RahulKhosla

Would appreciate any advice or shared experience from anyone using a medium format camera. What kind of photography situations are these cameras best used for? Apart from the high price (gulp!) what are other downsides if any?

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Shallow DOF - if that matters, huge memory requirements. Best used for in studio and landscape type work for more stationary subjects.
.

flathead27ford Loc: Colorado, North of Greeley

Are you speaking about digital cameras or film cameras?

RahulKhosla

Digital

Paul J. Svetlik Loc: Colorado

MF cameras might be comparable in price with the high quality FF format cameras (for example Sony A7R3, with two lenses may go for $7300)
Heavier bodies of MF cameras and lenses my surprise.
A very large file size (80-90Mb) may ask for a new computer.
BUT:
The landscapes will make you breathles.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Medium format, whether film or digital are simply bigger cameras and bigger $$. If you are a good photographer, medium format will prove that. If you are a poor photographer, medium format will surely show that as well. Good medium format landscapes will leave you breathless as already said. Poor medium format landscapes leave a trail of wasted money and frustration.
The lesson here, I think, is that buying into medium format will NOT make you a better photographer. It will allow you to express your talent in a whole new world if you are already a good photographer.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

I get 92 Mb files from a Nikon Df. Medium format files should be considerably larger.

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

Yes, I found that my old Sinar-f "4-by-5" was not all that practical at NFL games !!!

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

Unless you plan to enlarge bigger than say 30X40, you will be wasting your money.
The New Sony is 60+ meg. camera really approaches the quality of the medium formats, and at a much smaller price, plus the New Sony has many, many other advantages over current medium formats.

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

The biggest disadvantage I found was weight. The bodies are heavier and so are the lenses. Not 2 bodies and 3 lenses you'd want take on a long trip. More suited for studio work.

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

It's all about the glass, well not actually, but it is important and medium format lenses manufacturers are very proud of their prices and you will most likely need a variety of lenses. If photography is your business, then it is a tool of need and profits from your business will offset the cost and the gear may provide photo opportunities otherwise not possible.

For a hobbiest it's just something nice to have as pride in ownership of "I have one". Much like a fellow owning an exocitic race ready car only to drive it on the highway everyday. However it does make a lot of people look and say, "wow, did you see what just went by?" "I wish I had one".

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

And Nikon Rumors announced today a Z9 using the same sensor as the Sony. Don’t know timing.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

My experience is limited to film medium format bodies. We used the larger negative to make sure our enlargements will keep the quality we were looking for.
A good example would be landscapes, portraits or weddings.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

They are well suited for any type of photography when capturing fine detail is important... except maybe sports, medium format cameras are not noted for their fast burst modes.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The primary benefit of a MF camera is enlargeability. If you are printing big... really big!... you might want one.

Besides the prices (which have come down considerably in recent years), other shortcomings include...

Slower AF and slower frame rate. More limited lens selection, not to mention lenses tend to be more expensive. Good luck finding a "normal" lens for MF for much less than $1000. In contrast, you can buy a 50mm Canon lens for $125, a 50mm Nikkor for around $200, or more "upscale" 50mm lenses from either of them for $350-$450.

For example, there are currently only 11 lenses being produced in the Fuji G-mount used by their very interesting new GFX 100 (102MP mirrorless). 9 of those are Fuji, two are third party.

In comparison, B&H Photo lists 293 lenses to fit my Canon APS-C DSLRs, 90 of which are made by Canon themselves, the rest being third party. Among those lenses, 223 are full frame capable, 69 of which are made by Canon.

It's similar with Nikon. B&H lists 303 lenses usable on their DX (crop sensor) DSLRs, including 121 Nikkors. Of those, 227 are FX design lenses for full frame, 88 of which are Nikkors.

There are very few powerful telephotos for MF. The equivalent of a 600mm f/4 or 800mm f/5.6 for full frame would be massive for MF.

If you plan to shoot both MF and a smaller format digital (or film), you will generally need an entire second system of lenses and accessories. One of the advantages of APS-C and so-called "full frame" is that they can share many lenses and accessories, particularly if you buy both in the same brand. My Canon 5D and 7D cameras share batteries, memory cards, flashes.... as well as most of the lenses I have for them. This wouldn't be the case if I were to get a Fuji GFX 100 (which is a very cool camera!).

Older MF digital also typically used CCD sensors.... which seriously limited their ISO range. Few of those cameras offered higher than ISO 1600, and even that might be too noisy for many people. In the last 2 or 3 years MF camera makers have largely switched to CMOS sensors that allow much higher usable ISO. This switch occurred about 10 years after APS-C and full frame DSLRs made a similar change in sensor type.