Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

E6 is relatively easy, as long as you follow instructions to the T, Bill. Directions for C22 chemistry, also needs to be followed as closely as possible, as well - and when it's done right, you will have very good results. Enlargers can be expensive - especially ones like the MX … and the cost of color heads aren't for the squeamish, either. I just have one, which I use on the 21/4x31/4 machine - does a great job! Mostly use the MX for color-reversal printing, and most of my B/W printing as well. Once you've made the initial investment - you're home free!!! … I also have two color analyzers, too - one for each machine, Bill …

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Google it.

Color film development, particularly E6, is more demanding than print development. The Jobo CPE-3 processor makes that possible.

Kozan Loc: Trenton Tennessee

Going from 45MP to 50MP gets you nothing as far as megapixels is concerned. In fact to see any appreciable difference you need about four times 45MP. You need at least 2 times on the vertical side and 2 times on the horizontal side to see any difference in quality. Now that is not considering that a medium format sensor might have better high ISO quality. That is- less noise.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

How big do you print your images?

If you print bigger than 24x36", a medium format digital might be a good choice. You'll also need lenses for it... which can really add up. So I hope you got some big $ for that car!

But if you don't print bigger than that at all or only do so very rarely, better use of your money would be buying the best lenses possible for your D850. A 46MP camera demands "good glass".

Maybe you already have the best available lenses. If so and you don't already have one, another place to invest your recent windfall would be a top-notch tripod. That's something every landscape and architectural photographer should have and use.

EDIT: Some other responses are discussing medium format film cameras, lenses and processing.... Is that what you were considering? I was under the impression you were looking at MF digital (the largest MF sensors... which go as high as 80 or even 100MP now... seem to be physically slightly smaller than 6x4.5cm format on film).

cdayton

Don’t forget that you also need a backup and is 150MP really enough?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Chris, here's a link that will show you a Jobo CPP-3. I have a CPE and CPP, but the CPP is a -2 model.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1339679-REG/jobo_cpp3_kit_cpp_3_film_print_processor.html/?ap=y&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjfn3qNOM4gIVHx-tBh1dGAHZEAQYASABEgI_NPD_BwE&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=Y

These are great for uniform agitation and temperature control. The photo shows one of many of the tanks one can use with this processor.

Here's a short video showing one in action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo5WPU_9LBg
--Bob

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Of course medium format has significant advantages over ff. If you have the $$$ and desire, it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about their gear. The IQ will be better if blown up enough. Some new medium format hardware is really quite slick and not as huge as it once was. Common commentary is that you will not see much difference, much like the difference between new mirrorless APS-C technology & FF. Have fun trying those different bodies out at your local camera store! Likely, you may receive unbiased recommendations there.

Cheers!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

SLIGHTLY smaller, Alan? ... Medium Format Dig. Sensors average 44mm x 33mm. I would consider THAT a WHOLE LOT smaller. A FF Sensor is 24mm x 36mm. The difference is 8mm x 7mm ... not much - huh?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, thanks, Bob … bringing it up, now …

Bykewrydr Loc: Alberta

I just saw a photo of Yosemite falls posted by Ken Rockwell taken with his iPhone ..This prove the proverb it's the arrow not the Indian. Save your money and practice with what you have.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Nope!!!! … You need TWICE that!!!!

All this talk about bigger and better sensors. All we REALLY need - is - bigger and better photographers!!!

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Having been a dedicated Hasselblad user for nearly 40 years, my first instinct, when making the transition to digital, l was to continue with the system. Even as a full-time professional user, however, I found the investment to be rather disproportionate to the actual practical value derived. That's putting it politely. Nevertheless, we rented a unit for a week at a bizarre price to test it out in the studio.

At that time I was shooting large format transparencies for my commercial work and using the medium format Hasselblad (film gear) for fashion, weddings, and portraiture.

So... there was no way I was gonna bring a system worth over $100,000. to weddings. Our Canon DSLR system was and still is working nicely for weddings, and portraiture and some of the commercial work.

OK! The week we had the Digital-Blad at the shop, we shot a snack food a beer ad that appeared on the Jumbotron at the local NHL arena and WOW, there was a marked difference from what we had previously shot with the full frame Canon. The image quality nearly approached what we used to get from 8x10 chromes.

Question is, how many billboards and Jumbo images were we gonna shoot to justify the expense. We compromised- I digitized the Mamiya RZ 67 that we already had at the studio with a Phase I back, Honestly, on prints and ads that ended up around 20x24, the differences were not as dramatic. Nowadays, we do very nicely with the Canon system and go the RZ- it is also equipped with a swing and tilt perspective control adaptation- for BIG jobs.

Listen, if you have the budget and need to make very big prints, going to MF may be justified.

Of course dynamic range is an issue, however, in my own case, most of my work is done under very controlled conditions and I seldom run into extremely high contrast conditions that I can not keep in range.

It also deepens on how many lenses and accessories you require. In my own situation, I would have needed to purchase, at least 6 lenses, and other accessories. I recall my lovely wife and my wise and venerable accountant both saying something like "ARE YOU NUTS"?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's pretty much what it boils down to. Unless you can recoup the investment with commercial revenue, then MF digital is an extravagant luxury, like a nice yacht.

The clasic answer when you ask about the price of a yacht is, "If you have to ask, you can't afford it."

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Now that 14 year old Mamiya MF camera bodies with 22 to 28MP digital backs and an autofocus 80mm lens can be had on ebay for $2400 or less, I have been toying with the idea of buying one. No live view but you can play back the shots just taken on your memory card on a small lcd screen on the digital back. Back in 2005 this kit would have set you back about $22K.

As usual the first thing I do when evaluating cameras and lenses is look at flickr images posted by others. This generally gives me a good idea of real world performance rather than pictures created by a pro for a camera advertisement. What was striking to me was that except for landscapes, MF digital photos shot with this kit were universally soft in bright daylight, and at the low isos preferred (iso-50 to iso-100) were shot with the lens wide open from f2 to f5.6. Looking closer I realized the photos had a much shorter depth of field created by the MF sensor on anything but landscapes. Often, outdoor portraits had just a small piece of cloth on a shirt in sharp focus, the rest was soft. Faces, eyes, hair had nowhere near the sharpness of photos routinely posted with FF or DX cameras and lenses. They generally were softer than anything I have shot with my FF or DX cameras and lenses.

On landscapes I don't see the value of the larger sensor. With the relative crop factors, a 40mm lens on MF is wide angle, but you get the same field of view on a 28mm lens on a FF or a 19mm lens on a DX sensor.

The MF pics did have a more film like quality with better IQ, but the lack of sharpness and poor low light capability seemed to relegate this camera to professionally lit studio work. I'm no expert but these were my general impressions. This pretty much put an end to my digital MF GAS.

reverand

When I worked with film, I used 35mm, also 2 1/4 x 2 1/4, and finally 4 x 5. I always appreciated the gain in quality with large format. I used 35mm when I was traveling, simply because it's much more flexible. I mean, two weeks in England with a 4 x 5 and you'd probably come back with a total of 20 shots. Not so with a 35mm.

When I started working with digital, I began with a Nikon D650, moved up to D750, and finally got to D850. Hard as it may be to believe--and I had trouble believing it--I can pretty much match 4 x 5 photos with the D850. The resolution is astounding (although "sharpening" with Lightroom can give it an artificial, "digital" look--it's sharp, all right, but it looks weird, because there are micro lines at the edges: I have to tone down the sharpening to make the print look natural). If you move to medium format, you'll gain a little bit more in resolution, maybe, but I doubt if you'd even notice it. More important, the larger cameras compared to the D850 are like flintlocks compared to modern rifles. They're heavy, clumsy, not very flexible. They don't have all that many features. You'd be sacrificing a great deal of inconvenience, and a great deal of money, for no appreciable gain.