Pkfish Loc: Wilson Wy

I think he did when everyone did. Did not not see him with a film camera last weekend. It was a Nikon.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Here is an image shot with my D850 camera. I used an older Nikon 28-70 2.8 lens, the pre curser to the 24-70 lens but still a stellar performer. I bought this particular lens because I do a lot of Infra Red imaging and that lens does not have the hot spot problem. Camera was mounted on a Gitzo tripod for stability. This is a jpeg file and the original photoshop image can easily be printed to 24x30 inches if not larger. The Nikon D850 is a wonderful camera.

SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL

A very nice capture Silver.

dick ranez

Do you have a tilt/shift lens? That may do more to help your structure photos than a medium format camera. The Pano and focus stacking techniques may more than compensate for a slightly larger image, and post processing can be a huge benefit. Before I made any decision, I'd rent a medium format camera and lens for a long weekend and give it a real workout. That should answer any questions you may have and let you move forward - either way - with more confidence.

reverand

A little late to reply, but I was asking myself the same question, because when I did silver-gelatin photography, I gradually moved up to larger formats, from 35mm to 2 1/4, from 2 1/4 to 4 x 5, for the very reason you're considering the switch. I now have a D850, and I've been watching, with interest, the comparisons of the D850 with the Hasselblad H6D 100Mpx. Obviously, 100Mpx is twice the D850's 47Mpx, and the sensor is bigger. Comparative tests run by Hasselblad reveal that, yes, you get more detail, a better range of colors, and better dynamic range (highlights in a model's hair, for instance, are still blond). But after carefully reviewing the images, I quickly figured out that all the supposed advantages of the Hasselblad could be captured in post-processing. Better detail (in the shadow)? Push the sharpness slider up to about 45. Better color range? Push Vibrance up to about 35. Better highlight detail? Reduce the highlight slider until the blown-out areas are gone. There was nothing in the "superior" Hasselblad print that I couldn't match with Lightroom. Then, of course, the Hasselblad costs $29,000, and if you decide you need a lens (duh), that's another $5,000. The Hasselblad is also clumsy to use, and it can only focus on a central spot, which can't be moved, and can't be put in another position. I suppose you could focus the Hasselblad manually, but do you think that's appropriate for a $30,000 camera? When I compare my processed D850 shots to my old 4 x 5 photographs, I can't tell the difference in sharpness. Stick with D850.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Having just bought a used 51MP Pentax 645Z with the auto 55mm lens for $3000 and 3 manual lenses for another $500, the Pentax images look different to me than full frame. Maybe it's just wishful thinking but the color quality and detail of the pics seems more like film to me than digital. When I shot 120 Velvia 50 slide film on a Mamiya 645, I tried to match the 120 film pics by post processing Nikon dslr shots taken at the same time, same subject and settings. I couldn't do it.

Granted you do sacrifice a lot for the Pentax 645Z image look. It's a heavy camera and the video is rudimentary, 2K with no ability for auto tracking or using the lcd magnifier or focus peaking in movie mode, like you have in stills mode. You can either pre-focus and the subject can't move out of the focus range, or you need to stop the video and refocus. But given all that I'm more than happy with the image quality in stills and video.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

I shot another wedding at a RenFaire. Routinely it's >600 shots with a digital.
I had also shot a wedding with a 120 film camera. 6 rolls of film.
The last time I used a 4x5, it took me 2 days to shoot 10 landscapes in the most sunny days possible.
@ 90% of the Renfaire pics were culls, as were 65% of the MF ones. None of the 4x5s, tho 1 was close.
I live in Los Angeles- film processors should be within walking distance. Nope. I gotta mailorder too. Also.
Ask the folk here for some recommendations- maybe some are closer to you. And play it!
"HI! some guys at The Ugly Hedgehog said you were the guys to go to. Can you help me?" Good happens.
You don't want prints. Yet. Get highest quality scans instead.

reverand

There are some nice clips on Youtube comparing medium format with the D850. They show a slightly wider dynamic range (whites in the hair of a studio shot of a model came out with more detail), slightly better sharpness in the deep shadows. The clip I saw was by a spokesman for the larger format, so I was taking everything with a grain of salt. When he showed the differences side by side, it seemed to me that every "improvement" in the larger format I could duplicate in post-processing. Dynamic range? Fiddle with the contrast and exposure sliders. Sharpness in the shadows? Move the sharpness slider up, and so on. In short, all of the subtle differences could be compensated for by simple maneuvers in Lightroom.

The other problem with the bigger format cameras, aside from the enormous expense, is that they're clumsy cameras to use, not just because they're heavier. For instance, I think you can't change the focus points to different patterns, as you can on a D850. The autofocusing isn't very good, and if you're focusing on things that move, forget about it (and forget about focus stacking, high-dynamic range, etc.). Of course, to use the camera at its best advantage, you'd be on a tripod, which, in turn, eliminates what you can photograph.

I suppose if you're hired to make prints billboard size, you might benefit from the larger format, but I really think technology has reached the point of diminishing returns. At magnifications up to 16 x 20, you won't notice any improvements. Years ago, I switched from 35mm format film cameras to a 4 x 5 in order to improve the overall quality. However, much to my surprise, my 16 x 20 prints from the D850 seem to match my 16 x 20 prints from the 4 x 5. If anything, the D850 prints are sharper. Once I discovered that, I didn't see any need to move up to a larger format.

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

Why mess around?
Get yourself a nice 5x7" (or larger) film camera.
MUCH better images, IQ and the negs are wonderful.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Or even an old 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 film camera. I was amazed at what I could get with my old Yashica, and used Hasselblads are available very inexpensively.