Tareq wrote:
Yes, i understand, i also shoot everything so no way i can give up any of those 35mm DSLRs, but i was saying if you have the opportunity to own a digital medium format for dedicated and still photography or that kind of photography where you can take your time, will you choose MF or you still go with only 35mm DSLRs? For sports and actions i will never use MF, but what about landscapes, still life, fashion, some portraiture,...etc?
I had this conversation with a friend who shoots (almost) exclusively digital MF landscapes a few years back. MF digital intrigues me, and there is no question of the quality of his photographs produced with this gear.
Since we shoot together occasionally and are somewhat familiar with one another\'s work, he perceptively pointed out to me that a good deal of my landscape photography would be difficult or impossible to do with MF equipment. I often am on foot, sometimes for many days in the backcountry. I frequently take advantage of ephemeral conditions that require me to work quickly. I often shoot in low light. Part of my style is to use long lenses for landscapes.
If you are at all familiar with MF shooting, you probably see the problem.
MF digital certainly can produce extremely high quality image files, leading to excellent and potentially very large prints. However, full frame DSLR gear can also produce very, very good quality images that can make fine prints at quite large sizes... and the gear permits greater flexibility in shooting.
As with almost all equipment questions (MF v. FF DSLR, D800 v. 5DMIII v Sony, etc.) things are often a lot more complex and nuanced than many want to understand... and it is very possible to produce truly first rate work with any of them.
Tareq wrote:
Yes, i understand, i also shoot everything so no way i can give up any of those 35mm DSLRs, but i was saying if you have the opportunity to own a digital medium format for dedicated and still photography or that kind of photography where you can take your time, will you choose MF or you still go with only 35mm DSLRs? For sports and actions i will never use MF, but what about landscapes, still life, fashion, some portraiture,...etc?
I had this conversation with a friend who shoot (almost) exclusively digital MF landscapes a few years back. MF digital intrigues me, and there is no question of the quality of his photographs produced with this gear.
Since we shoot together occasionally and are somewhat familiar with one another\'s work, he perceptively pointed out to me that a good deal of my landscape photography would be difficult or impossible to do with MF equipment. I often am on foot, sometimes for many days in the backcountry. I frequently take advantage of ephemeral conditions that require me to work quickly. I often shoot in low light. Part of my style is to use long lenses for landscapes.
If you are at all familiar with MF shooting, you probably see the problem.
MF digital certainly can produce extremely high quality image files, leading to excellent and potentially very large prints. However, full frame DSLR gear can also produce very, very good quality images that can make fine prints at quite large sizes... and the gear permits greater flexibility in shooting.
As with almost all equipment questions (MF v. FF DSLR, D800 v. 5DMIII v Sony, etc.) things are often a lot more complex and nuanced than many want to understand... and it is very possible to produce truly first rate work with any of them.
Dec 21, 2013 at 10:19 AM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #12016342 « Canon 5D Mark III or Nikon D800e? »
