Vincejr Loc: Northern Kentucky

Does anybody use medium format digital camera and make do you use.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I do not.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I do not, though back in film days I generally did. Note that the sensor size in medium format is around four times as large as most "full format" cameras, though it varies greatly amongst brands. However the weight and cost of medium format is enormous compared to FF. The size of the MF sensor demands enormous physical size of the lens if you want or need a fast lens. (Magnification factor of FF over MF would demand an enormous lens for lenses of equivalent field of view when comparing FF telephoto lenses with MF.)
Frankly, the resolution and IQ of modern sensors places MF cameras into situations for highly specialized purposes, and high dollar sponsors.

donphotog

I’ve been seriously considering the Fuji GFX 100S which is garnering rave reviews for landscape, portrait and studio work. Bigger than my beautiful Fuji X-T2 and X-T30. Do we really need 100 megapixels? Are the files monstrous? The resolution and dynamic range are reportedly fantastic. Patrick at fujirumors.com got one and loves it. But I can get 30X40 prints out of processed jpegs from the “little” Fujis so do I need the added weight and expense? Can’t get myself to do it. What do you all think?

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

In the film days I used medium format cameras extensively, including Rolliflex and Mamiya 645 & C330. In addition to previous comments, if you need long lenses, medium format is much more limiting than FF and crop sensors because of availability, weight and cost.

ksmmike

I've read several reviews and watched countless videos on Youtube concerning the Fuji 100S and how it compares to FF, including the choices of lenses. If you listen closely, most will tell you that the detail in the medium format is incredible especially for landscape and portraits. Forget about using it for sports or wildlife. It's not designed for those uses.

From what I can conclude from others using one (not me) it is ever so slightly better for landscapes and portraits than FF. However, if you print 16x24 or less and you use good lenses on your FF, the quality difference is minimal. If you print very large and crop your initial image, then you will notice a difference.

Personally, I went back and forth until I realized that the Fuji to this point is more limited with lens choices, it's not an all-around camera like most FF's are. Yes, there are top pros, who shoot landscape, who are switching to the 100S, they ONLY shoot landscapes and all admit as incredible as the files are coming out of the Fuji, for smaller prints, the FF do just as good of a job.

I went with the Nikon Z7II since I wanted a more all-around camera with more choices of lenses and a lighter weight camera. There are days I wish I could use a Fuji 100S and might rent one for a couple of weeks in the future but for now I'm happy with my choice. If I win the lottery and can own both setups, I will, but until then, I'll stick with my full frame.

Mike

BebuLamar

No! I decided that 35mm is good enough when I bought my first camera in 1977. I stayed with that size.

nokk Loc: usa

i use the fuji 50r. great camera, i added a peipro handgrip to make it more comfortable in my hand. lots of details in the files, great dynamic range. i've never wished for bigger files with the 50r, they're big enough. the lens selection is small, but fantastic. currently i have the 23mm, 32-64mm, 45-100mm and the 100-200mm. i'll probably trade the 23mm out for the 20-35mm that's coming later this year.

in the future, i might consider a 100r, if they ever make one. but more likely, i'll grab a 50rii and keep the 50r as a second camera.

Vincejr Loc: Northern Kentucky

When you have a thought I might want to do it, if you can afford to ok go with it.

edwdickinson Loc: Ardmore PA

I would if I had $60k to drop on a camera. In film days when I was being paid I did.

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

With the digital megapixel count at around 50 for most FF camera's produced today, medium format camera's offer little improvement on most FF digital camera's. So, in other words, you won't see much difference, so, don't waste your money. I don't.
I can print up to 30X40 with my FF camera's and get excellent edge to edge sharpness. I really do not need medium format any longer, used it for film, but my Sony a1 can easily outshine most medium format's so why bother.
Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.
If I was to use a medium format digital camera it would be a Hasselblad.

mudduck

Yes, I use a Hasselbald HD 3 II, purchased the used body from Adorama, used lens from ebay, extra batteries from Adorama total about $4600.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Just started. Hassleblad 907x on a 500C. I haven't done anything but tests and profiles so far.
--Bob

Canisdirus

There isn't much upside today for MF digital...compared to the downsides.
Doesn't make a lot of sense today.

bweber Loc: Newton, MA

Most of the replies to this post were from people who do not use medium format cameras. They are simply presenting their reasons for avoiding medium format. I owned a Pentax 6x7 film camera and loved it. I purchased a Canon 5DSR when it first came out as it gave me images close to the Pentax. I recently upgraded to a Fiji GFX 100S, and I love it. The camera and Fuji lenses I purchased were not cheap, however, the images are spectacular. I shoot mostly landscapes with some portraits, I rarely shoot action. I generally do not print larger than 16 x 20. I did not move to medium format for large prints. I prefer it for two reasons. One is the ability seriously crop images that allows me to sometimes concentrate on specific parts of an image. In addition, and most important, the level of detail is wonderful and the subtle merging of different colors, as in a sunrise, are wonderful. The trade off in coast and weight is it worth to me.