the Landscape Photographer of the Year prize in the UK shot the 10,000 GBP winning photograph with a Nikon D3200. https://www.dpreview.com/news/8750831634/10k-landscape-photographer-of-the-year-prize-goes-to-woodland-view

Nov 07, 2020 at 11:56 PM

EltonTeng
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Medium format: is it worth it?

Short answer is yes. The dynamic range is much better than 35mm digital. I picked up a new-to-me Pentax 645Z this year and can't go back to 35mm digital for landscapes if I can use the Z. I won't take it on a hike, however.

The advice to rent first is sound. Fuji's mirrorless options are more portable than the Pentax 645Z and probably has better selection of lenses. You're going to spend a good amount more with the Fuji.

Nov 08, 2020 at 02:38 AM

nehemiahphoto
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Medium format: is it worth it?

I purchased a GFX 50r, and I would not say it was much better than the a7riii in terms of resolution or DR at base ISO of even feel to the files. And I would say the disadvantages were nemerous--size, expense, lack of IBIS, slow and limited lens selection.

I sold it and haven't looked back. I would say the difference between a great APS-C camera and great FF camera is greater than a nice FF to 50r sensor. There is definitely a format difference to be felt with each sensor size though. You might find this helpful with comparing the 50R to a good FF sensor:

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first

The GFX 100 files are really a large step in terms of technical IQ and I think that's where the difference becomes very apparent, so I largely agree with @rdeloe above. I haven't shot or played with the other larger MF sensor RAW files, so I cannot intelligently comment. But the GFX100 raw files are something else if you love pixel peeping and malleable files.

I personally think few people will really "need" (or can even unlock) a GFX 100 level camera. FF cameras are nearing 15 stops of DR in a single exposure at base ISO, have so much glass (massive super well-corrected exotic AF 1.4 optics, MF galore of new and vintage variety of 1940's LTM glass to Otus level, lots highly competent prosumer options like Nikon Z's 1.8 line or Sony's FE 20 1.8 and 200-600 type, or just the good old high-end pro gear like the 24-20 and 70-200 2.8's) with such good AF and reasonable size and price it is mind boggling if you step back and look at the market right now. We have Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sigma and Leica all offering competitive and compelling (though largely similar) systems.

I mean, what applications and shooters are really needing more than 40-60MP FF with superb glass if your after technical IQ? The MF files definately have a feel though, which is hard to quanitfy, just like lenses have a feel beyond the optical block that can make a massive difference when they test similarly to each other.

I'd rent, or buy used and sell without a loss. I had the itch like you, shot a GFX 50r for a month or two and sold it. I think I made $20 and no more itch

Nov 08, 2020 at 05:06 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Medium format: is it worth it?

motorhead9999 wrote:
...and I’m perfectly happy with it and the photos I get out of it.

Then I would say no. Why change something you are happy about that will cost you quite a lot of money?

I understand the technical advantages of a bigger sensor. Bigger pixels, more detail etc.

Larger pixels isn't an advantage. Smaller pixels give lower noise per image height. Larger senor is an advantage, though.

------

I bought a Fuji GFX 50R because I wasn't happy with lenses for Sony. And I utterly hate the 3:2 aspect ratio, that Sony cameras don't allow me to change. I still use the a7 II for handheld, low light photography since faster lenses and IBIS still gives a clear advantage over the larger GFX sensor.
I mostly like the output from the GFX, but there are things that put me off, such as auto WB constantly getting it wrong, and all the color profiles containing too little red and too much green. I actually more and more lean towards the Sony colors being superior in many situations.
However, the GF lenses are extremely good. Better than anything for 24x36 I've seen or tried. Coupled with the larger sensor and nicer aspect ratio, I enjoy shooting it more since I know there will be no inconsistency with random aberrations, no wavy curvature of field and no (or very little) truncation of the blur discs in the corners.

Edit: I also really, really hate Capture One. It's horrible to use and that's an important factor when choosing.

Nov 08, 2020 at 05:36 AM

fjablo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Medium format: is it worth it?

Hm I don't think there is a significant-enough jump in technical image quality (resolution and/or DR) unless you invest in a 645 system and high-end glass.

But for me personally even the old Hasselblad H3Dii produces more pleasing colors and subjectively "nicer files" than I have experienced with digital so far. You can probably tweak files from other cameras to match that, but I like having a better starting point.

So for me: Yes it is worth it, but probably for other reasons than expected.

Nov 08, 2020 at 11:17 AM

flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Medium format: is it worth it?

I had this super long cool thing half done and decided to stop.....

I LOVE medium format. For landscapes I choose it as often as practical. Not just for the better IQ but the usability advantages of the cameras I choose for landscape shooting. Yes I see a real difference in IQ at the print stage. However....

The only way I'd spend the money on a MF system is after I identify what it is that I'm missing in my 135 format system. Not all the systems are equal. And with older backs you might actually go backward in dynamic range and resolution to gain some advantages in usability and sensor size. Medium format is not a magic pill to better images. There's a huge difference in the CCD sensors from just a couple of years ago to the sensors we're using now. If you're buying an older back to give it a try you may not be seeing what MF is capable of at all.

There's such a range of usage scenarios with MF that it's easy to choose the wrong system unless you are really specific about what you want to acheive. It's not like 135 format where they're jack of all trades.

Gordon

Nov 08, 2020 at 04:03 PM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Medium format: is it worth it?

I have a bit of different view to share since the OP's question did not distinguish the medium nor does the profile give an indication which gear is already preferably used.

From personal POV, I find digital medium-format too expensive for the benefit gained over digital full frame with already existing>40 MP FF sensor. Probably the best price/quality ratio provided for digital medium-format is with the Fuji GFX series. But even this makes you vest at least $5K into a used digital medium-format camera system. I agree with the OP that I do not know anybody in my broad circle of photographers who uses a digital medium-format system. And this encompasses about 150 people.

But where I clearly see a benefit of medium-format is with the traditional film-based 6x6 or 6x7 cm systems. Other than more bulk and weight for camera and lenses, any film-system of Hasselblad, Mamiya, or Pentax is advantageous over 35 mm format both in digital and film. No digital sensor can compete with a 6x6 cm or larger based based film planes - the difference in shallow depth of field is certainly visible here! And film-based medium format is still affordable for amateurs especially if willing to develop your own film. Many options out there!

Nov 08, 2020 at 04:17 PM

johnvanr
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Medium format: is it worth it?

Ever since I shot the 645Z at a media event, I’ve been in love with the sensor in that camera (same one as in the Fuji’s). But my preference for that sensor would be because of the tonality in portraits and I have never shot MF outside. Since I don’t shoot many portraits, I can’t justify buying a camera with that sensor, but I wouldn’t rule it out in the future.

Nov 08, 2020 at 06:28 PM

rvh23
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Medium format: is it worth it?

There is no resolution advantage with a 50MP MF system over a high end 35mm camera like the 61MP Sony A7r4 anymore, and the latest lenses for the Sony system are superb too. The A7r4 also includes a 3:4 crop mode that still leaves you with 54MP so that is also no longer an advantage with 50MP MF either.

I was about to buy into a Fuji system earlier last year but was holding off because the WA/UWA lens options were so limited. I'm very glad I didn't go that way because with the A7r4 and either the Sigma DN or Sony GM UWA f2.8 zoom, I have all the IQ and much more flexibility than what I could get from the Fuji system, both for my landscapes and astro work .

Of course if you're willing to spend enough for a 100MP MF camera, it's a different story (for now).

Nov 08, 2020 at 06:54 PM

theHUN
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Medium format: is it worth it?

The existing digital medium format offerings should really be called "crop digital medium format", as even the sensors in the Phase One cameras are smaller than 6x4.5 (which is the smallest form factor to be called medium format), and the Hasselblad/Pentax/Fuji flavors have even smaller sensors.

I'll join retrofocus in recommending a film-based medium format system. It's full (non-crop) medium format, and a lot less expensive than the digital alternative. One downside is the turn-around time as developing and scanning take extra time*.

I was on the prowl for an IQ3 earlier this year (now is [sadly] the best time to be buying these gadgets), but in the end I "settled" on a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II and I have no regrets yet.

*The slower work-flow forces you to think more before firing the shutter, and I think this results in better pictures in the long term because there is a penalty for wasting film on bad exposures. With digital, there is no penalty (because memory card hold many hundred frames), and so you learn more slowly.

Nov 08, 2020 at 07:27 PM

retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Medium format: is it worth it?

theHUN wrote:
The existing digital medium format offerings should really be called "crop digital medium format", as even the sensors in the Phase One cameras are smaller than 6x4.5 (which is the smallest form factor to be called medium format), and the Hasselblad/Pentax/Fuji flavors have even smaller sensors.

I'll join retrofocus in recommending a film-based medium format system. It's full (non-crop) medium format, and a lot less expensive than the digital alternative. One downside is the turn-around time as developing and scanning take extra time*.

I was on the prowl for an IQ3 earlier this year (now is [sadly] the best time to be...Show more →

+1. I was always surprised how well the marketing strategy to advertise a sensor only a bit larger than FF worked out. The Phase 1 sensor which comes closest to 6x4.5 is still hyper expensive for $50K. Medium format is not clearly defined and always covered everything in the past related to 120/220 (or predecessor) film types between 6x4.5 and large format. Digital changed it due to the marketing to everything larger than full format (35 mm) size. The "common" digital medium format size sensors (below 6x4.5) can make use of a bit larger pixels or a larger area leading to less noise in low light, overall a bit higher resolution than FF (100 MP vs. 60 MP in Sony high res FF sensors), and about up to 3 stops more dynamic range than modern FF sensors. The bit larger digital medium sensor size won't affect DoF only little compared to FF. The big question is now if these advantages justify the huge price increase over a high res FF camera. I could see this answered with yes for professional work where huge prints are made (advertising including landscapes), or in some specific studio portrait work.

For an amateur who just sporadically wants to benefit from the "real" medium format look, 6x6 or 6x7 medium format film cameras are much more suitable here IMO. Only debit here is to deal with film development and digitizing afterwards. For the cost of a digital medium format camera, you can buy lots of film and pay for development plus digitizing after an initial capital between $500 to $2000 for a film medium-format camera with lens. I also believe it is much better to start medium format with film to get a feel of different DoF and effects gained here over 35 mm format. Warning: you might never go back afterwards to a smaller digital medium format sensor size though...

Nov 08, 2020 at 09:11 PM

chapel
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Medium format: is it worth it?

Hi there, I have a Pentax 645z I pretty much use for everything. My wife has a A7r4. I do most of our processing in Lightroom and Photoshop. The files from the z are cleaner and more flexible with less noise than the Sony in my opinion.
Greg

Nov 09, 2020 at 11:08 AM

flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Medium format: is it worth it?

Nov 09, 2020 at 04:07 PM

flash
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Medium format: is it worth it?

rvh23 wrote:
There is no resolution advantage with a 50MP MF system over a high end 35mm camera like the 61MP Sony A7r4 anymore, and the latest lenses for the Sony system are superb too. The A7r4 also includes a 3:4 crop mode that still leaves you with 54MP so that is also no longer an advantage with 50MP MF either.

I was about to buy into a Fuji system earlier last year but was holding off because the WA/UWA lens options were so limited. I'm very glad I didn't go that way because with the A7r4 and either the Sigma DN...Show more →

Resolution isn't the only reason one might go to a larger sensor.

As an example. Using the 33x44mm sensor in the 645Z, X1D and GFX cameras you can do extrordinary long exposures with no noise reduction and no dark frames. I do a lot of long exposure photography and 5 minutes + is pretty common for me. The Sony's (and all 135 format cameras currently) are a hotpixel mess after that time. In addition on the X1D I can set an exposure time up to an hour in camera. So for me it's a better sensor AND a better camera system in play.

Gordon

Nov 09, 2020 at 04:16 PM

rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Medium format: is it worth it?

flash wrote:
Resolution isn't the only reason one might go to a larger sensor.

I agree Gordon. Resolution isn't even on my list of reasons for going with a medium format camera!

A Fuji GFX 50R is the only camera (outside of an actual medium format back) that will mount to the back of my Toyo VX23D and allow movements with a 35mm lens, while giving me the angle of view of a 26-28mm lens (depending on how you calculate it) on full frame.

I had plenty of movements using that exact same lens with a full frame sensor and dual tilt-shift adapters, but I wanted a wider angle of view and more movements than those adapters allowed.

The 33mm x 44mm sensor lets me photograph the way I want to. We really live in a golden age of choices and options.

Nov 09, 2020 at 05:50 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Medium format: is it worth it?

flash wrote:
Resolution isn't the only reason one might go to a larger sensor.

Exactly. To me it's about the lenses. With the GFX system I get the look I always wanted but could not get with 24x36. I don't care a bit about 645 being even larger. I've shot plenty of 6x7 film and I get much better results with digital 33x44. Which of course is a subjective statement.

Nov 09, 2020 at 07:11 PM

theHUN
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Medium format: is it worth it?

flash wrote:
The 645 format was FAR from the smallest film described as medium format. A bunch of films between 1.5 and 1.25 inch were available. Medium format as a term was used primarily as a designator for anything wider than the 135 format, especially roll films. This isn't something new that came with digital.

I've adopted the common *miniMF* term for the 33mm sensor as well but that doesn't mean medium format is being erroniously applied by the camera companies. I worked with a photographer that shot 6x7 and 8x10 and when he referred to small format he meant 645!!

Gordon

Alright, fair. But I do remember Phase One explicitly using and emphasising the term "full frame medium format", which has always bugged me.

flash wrote:
Resolution isn't the only reason one might go to a larger sensor.

As an example. Using the 33x44mm sensor in the 645Z, X1D and GFX cameras you can do extrordinary long exposures with no noise reduction and no dark frames. I do a lot of long exposure photography and 5 minutes + is pretty common for me. The Sony's (and all 135 format cameras currently) are a hotpixel mess after that time. In addition on the X1D I can set an exposure time up to an hour in camera. So for me it's a better sensor AND a better camera system...Show more →

Indeed, the improvement in dynamic range is quite significant and should be taken into consideration.

Perhaps I was a bit quick in recommending film. I still think it's worth a consideration because there is such a huge difference in the final output when compared to digital FF. But renting a camera (digital *miniMF* and/or film) is probably a better idea.

Edit: I forgot to point out that with film MF, you can switch between color and b/w "sensors" on the fly for very little money.

Nov 09, 2020 at 08:16 PM

1 2 3 … 6 7 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 6 7 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.