speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

That may be true, but if you compare straight across with comparable lenses, then my statement holds true!

User ID

Given that the 61MP FF is Sony's new 7R and
given that the 50MP MF is one of the existing
models, it's a real no-brainer. It will be MUCH
EASIER to get superior results from the Sony.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

And if shuttle service was available to the moon you could go this weekend. As for shallow DOF FF versus MF you can't compare straight across with comparable lenses because they don't make comparable lenses for MF cameras (never have). So pragmatically if you want to take a photo with the shallowest possible DOF this weekend you'll chose to use a FF camera because Canon sells an 85mm f/1.2 (has for a long time). In the meantime you can write Hassy and Fuji and plead for a 110mm f/1.4 -- good luck.

Joe

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Probably not. I can't really tell the difference between my 24MP and 16MP APS-C cameras for 8x12" to 10x15" prints. Sure if I pixel peek. By the same token the types of film I used to use were ones that look significantly different from one another. At least for 35mm B&W negatives Tri-X (ASA/ISO 400), Plus-X (125), and Panatomic-X (32) all looked significantly different. Same for Color Negative and Slide (Transparency) films. Though at the print sizes I worked with I don't know if a 8x10" View camera negative would produce a different looking 16x20" print with Plus-X Professional (125) vs Tri-X Professional (320) since I have never shot Tri-X above a 4x5" size. But I suspect that there would be little difference at a 2x enlargement. The 4x5" sizes to 4x probably would slightly.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

I doubt you'll see a difference in even a 30X40 print. So what?

Collhar Loc: New York City.

Was anal discussed on Monday or Tuesday?

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I don't relate too well with "the average guy". Seeking excellence in every way you can is a legitimate and honorable goal. The casual hobbiest obviously doesn't need the high megapixel count. If, however, you are trying to create high quality images with artistic appeal, it will take effort, thought, study, and quality equipment.
I choose to use full frame equipment because it meets my needs. I don't make my living at photography, but I respect and admire both amateurs and professionals who put in the study and effort and time to create the very best that can be done. I respect as well the casual photographer who chooses inexpensive equipment to create memorable images for family and other needs. There's room for all of us.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

We have 1" sensor, crop sensor, and full frame cameras, all have the same or almost the same megapixel. I can't tell which camera took the shot. All blow up to sharp, vivid 13 x 19's.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

With only 10% potential greater resolution and on a smaller image sensor, I would not expect the FF setup to offer much of an advantage based on pixel count. Lenses, dynamic range, and color balance might be larger factors when it comes to IQ, assuming the same person handled both exposures in PP in the same way.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I used medium format film cameras in the past. Weddings were one of the subjects that required medium format because enlargements were often requested by the couple and members of the family. No need to explain the reasons for medium format, I know you are well aware of it.
I practiced large format in the form of 4x5 inch film cameras. Now the quality was superior although it was a pain to work with those cameras. If I was after a mural that was the camera to own.

With digital I have never used nor I will ever use a medium format camera. As a matter of fact I can be perfectly happy with a 10 Mp. camera like the Nikon D200, a camera that has the first generation of Nikon colors, pastel colors that are my favorite. My present cameras have 17 and 24 Mp. and I can say that they have more pixels than I need since I seldom enlarge beyond 13x19 inches although I am sure for them a 20x30 inch enlargement is no sweat. Even my mirrorless camera made by Olympus with 16.1 Mp has been very capable of reaching large enlargements without issues.

The majority of us use dSLR cameras and many of us use those fancy cameras with lots of megapixels, like those in the Nikon D8xx series. In my case, as I said, I have found that 17 Mp. are more than enough for my needs.

pila

Such a perfect narrative. Loved your story. Pila

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

But you really can't put those considerations aside. They are very important factors.

The least expensive 40 to 60MP medium format camera body costs roughly double what a full frame camera with roughly the same resolution.

Add that there's considerably less lens selection for medium format. Especially, telephotos are very limited (a 500mm or 600mm FF equivalent lens for a medium format camera would be massive and horrifically expensive). Medium format also have slower frame rates and other limitations.

Let's see... a Nikon D850 or a Canon 5DS camera offer a choice of approx. 60 lenses each. A Sony A7RIII doesn't have as large selection.... Sony offers around 20 full frame capable lenses.

Buy a Fuji GFX or a Hasselblad X1D II you'll have 8 or 9 native lenses to choose among. A Pentax 645Z or Leaf Mamiya 645DF each give you access to around 15 current lenses. There also may be adapters to allow other system lenses or vintage lenses that can be used on these cameras. But there is not a lot of third party support for medium format. Nowhere near what there is for the full frame DSLRs, which also generally have option of adapting or directly using vintage lenses.

In the last few years medium format have largely switched from CCD to CMOS sensors, following the approx. 10-year lead of smaller format DSLRs. As a result, the smaller formats have less advantage now in terms of high ISO. While frame rates and autofocus performance are other areas where medium format has improved considerably too, these performance factors still lag DSLRs in smaller formats.

When it comes to many image qualities, size matters. If you will be making 30" and 40" wide prints, it would be better to opt for the medium format camera. But if your largest prints will be done with a 24" wide or smaller printer, you will see little difference (and, similarly, if your largest prints will be done with a 13" wide printer, APS-C can serve fine). All this assumes minimal image cropping.

Keep in mind that "medium format" digital really isn't all that much larger than "full frame" digital. The typical "medium format" camera in the 50 to 60MP range has a 33x44mm sensor. Sure, that's bigger than the 24x36mm sensor of a "full frame" camera... But it's a far cry from the 60x80mm images some medium format film cameras produced. The increase in sensor area from digital APS-C format to full frame is 2.33X, while the increase from full frame format to medium format is approx. 1.66X. (Some medium format sensors are a little larger, while others are a little smaller... "medium format" isn't as standardized as "full frame".)

I can only speak for myself.... Coming from a film background where I used 35mm, medium format and large format.... Today APS-C is my "digital 35mm" and full frame is my "digital medium format"... and the fact that they can share a lot of lenses and accessories is HUGE. Back in the days of film I had to buy, maintain and carry three completely different systems. About the only things those film systems shared were light meters, tripods and some studio lighting gear.

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

Ralph, sorry to all for missing the Mon Tue thread. And yes it was a serious question meant to learn something. And was partially stimulated by the Sony announcement. I think I will sign off for a while, a long while, because the sarcasm and snarkiness get in the way of what otherwise might have been an interesting (to me anyway) discussion and debate about competing technologies.

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

Thanks for your response.

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

Thanks.