Low Budget Dave

My experience is that the first $2000 you spend on a camera+lens gets you about a 30% to 60% improvement in image quality over a cell phone, depending on what you shoot.

The next $2000 gets you a 5% to 10% improvement.

After that, the improvement in image quality is so minor that the average viewer won't know the difference. The D850 is a very good camera, and the difference between that and a Fuji GFX 50S (for example) is going to be incremental.

If you can look at the pictures and identify the difference you are trying to achieve, then it might be worth the extra money. Remember though that the GFX 50S uses a traditional Bayer Sensor array, rather than the Fuji X-Trans, so some people will actually prefer the "look" of the Fuji ASPC.

Rent one and see. Even if you dislike the size, you will still get a weekend's worth of medium-format pictures to mull over.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Go peruse the huge prints in a Tom Mangelson Gallery. He shoots 35mm.

moonhawk Loc: Land of Enchantment

Ken Rockwell just did a comparison between Fuji's latest, less expensive medium format, and a Nikon Z7 and a Canon 5DSR.

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/full-frame-vs-medium-format.htm

bleirer

Correct my back of the napkin math here, but it might not be too bad. My source https://shuttermuse.com/fujifilm-gfx-crop-factor-and-gf-lens-35mm-full-frame-equivalent-focal-lengths/ and
https://www.photopills.com/calculators/dof

So by my understanding the crop factor for the crop type medium format such as Fujifilm GFX relative to full frame is .79 so the medium format equivalent to a mild wide angle with the same angle of view to a full frame 36mm would be 45mm. 45mm medium format at f8 would focus from roughly 11 feet to infinity at the hyperfocal distance, while 36mm on a full frame would focus about 9 feet to infinity.

Going with full size medium format is different. The crop factor would be .64, so an equivalent lens if it existed would be 56mm, which would focus at f8 from 15 feet to infinity. The closest real lens seems to be 50mm and that would focus 12 feet to infinity at f8.

Festus Loc: North Dakota

Unless you want to make prints to cover an entire wall in your house, MF will not be much of a a benefit.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Maybe his SO will say "Now THAT'S a camera!". But to be on topic, even a marginal improvement at the IQ levels Mr Howard is working with can be worth it. I do like the idea of renting first. It will also give his PP system a trial run ahead of the purchase.

Naptown Gaijin

ALWAYS, ALWAYS RENT FIRST... then buy if you like what you have used. So glad I didn't buy that D750....

Besperus Loc: Oregon

It is one of the reasons “professional” photographer used medium format back in the film days. Tiny thirty-five millimeter cameras couldn’t compare to a six by six or six by seven format camera if the photographer had any skill. Maybe the newer Fuji 100, Canon R pro that rumors say is coming soon...then Nikon and Sony won’t be left out either.
You could pick up a used Hasselblad and shoot film too. I miss the 120 Kodachrome! Another photographer who worked in the same town I did specialized in horse photography he produced huge prints that were amazing! Hasselblad. I used a Mamiya RB 67 to shoot weddings.
Toting one of those around all day, that was work!

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's a very practical solution, despite the extra work involved in assembling a stitched image, for two reasons:

1. You don't always need the extra resolution. It's wasted on a shot with a shallow DOF.
2. System resolution - It's a combination of sensor and lens resolution and it's always less than the weakest link.

Some clarification on #2. A good lens has less resolution (in line pairs per mm) than a 36 MP full frame sensor but it's still a little better than a typical MF lens. You need to spend a lot of money to get a lens with resolution to match a 36-50 MP sensor. That goes for MF as well.

On the other hand, if you match a good lens with a decent sensor, for example 24 MP, and then stitch a bunch of frames together, you can get the extra resolution without the limitation of either the lens or the sensor.

For example, stitching 3 frames across and 3 high with a 50% overlap and you end up with an image with 8000x12000 pixels, 96 MP. With a really good lens and a 45 MP sensor you can end up with 180 MP. What more can you ask?

You can save a lot of money by getting the very best 35mm lens available. Then even your simple (not stitched) images will be as good as they can get.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's actually my preferred alternative.

Film resolution in lp/mm does not change with the format so the effective resolution is proportional to the area of the format.

You may lose a little bit in lens resolution but you make up for most of that be not having to enlarge as much to get to the final image.

Besperus Loc: Oregon

On the other hand, digital cameras produce amazing your Nikon is a great start. I think a Pentax K1 is also great for landscape work. Both companies are making great lenses. As far as cost and improved images...judge for yourself. Rent a couple medium format cameras and see what each does, compare use and what is important to you.

Besperus Loc: Oregon

On the other hand, digital cameras produce amazing your Nikon is a great start. I think a Pentax K1 is also great for landscape work. Both companies are making great lenses. As far as cost and improved images...judge for yourself. Rent a couple medium format cameras and see what each does, compare use and what is important to you.

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Thanks...

John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.

Thanks. Good thought and advice.

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

Based on this, then, B … it would seem the ONLY FF Cameras even worth considering, are the Panny S1, the Panny S1R, and the Sony 7RIII, then - which even beats out the D850!!!!