dick ranez

Upside: more image surface area Downside: cost, weight portability

bedouin Loc: Big Bend area, Texas

I used the Pentax 645z over a year primarily for landscae and flowers it has 50 Mp and there are plenty of af film lenses available as well as mf lense on the used market it's images were stunning inboth color and clarity detail was remarkable. Unless you are extremely strong it was too heavy and bulky for hand held shooting. i sold it mostly because age made it too difficult to carry when hiking i am considering buying a Fuji GFX 100 since switching to mirrorless.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Only if you print larger than 16"X24".

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

Interesting. The Z9 will be an interesting addition. I wonder if it will also have the eye AF firmware they have added to the Z6 and Z7. I beginning to think life is too short.

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

For the sake of argument, let's put the financial aspect aside and assume that cost is no object. I'll assume that if you are considered the purchase of a medium format digital camera/system, you have the budget to accommodate that.

The first point I want t to make is that there is not one camera type that can address absolutely every requirement in photography. This was the case in the film era and it much the same in the digital world. Perhaps in the olden days, the size and weight differences were more dramatic. The characteristics of 8x10 or 4x5 view cameras as compared to those of 35mm or medium format film cameras were vastly different terms of practically and practicability of operation. Obviously, you couldn't take a large-format view camera to a sports event or a news assignment, handhold it and capture fast braking action. Nor could a 35mm camera address the needs of perfect perspective control and ultra-sharp imagery that was oftentimes required in commercial photograhy. So, you sacrificed portability and nimble operation and for high resolution and finite control and vice-versa- you sacrificed grain-lessness, great enlargement potential and maximum acutance for speed of operation. I should note that, in the past, many presses, wedding, military, and general event photographers used heavy 4x5 press cameras, handheld and managed to capture all kinds of action- where the is a will there is a way! A medium form digital came ain't all that bulky.

My point is that nowadays the difference in weight, size, and operational performance is not all that extreme between a fully equipped high-end DLSR and a digital medium format camera. A wise decision in making a digital camera format choice should be mainly based on the kind of work you are doing and the technical results you require and expect. You need the compare the advantages and possible limitation of each format/system and come to a compromise and see if there is an overlap of usages. You may need to run two or more systems.

I do commercial and portrait photography. I have used both the full-frame and medium format system in my studio and location assignments. I purchased a Phase 1 back and use it in conjunction with a Mamiya RZ system. I have also rented a Hasselblad digital system for specific assignments that require very large prints, photomurals, life-sized (fashion) cutouts for store window tore displays and snack food shots that were to be displayed on the Jumbotron at out local NHL arena.

In the film days, we wanted large negatives for retouching purposes whereas nowadays, digital retouching negates that requirement.

In once case, the client insisted he "wanted a picture so sharp that he wanted to see the dust on the product"! He was willing to pat for the additional time and rental fees. Frankly, I could have pulled off the job with my Canon DSLR system. Besides, I always clean and dust all the products before I shoot them! My point is that some photographer and clients have serious misconceptions and insist on "shooting a flea with an elephant gun".

There is no doubt that, especially in cases where there is gonna be great degrees of enlargement, the MF camera shine and there are undoubtedly other nuances even in smaller images. Much of my commercial work is reproduced lithographically- posters, brochures, advertisements. Few hower are reproduced in ultra-quality high-rez printing so again, in the nuances can be lost and the smaller format will easily suffice.

What can I say, some folks will buy a gas-guzzling limousine just for the prestige or a high- performance sports car that they will never race- just to show it off or experience pride of ownership.

So...analyze your real requirements and come to a decision based on practicality. If you go to medium format, there are many lenses on the market. You can easily control the depth of field, create good "bokeh" based o focal length, aperture hyperfocal distance, and distance- the same as a full-frame DSLR.

AdamJB

What kind of camera(s) do you use now, and what capabilities are you hoping medium format will give you?

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Are you saying that from 61mp specs, or do you have other information?

People are always saying that "FF" is better than "APS-C" because of various aspects of IQ, such as color depth at higher ISO. The same thing should be true when comparing "MF" to "FF", especially as number of mp climbs. For example, the D850 ranks poorly on DxOMark's "sports" rankings - perhaps even its sensor is more crowded than is reasonable for "FF".

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I know that camera. Rail view.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

But then Medium format cameras go from 40+ MP to 100+ MP. How much $$$ do you have?

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

only you can decide a reason to go to medium format. you can do about 80% of the things you can do with a smaller camera. I've done them. I had to compensate for weight and length with lenses attatched. when it comes to getting there or getting the shot, where there's a will, there's a way. with higher iso and lower noise, the range of use is wide open.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Weight is NOT a photographic characteristic of a camera. In fact, it can be an asset. Sharpness of image, precise shutter speeds, and a good selection of apertures are qualitites that are important in a camera. But then, I regularly carry cameras which weigh over 5 pounds and as much as 20 pounds. I've never felt that was an important characteristic.
--Bob

Carnpo Loc: North Carolina

I see you mean digital. Get an old working film camera. I use a Yashica Mat 124 and recently upgraded to the Mamiya C330. I get medium scans when I get film developed. Have taken photos of old buildings. Detail is incredible.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Some day it WILL ....

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

For professionals and wealthy amateurs.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I doubt that.
--Bob