SteveLew Loc: Sugar Land, TX

I have a DSLR and would not part with it. However, I have had a Pentax 6X7 for many years and enjoy shooting with this medium format camera from time to time. Shooting with this 6X7 medium format camera slows the entire process of photography way down, since I have to use my hand held light meter, but the process is enjoyable sometimes. The trick is to find a good good lab and printer that you can rely on for my medium format work.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

I know and they mistakenly are told the sensor is better because it is larger. They tell us that, the manufacturers do. I find the math is ok because they multiply the short side by the long side and call it resolution. Then the sensor manufacturer makes a sensor larger and of course the long side times the short side is a larger number. All of these manufacturers have us fooled with their logic. Unlike the days when a larger negative actually could be a better resolution because we measured that resolution by viewing the grains of chemistry on the negative. I have seen those grains they are sort of round and very tiny (we used a device to focus the enlarger and it saw the tiney grains). In digital we no longer see grains of anything. The number of pixels per square inch is the real resolution we get. If that real resolution don't change the sensors are pretty much electrically the same from one sixe to the next. Even if you made a sensor the size of a football field. This means the image is the same in pixels per square inch from one size sensor to the next size sensor. That is unless someone has magically added pixels. Its all part of the hype of advertising. Sure you get a larger image file because the manufacturer had to make something look bigger but down at pixel size you get the same pixel per square inch size. This is why I went the DX route. The really funny part is when a picture is printed it is usually only printed at 300 to 600 pixels per square inch. That one still needs explaining as far as I am concerned. We get twenty four mega pixels down to only 300 to 600 on the print out? Now the techies can have at me but I know real resolution is the number of pixels per square inch not how many pixels are in a sensor that is larger than a square inch. If you want to compare sensors from one camera to another create a equality between the two as in per square inch or per square millimeter then see which one has the higher count. Measuring long side by short side that makes resolution look better sort of like measuring peak power and then calling it root means square power.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

bingo! why would i want to downsize my hasselblad 201 and 205 cameras which provide a 6x6cm negative or transparency, for something smaller. these digital devices, including the hassel(fuji)blads which provide much less than that size, are plastic and simply not worth the money if thinking of trading from a current "full frame" digital device.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Medium format digital are finally starting to come into their own.

Only within the last couple years have the manufacturers of MFDs switched to CMOS sensors.... All DSLR makers made that switch 8 or 9 years ago (except for Canon, who fully committed to CMOS around 15 years ago).

CMOS sensors are much more free of digital "noise" than the CCD sensors that were used previously. As a result, CCD were seriously limited how high ISO they could use. Heavy noise reduction that was required with CCD robbed a lot of fine detail from images. A lot of older MFDs topped out at ISO 800 or 1600. Now using CMOS in MFDs, too, is a definite game changer. Newer models with CMOS are offering ISO 12800, 25600 and even higher in some cases (whether or not those are really usable is up to the judgment of the user).

Also, prices are coming down... a lot! There are now MFDs available in the $5000 to $10,000 range.... a couple years ago you couldn't touch one for less than about $15,000 and quite a few were 2X or even 3X that price.

The significant reduction in MFD prices is probably in response to 36MP and 42MP Nikon and Sony DSLRs, as well as 30MP and 50MP Canon. Previously MFDs reigned for any purpose calling for more than about 24MP... now there are 60MP and 80MP MFDs.

There are some things that MFD can do, that DSLRs can't. For example, some medium format lenses use leaf shutters, which make possible flash sync at all shutter speeds. Now, a lot of leaf shutters top out about 1/500... Even so, that's twice the speed of the top flash sync speed of most DSLRs (1/250... but some are 1/200 or even 1/180 with portable flash... or with some types of strobes only 1/125). Some leaf shutters offer as high as 1/1600 flash sync. Especially for portraiture outdoors in full sun, these extra fast flash sync speeds make possible some techniques that are difficult or impossible with slower sync cameras.

Personally I find the new Fuji GFX 50S medium format digital camera interesting. It's a mirrorless 50MP MFD, with an electronic viewfinder. It has both mechanical and electronic shutters (capable of exposures as long as 60 minutes or fast as 1/16000 second... yes, that's one "sixteen thousandth"). None of the lenses being introduced for the camera use leaf shutters, but there are adapters to use some older leaf-shutter lenses on the camera. Three GF lenses are expected to launch with the camera in February (63mm f2.8 "standard", 120mm f4 macro and 32-63mm f4 zoom), as well as three more that will become available later this year (110mm f2.0 "portrait", 45mm f2.8 wide and 23mm f4 ultrawide). Initially the GFX will sell for $6500... about the same as a high-end DSLR from Nikon or Canon.

Of course, I could spend $3000 less and simply get a 50MP Canon 5DS, to be able to use the lenses I've already got (though none of them have leaf shutters, so I'd need to use an ND filter for similar purposes should they arise).

And "bigger" is not necessarily "better".

A lot of people who tout the superiority of their full frame cameras, as compared to APS-C, are just foolin' themselves. Sure, the images look better when they are pixel peeping them on their computer monitors at ridiculously large sizes.... But, the truth is, they are the only person who will ever see the difference unless they make very large prints from the images. At the sizes most people print, up to say 13x19... and especially at Internet sizes and resolutions... the rest of the world will not be able to tell the difference from a recent APS-C camera versus a full frame. The FF user has paid extra for a camera that with slower frame rates and slower flash sync that to some extent limits their choice of lenses, too, which - like the camera itself - will be necessarily be bigger, heavier and more expensive.

Not that there aren't times and places FF is desirable. It can be. But for general purpose and even for some specialization, a crop sensor camera might actually be a better choice for many or even most buyers.

The demand for MF sensor cameras.... even larger than FF... is even more limited than FF. It will also typically call for a second set of lenses and accessories, while a kit with same-manufacturer FF and crop cameras will likely be able to share a lot of lenses and accessories.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Lots of argumentative sour grapes rational in this thread ! 8-)

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

No, in fact, DOF actually doesn't change with sensor size alone.

DOF only changes with aperture size, lens focal length and distance. If you were to use the same lens set to the same aperture from the same distance, DOF will be exactly the same regardless of sensor size.

However, in order to frame a subject with a larger sensor camera the same way it was framed with a smaller sensor, you'll need to either move closer or use a longer focal length lens or a little of both.... and as a result of those changes, DOF will be shallower when using the larger sensor camera.

DVZ Loc: Littleton CO

I buy what I want, sometimes I buy cheap other time I buy into the "diminishing value" price range because I want to. My wife would have me buy a $100.00 bicycle from Walmart instead I bought a $3600.00 Ti Frame with full Dura Ace components. Who's right? I could afford the bike and I ride it a lot, I love it and she ultimately has no problem with my decision because she knows I'm careful with our finances. You make the decision, Medium format or phone camera. More power to you!

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

A lot has been said in this thread ,while a lot is true some is well just wrong .I shoot a d7100 , a Pentax 645 n loaded with Velvia 50 ,and a d810. My boss shoots a Pentax 645d , a Sony a 7r with a 17mm Canon 2.8 tilt shift. We print on large
Format printers a 44 inch Canon and a 65 inch Epson. We print large prints ,the largest a 40 foot long stitched 6 foot tall print in a Toyota dealership. Of all the cameras the Pentax is by far the sharpest highest acuity of all that we are shooting but like what has been said 1.5 frames a sec .If you print large then you shoot large .It all depends on what you do with your images if you make money from them. Ansel Adams shot 4 x 5 on most things because it was the best thing in his day. Aps-c is great up to 36 x 48 with good shooting practice and in raw with great Photoshop plugins. When every thing comes together. 1 inch are great too for birding 2.7 x reach on a 300mm. Besides we are still shooting black and white sensor with a fake colored mask on top called a bayer pattern except foveon shooters. Kinda like the old colored masks they used on b+ w TV.s in the 60's .

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

yes, the pentax 645n is one heck of a 6x4.5 camera. way better than the original non af 645. owned one for a about a week and loved the ergonomics of the 645n. and not to mention pentax's lenses for that body - exceptional.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

It's not just printing. If you are birding, you will often crop down to 65% to 100% resolution, especially with small birds, or birds at a distance. You are not printing posters, just displaying an 8-1/2 x 11" image on a computer screen. You can't go past 100% resolution because you will start to pixilate. This isn't pixel peeping, it's just heavy cropping.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Correct! Allow me to pontificate to the masses:

There are no cropped sensors... ONLY CROPPED LENSES. The "crop" refers to that portion of the image circle projected on the film plane or sensor plane that is ACTUALLY RECORDED. If you put a lens designed for full frame on an APS-C camera, the projected image circle is "cropped." A rectangle much smaller than the image circle is imaged from the center area. The "crop factor" is expressed as a magnification of 1.5 (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fujifilm) or 1.6 (Canon).

If you put a lens of the same focal length that is designed for APS-C on an APS-C camera, nothing is cropped! If you put a Micro 4/3 lens on a Micro 4/3 camera, nothing is cropped! If you put a full frame lens on a full frame camera, nothing is cropped! BUT, if you use a plain adapter to put a full frame lens on a Micro 4/3 camera, the "crop factor" is 2X for still photos, and probably greater for some video formats.

I know it all sounds like semantics and hair splitting. But there are no cropped sensors... just cropped lenses when you deliberately mis-match them to a particular format!

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

Medium format actually used to refer to many film sizes not just 120 6cm roll film. A popular format used to 127 film which is 4cm wide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Perhaps you meant "plant" an insect with say a 4 x 5 Graflex?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

No, apparently you do not.

The D500 is a 20.7MP APS-C (DX-format) sensor... 23.5 x 15.7 mm CMOS sensor.

The use of FX sensor creates a larger disk diffusion circle and magnifies the image. This is what you want to call cropping to justify your crop sensor'. The sensor is static and the camera does not react to FX lens.

Taking a D8## that is a true 24x36mm using a DX lens the camera will automatically adapt* and then create a crop otherwise the result would be what I presented in post earlier.

So, by all means, think you know more than anyone.

-----
* A menu option to automatically crop to DX format.