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

I suspect many of the responses will be that the quality of the photo is more about the photographer than the gear but let’s leave that thought aside for a moment. All skills being equal is it easier to achieve quality images with a 61mp full frame sensor camera or a 50mp medium format sensor camera? Pixel size, micro blur, low light performance, dynamic range, depth of field ... assume for your answer the photog is shooting landscape or something not moving. Nd yes I know medium format requires a separate collection of lenses and is more expensive. But as long as we are dreaming assume it does not matter.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Being a medium and large format shooter, I'd still pick the medium format 61mp if I could afford it. Or, better yet, the 400/100MP format.
--Bob

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

You sure can achieve shallower DOF with medium format, as well as smoother color contribution throughout the image, which alone will most likely be conceived as stronger IQ!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Didn't we just do this Monday or Tuesday. And some of us overflowed it into the several discussions about the new Sony alpha A7iv. I think Chis T has posted similar questions as of late. Why don't we discuss lighting techniques or something else useful?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

👍

Terrymac Loc: LONDON U.K.

I find it very strange that your input has nothing to do with the OPs question. He must have missed the Monday or Tuesday Discussions.

If you want a discussion on lighting techniques or something else useful you can always post that requirement.

Just saying.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

I was too busy actually using my camera to have noticed.

mrpentaxk5ii

What do you consider a quality image and why would you need such an expensive set up to get said image.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Not strange at all, I did not answer [b][i]it[[/i][/b] because I have nothing further to say on the topic that was covered two or three times on Monday and Tuesday. UHH has a Search function. And at least one other UHH'er here agrees. Yes, he missed the previous spirited discussions or only read though with out commenting. I just checked.

I think the Sony announcement Tuesday of their new 61MP FF MILC has people abuzz. I read a lot yesterday on it, posted some about it. And after watching Sony's 30min video conference about it and some other new products I posted more, rethinking and retracting some of my earlier comments once I heard an explanation that made sense. Some of the features of the camera are very technical and complex. But now I get it. I was most impressed with the 15-stops of dynamic range! Pretty much had my fill on that until new info comes out and I'm not in the market anyway. But I know many people will be. Does not go on sale until September. It will then be interesting to read user reviews!

The reference to lighting or other topics is just sarcasm and rhetoric. Seems to be lost today on many people on the WEB and other social media. Not everything said is meant to be taken seriously or a question or request.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

John - I know you are a serious guy. Do you believe the average photograph viewer will instantly tell the difference between a very good picture captured with a 50MP camera and the same picture captured with a 61MP camera? I suspect they would not. I know for a certainty I would not. Perhaps some of UHH’s more intense professional members might, but not the average viewer. So why are you asking? /Ralph

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

I think you could only know by comparing the cameras and the output. Hopefully someone will do that on youtube. One thing to consider is that pixels shouldn't be the deciding factor. The quality of the pics should be. The Pentax 645Z camera body is now selling for less than $5K, it is 50MP MF and the landscapes I have seen are quite stunning. I'd have to see output from a 61MP full frame to make a judgement which is better. Other considerations might be low light capabilities, color representation and video.

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

Hi, John!

Good question!

I'll preface my answer by mentioning that I don't frequent all the "gear" threads in this or any other forum so if your question or my answer is redundant, I wouldn't know because I seldom get into all those brand names and models back and forth conversations and arguments. My reason is that I am not a photographic equipment retailer or distributor so I am not particularly interested in discussing all the trends as to what's hot and what's not and what's trending. I am a commercial photographer and when I need to upgrade, replace or purchase gear for my studio, I research the offerings and usually find something suitable to meet my requirements.

I have used medium format digital equipment as well as full-frame DSLRs at my shop U use a Phase 1 back in conjunction with my Mamiya RZ67 and another adaptation that I can use on a view camera. I have rented a Hasselblad digital system for a few jobs. These assignments entailed creating advertising images of billboards, life-size prints and "cutouts " of fashion shots for store windows displays and snack-food shots that are displayed on the Jumbotron at our local NHL arena. I have also done this kind of work on my Canon DSLR system.

Frankly, when we got into very significant degrees of enlargement there is a noticeable difference in acutance, color quality, rendition of textures- general quality. On smaller sizes. prints even up to 24x30 inches, images on computer screens and lithographic reproduction in brochures and magazines, the differences are not as dramatic.

I did not count pixels, examine the images microscopically or run optical-bench type tests using resolution targets. I have no time or instrumentation to do this.

We used to do some of the aforementioned work on large format transparency films, so for the big enlargements, we would go to 8x10. That was costly for the clients so they were willing to go for the rental fees on the Hasselblad-at the time. as the were used to paying a premium form for super high resolution.

I am sorry I don't have an answer based on all the technical details, however, there was a significant VISUAL difference in big prints and screens in favor of the larger format

We invested in the Phase 1 system but the Hasselblad system was too costly based on the volume of work that would demand it on an ongoing basis. This is the best advice I can offer if you are thinking about investing in an MF system. There are some new systems on the horizon that may bring down the prices somewhat.

Of course, the final quality is also dependent on the photographer's technique, lighting and post-processing savvy and the quality level of any lithographic reproduction of the images.

I hope this helps.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

In theory yes but in practice not so much if at all. Say for example you have a Hassy X1D -- in practice what f/1.4 lens are you going to purchase for that camera because that's what you're going to need to get the DOF shallower than an f/1.2 lens on a FF camera which is certainly available (lots of f/1.4 choices for FF).

Options for shallower DOF are pragmatically better for FF systems than medium format because of the available choices in glass for the medium format systems.

Joe

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

I started with film and graduated to a Canon 5D Mark II. Often other photographer tell me about their Hasselblad. I went into a store just to look. It felt great. It's weight seem perfect. It's lens felt as smooth as silk. I made an egregious mistake. My wife was with me. She asked for the price thinking it would be a nice camera for herself. When she heard the price, she said "put the camera down, step away from the counter, and nobody gets hurt!" Long story short, the quality of a camera is important. Don't buy into the "Megapixel Myth." I'm happy with what I have and please know that I'm a hobbyist and not a pro.
With that being written, I would like to drive a Mercedes or a Beemer or a Lexus. I'm just managing to keep the hamster alive in my 2001 Nissan Quest.