gdanmitchell wrote:
^^^
How does this purported technical lens construction/design difference translate to aa “major advantage” in photographic terms?
It is simple, I like the look of the 110 f/2 more than the look of almost all 85 f/1.4 lenses, to me that is a major advantage. Most 85mm FF lenses and 56mm APS-C lenses have to my eyes a pretty similar look. I think the 110 f/2 has a different rendering and it is one I prefer. Maybe you don't see it the way I do, but that is fine.
And it isn't a purported advantage. I think every lens designer would say it is easier to design lenses with a bigger f number than lenses with a smaller f number. Making that f number smaller exponentially increases the aberrations.
Steve Spencer wrote:
DR and resolution are two potential advantage for medium format, but they are not the only advantages. .
I completely agree. I would never choose between the Gfx50, Sony RV, and Gfx100S based on resolution. I used and love my 50S then moved to the 100S. The differences in IQ in good light between the 50 and 100S are not enough to correctly identify them better than guessing. For me, the advantages are very small but here's the differences that are important to me in order, 100S over 50S - 1) Slightly better EVF 2) Slightly better AF, especially in low light, 3) Image stabilization, 4) better battery, common to my other Fuji cameras, 5) Slightly more crop-ability. So #5 is about more MP but nothing else is. If there is more dynamic range in the 100S, it is very tiny, processing in Capture One and inconsequential to me.
As for the Sony, for me that would be in a decision tree with my X-T5 because its not Medium Format. I like the look of MF, I believe it looks different and better to me regardless of 50 or 100mp. I love most of the native lenses and really enjoy adapting old ones too. I am not going to make a list of technical reasons why to choose MF over FF. No disrespect to Dan, I'm not going to do that ever. My career has been filled with technical evaluations and attempting to influence others to make decisions. I'm done with that. Photography is for my artistic side and how a camera makes me feel is most important.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It is simple, I like the look of the 110 f/2 more than the look of almost all 85 f/1.4 lenses, to me that is a major advantage. Most 85mm FF lenses and 56mm APS-C lenses have to my eyes a pretty similar look. I think the 110 f/2 has a different rendering and it is one I prefer. Maybe you don't see it the way I do, but that is fine.
And it isn't a purported advantage. I think every lens designer would say it is easier to design lenses with a bigger f number than lenses with a smaller f number. Making that f number smaller exponentially increases the aberrations....Show more →
It is a subject advantage, and here are plenty of folks whose perspective goes the opposite direction — that using a f/1.4 (or larger) aperture lens on FF produces excellent results and… offers other advantages.
There are cases in which the miniMF format makes a lot of sense for certain kinds of photography by certain kinds of photographers, but the incessant drum-beating about how it is better than anything else in all ways and all circumstances and always in major ways gets old.
I hope you also see the logical problem with your explanation that you “like the look” of this _one_ miniMF lens “more than the look of almost all 85mm f/1.4 lenses! ;-)
Oct 14, 2025 at 11:10 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
It is a subject advantage, and here are plenty of folks whose perspective goes the opposite direction — that using a f/1.4 (or larger) aperture lens on FF produces excellent results and… offers other advantages.
There are cases in which the miniMF format makes a lot of sense for certain kinds of photography by certain kinds of photographers, but the incessant drum-beating about how it is better than anything else in all ways and all circumstances and always in major ways gets old.
I hope you also see the logical problem with your explanation that you “like the look” of this _one_ miniMF lens “more than the look of almost all[/b[ 85mm f/1.4 lenses. ;-)...Show more →
What is getting old is you making the straw man argument:
"the incessant drum-beating about how it is better than anything else in all ways and all circumstances and always in major ways gets old."
I didn't say that and never would. No one else has said that. It is a perfect example of a straw man argument. Make up that people are saying something they aren't saying and then criticize what they didn't say.
Further there is nothing illogical about saying I like the look of this one medium format lens more than the look of almost all 85 f/1.4 lenses. How can that possibly be considered illogical? You may disagree, but it isn't illogical. And I never said the difference wasn't subjective or that people don't have the opposite preference. I said it was a major difference and that judgment too is subjective. I never said anything different.
What isn't subjective is that it is easier to design lenses with a larger f number than lenses with a smaller f number. That comes down to physics and it isn't subjective. That is a technical advantage. Whether that advantage creates something that one sees as major or minor, however, is subjective. I explained my subjective view, no need for you to call that illogical or try to counter it with a straw man argument. You can simply say you disagree.
Stop being needlessly argumentative. We disagree about preferences that is all, and in civil discourse that ought to be ok.
Honestly, I don’t care about most of this spec-sheet nonsense. I don’t like Sony cameras... never have. The menus feel like spreadsheets, the bodies feel like consumer electronics, and the whole experience reminds me of sitting at a desk staring at another damn screen. I work on a computer all day. The last thing I want is for my camera to feel like one.
That’s a big part of why I’ve spent stupid money on Leicas over the years... M8, M9, M11. I overpaid, sure, but I don’t regret it. The feel, the simplicity, the way the camera disappears in my hand - that’s worth it to me.
I owned an X-Pro1 when it launched and actually liked it quite a bit. It wasn’t Leica-level magic, but it had character. Tactile joy. Light-years ahead of any Sony in terms of soul.
Now I’m hunting for a dedicated 65:24 digital setup. APS-C is off the table... I want full use of my lenses, and cropping that tiny sensor to panoramic proportions feels like carving steak from a cocktail shrimp. That narrows the field to Panasonic (S1R) or medium-format Fuji, and given my history, I chose Fuji.
That’s really all it comes down to. I couldn’t care less about the spec wars, megapixel counts, or whatever marketing gibberish the forums are fighting over this week. Just give me a camera that feels right and lets me shoot the way I want to shoot. That's all that really matters to me.
Steve Spencer wrote:
DR and resolution are two potential advantage for medium format, but they are not the only advantages. One major advantage you are not considering is you can design lenses with a larger F number but still get shallow depth of field. You do need a bigger image circle, but that larger F number often eases the design and allows the development of interesting lenses. For example, the 110 f/2 is quite sharp but has no Asph elements. It is a quite different design from almost all modern 85 f/1.4 FF lenses. It is the larger sensor size that allows this design. At an f/2 max aperture it is easier to design a lens that is sharp without using Asph elements. At f/1.4, where the spherical aberrations greatly increase, you really need an Asph element or two to get good sharpness. Not so with the medium format lens....Show more →
I'd agree if we live in film era, but today 33x44mm is not that significant bigger than FF so same aperture doesn't make huge impact on MF. Also I had 35GM, 50 1.2GM, with almost no CA and high sharpness wide open, while those lenses not huge at all.
I have GFX100RF and prefer overall IQ over A7RV with any lens (including GM and 65 APO), because the 4:3 100MP image with 1 stop more DR has visible advantage, but even to that 100MP sensor the 60MP FF is really close.
gdanmitchell wrote:
^^^
How does this purported technical lens construction/design difference translate to a “major advantage” in photographic terms?
Dan, I am not sure if the following should answers your question, but we should not forget the photographic equivalence.
To obtain equivalent resolution in images from camera systems with sensors of different sizes, the resolving ability of the equivalent lenses should be related by the crop factor. The smaller is the sensor, the better should be the lens sharpness. Here is an appropriate (unfortunately, long) quote from www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence
that gives an instructive example:
"For a given scene and exposure time, 25mm f/1.4 on mFT is equivalent to 31mm f/1.8 on 1.6x (Canon APS-C), 33mm f/1.9 on 1.5x (all others' APS-C), and 50mm f/2.8 on FF (FX)" then,
"if the 25mm lens at f/1.4 is twice as sharp (lp/mm), the 31mm lens is 1.6x as sharp at f/1.8, and the 33mm lens is 1.5x as sharp at f/1.9 as the 50mm lens at f/2.8 (or any equivalent relative apertures), the sensors have the same number of pixels, then all systems will also resolve the same in the photo (lw/ph)."
The crop factor for FF vs Fuji GFX is about 1.27; thus, in line with the above, a FF lens must be 1.27x as sharp as an equivalent Fujinone GF lens to resolve the same in equivalent photos. Maybe the difference is even more than 1.27x for the GFX100 bodies that have 100MP vs 60 for A7RV.
This "advantage" of the GFX with the native GF glass might be the reason that while the Sony 16-35 mm F2.8 lens is of average quality (to say the least) and suffers from much lens variation in quality, the GF 20-35mm F4 lens is widely praised for its exceptional image quality.
ryan1938 wrote:
Honestly, I don’t care about most of this spec-sheet nonsense. I don’t like Sony cameras... never have. The menus feel like spreadsheets, the bodies feel like consumer electronics, and the whole experience reminds me of sitting at a desk staring at another damn screen. I work on a computer all day. The last thing I want is for my camera to feel like one.
That’s a big part of why I’ve spent stupid money on Leicas over the years... M8, M9, M11. I overpaid, sure, but I don’t regret it. The feel, the simplicity, the way the camera disappears in my hand - that’s worth it to me.
I owned an X-Pro1 when it launched and actually liked it quite a bit. It wasn’t Leica-level magic, but it had character. Tactile joy. Light-years ahead of any Sony in terms of soul.
Now I’m hunting for a dedicated 65:24 digital setup. APS-C is off the table... I want full use of my lenses, and cropping that tiny sensor to panoramic proportions feels like carving steak from a cocktail shrimp. That narrows the field to Panasonic (S1R) or medium-format Fuji, and given my history, I chose Fuji.
That’s really all it comes down to. I couldn’t care less about the spec wars, megapixel counts, or whatever marketing gibberish the forums are fighting over this week. Just give me a camera that feels right and lets me shoot the way I want to shoot. That's all that really matters to me.
Many threads that mention a 44x33 camera end up like this one did. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff.....and at times it seems like a lot of chaff.
tsdevine wrote:
Many threads that mention a 44x33 camera end up like this one did. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff.....and at times it seems like a lot of chaff.
It’s fascinating in a way… Much to do about nothing blown out of proportion for no reason.
tsdevine wrote:
Many threads that mention a 44x33 camera end up like this one did. You have to separate the wheat from the chaff.....and at times it seems like a lot of chaff.
Tim, I think this is not a good analogy. Both the wheat and the chaff are real, in their different ways, but beliefs of photography are a complex mix of reality and myths. The myths of photography are a fascinating subject on its own. It might be an interesting project to collect all of the myths. Some of the more agreggious that come to mind:
"Larger sensors collect more light"
"Full-frame sensors are better than the cropped sensors, and medium format sensors are better than full-frame in low light because the larger sensors have better dynamic range at high ISO."
"The exposure triangle" - that suggests that the exposure can be directly changed by changing the ISO.
"F2.8 is F2.8 is F2.8" therefore a micro-four-thirds 50-200mm F2.8 is faster than a FF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens.
"Cropping an image from a F2.8 lens gives an F2.8 cropped image, and this allows to have a faster shutter speed."
"Certain prime (add names here) lenses, that are distinguished by their special colors and rendering, can allow one to obtain impressive pictures, with minimal post-processing."
ruthenium wrote:
Tim, I think this is not a good analogy. Both the wheat and the chaff are real, in their different ways, but beliefs of photography are a complex mix of reality and myths. The myths of photography are a fascinating subject on its own. It might be an interesting project to collect all of the myths. Some of the more agreggious that come to mind:
"Larger sensors collect more light"
"Full-frame sensors are better than the cropped sensors, and medium format sensors are better than full-frame in low light because the larger sensors have better dynamic range at high ISO."
"The exposure triangle" - that suggests that the exposure can be directly changed by changing the ISO.
"F2.8 is F2.8 is F2.8" therefore a micro-four-thirds 50-200mm F2.8 is faster than a FF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 lens.
"Cropping an image from a F2.8 lens gives an F2.8 cropped image, and this allows to have a faster shutter speed."
"Certain prime (add names here) lenses, that are distinguished by their special colors and rendering, can allow one to obtain impressive pictures, with minimal post-processing."
Well, it wouldn't be the first time I came up with a bad analogy. But look at the first post in the thread...look at the thread title. And look at every post the OP made since that one. Seems like the thread was sort of hijacked....at a certain point he just seemed like he was along for the ride and everyone else was driving. (Look at me, segueing into another bad analogy!)
I'm not saying the chaff isn't wheat in some context...but it sure seemed like chaff based on the first post of this thread. Maybe take the chaff in this thread and have a dedicated thread, where it can be the wheat.
But at the end of the day...just my perception, which doesn't make it true or factual.
Lukacs wrote:
I'd agree if we live in film era, but today 33x44mm is not that significant bigger than FF so same aperture doesn't make huge impact on MF. Also I had 35GM, 50 1.2GM, with almost no CA and high sharpness wide open, while those lenses not huge at all.
I have GFX100RF and prefer overall IQ over A7RV with any lens (including GM and 65 APO), because the 4:3 100MP image with 1 stop more DR has visible advantage, but even to that 100MP sensor the 60MP FF is really close.
Different photographers can and should look for different things in a 44 X 33 sensor camera system. The DR advantage is important to you. What is most important to me is the availability of a set of lenses I find interesting when used on the medium format sensor. That won't matter to everyone, but it does to me.
Yah, I felt that too. Should have known to run away based on that prior experience. There's some tenacious people in this forum, that apparently like to argue.
All I know is I have tried Sony. I still have a Sony A7riii and now a Fuji GFX 50sii. I find the Fuji much more inspiring to work with and get better results, at least to my tastes, much more easily. The GF 20-35mm f4 is a way better lens than the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 OIS that I have since sold. Even the GF 35-70mm f4.5-5.6 is much better than the Sony 24-105 f4G. Of course there may be better Sony G Master lenses out there but they don't interest me that much. There are a lot of Pentax 645 lenses that render really nicely and can be had cheap. My Sony is now relegated to digitizing 35mm film.
The worst photographers on Fred yap endlessly because they have no work of value to share…their pedantic novellas are the attempt to remain relevant among their peers, and they tend to magnetize to each other, constantly derailing every thread they encounter.
But this isn’t new. Fred has taken a more “hands off” approach to moderation in the last year or so, probably because removing the half dozen offenders would remove 50% of posts on FM
tsdevine wrote:
Well, it wouldn't be the first time I came up with a bad analogy. But look at the first post in the thread...look at the thread title. And look at every post the OP made since that one. Seems like the thread was sort of hijacked....at a certain point he just seemed like he was along for the ride and everyone else was driving. (Look at me, segueing into another bad analogy!)
I'm not saying the chaff isn't wheat in some context...but it sure seemed like chaff based on the first post of this thread. Maybe take the chaff in this thread and have a dedicated thread, where it can be the wheat.
But at the end of the day...just my perception, which doesn't make it true or factual. ...Show more →
The analogy of wheat and chaff wasn't bad. It was clear what that meant.
"Hijacking a thread" is an ugly term. The threads that get "hijacked" are not strong threads. The OP's question "So, tell me… am I crazy? Have these eight-year-old cameras actually shot up in value, or is $2K still a fair shake for a clean body?" was answered. Now we all have a chance to have a nice chat, or point fingers, or become philosophical on how imperfect is the human nature, or move on to a new subject.
But anyway, yes. Values have gotten too high on this camera, same situation as the X-Pro lineup. I bought a 50R in the end of 2023 for $1700 to my door. Examples on the B&S ran from 1800-2100 consistently when I was in the market.
Now having used both, "I, me, personally" think it being ~300 dollars more than the 50SII is inflated.
ruthenium wrote:
The analogy of wheat and chaff wasn't bad. It was clear what that meant.
"Hijacking a thread" is an ugly term. The threads that get "hijacked" are not strong threads. The OP's question "So, tell me… am I crazy? Have these eight-year-old cameras actually shot up in value, or is $2K still a fair shake for a clean body?" was answered. Now we all have a chance to have a nice chat, or point fingers, or become philosophical on how imperfect is the human nature, or move on to a new subject.
Okay...but had you not challenged me on my analogy as being not good, which I guess I erroneously inferred meant it was bad....which now you are saying it wasn't bad nor good I guess....I wouldn't have used the word hijacking. It just seems that there is a continuation of a back and forth between some of the members here, that are probably never going to agree.
It's up to the OP to decide whether the thread he started had meandered, not me. The reality is that your idea vs my idea vs his idea of what is the wheat and what is the chaff in this thread is going to be different.
And at this point I regret posting anything at all. So my apologies to everyone, at this point arguably I'm the hijacker of the thread, even if that connotation was too harsh in the context I originally used it.
