I was alway envious of the Hasselblad folks....saw their ultra sharp photos and enlargements..envious!
I bought a Kowa 66...way less expensive, but reviews said the optics were excellent.
Thought it would be a burden to carry around, but surprisingly, that size camera is so close to the SLR 35s that
I never felt burdened. Took some nice photos...because it seemed like a special camera to me, I seemed to be
a better photographer with it. The logical progression would be a Hasselblad instead of the large Canon DSLR I
have now....but I've been unable to pull the $$ trigger. I think the same thing has happened to the folks on this
site...I never see words about medium format challenges/problems/triumphs. Is it because of cost..hard to
believe because many of you have released a list of your lenses in present ownership...and you have lots of $$$ involved..
Is it because of the idea that that format is just too large to handle? Is it because of the lack of innumerable
control features that the DSLRs have? Is it because this site devoted to 35mm? Someone needs to post some
nice medium format photos....maybe even comparisons of the same scenes...I for one would love to see
if there is still a difference...and how much the difference is...Thanks...

The 35mm Film camera days are the Culprit! We're basing everything from the 35mm film days. The standard lens was the 50mm, usually what the camera came with stock. The Film sensor was 35mm. Who says DLSR's have to be based on all of this?

I remember back when I had the Canon AE-1. Film speed equaled the light absorption. 100, 400, and later the 200 compromise. (ISO now) And back then prime lenses were favored over zooms. My camera came with the 50mm lens, and I promptly purchased the 28mm, and loved it alot better!

110 film was the pocket Instamatic, and the 126 was the early roll film. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

I guess it all comes down to the "frame of reference" so we know what we're all talking about.

You listed several low-light situations. That's going to cost you for both lenses and camera body and your budget is a bit low for these requirements .... You can do it if creative and shopping from the used market. There's less risk from a dedicated reseller specialized in used equipment like KEH.com for EX or EX+ rated equipment.

Look at an EOS 80D body or 7DII (more specialized on high frames per second like sports).
Look at a EF 70-200 f2.8L IS (the ver I although the version I models don't have a vI designation)

The lens and body combination will have you set for many years in every situation you described. If the budget is firm, look instead to a 70D body with the same lens. If still too expensive, look instead at an EF 200 F/2.8L. You'll lose flexibility of a zoom, but you'll have an excellent lens for shooting long(er) distances in low light.

The Nikon D7200 is a fine body and can be had relatively cheaper, but it is getting to be old in the competitive world of cropped-sensor DSLRs. Nikon also has an excellent "v I" model of their 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Again, I fear the combination, even used, will exceed your budget where I think you get more camera from the xxD Canon models at this product tier.

A response to another post I submitted led me to this question. One of the folks who replied to the other post opined that the print is the final product and all that matters. I tend to agree.

So, let’s consider the posts within the gallery, or other sections that contain photographs, the final product. Why are so many insistent on listing the camera, lens, settings, etc.?

I can understand if it were a tutorial based solely on a particular camera, a particular setting, etc. However, those photographs are not. The photographs presented are for show and not lessons. So, why the insistence?
—Bob