Medium Format vs. Full Frame Locked

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Erik Kaffehr
Erik Kaffehr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,593
Re: Good Guy, But Missed on the Money

Greg7579 wrote:

Erik Kaffehr wrote:

Greg7579 wrote:

So Macro is right on the money when it comes to FF vs MF ? Well, maybe he is on his general film vs digital observations, and on photography in general. He is very knowledgeable and I enjoy his posts. But....

Trust me Teila, if what Macro thought about that subject (FF vs MF) were true, there is not one single human being on Earth that would own a new MF Fuji or Hassy camera. We would all own instead the alphasevenarefour and the alphasevenarethree before that or a Nikon high-res FF camera.

I really like my GFX 100 and GFX 50r, so I have to disagree with your observation that Macro is on the money in the FF vs MF subject.

Now it is possible that some of our non-native English speakers might not understand the expression "on the money." It means you are absolutely correct on a matter.

Given that, Macro is in my opinion is wrong when he pushes the FF = MF narrative which he has done many times in the past year, then I would conclude he is not on the money when it comes to comparing FF vs MF results.

Hi Greg,

If you check the thread it is essentially about film based MF compared to 24x36 mm digital.

The point that Macro makes is using film adds up in cost. That cost is not just film, but also development, scanning and printing.

Back in say 2006 film was cheap and so was development, but film needed also to be scanned to deliver images.

When digital was available, many photographers jumped on it, although costs for digital medium format cameras were typically in the range 25-35k$US. With any high volume work that would be paid off pretty soon.

So, Macro is on the money, regarding costs for film.

The other side of the coin, if anyone can produce very high quality images with say a Texas Leica bought for 350$US on a 3.2$ per roll film and paying like 10$ for development and say 40$/image for drum scanning, it is certainly worth trying.

Best regards


Yes I know it was about film and his point about film was a good one. But when I saw that Macro is on the Money bit, my brain triggered its natural reaction because Macro is who he is with that whole FF = MF fantasy and he tried to talk me out of buying GFX a year ago by spouting all the anti-MF talking points. But he has gotten less militant about it and is a good guy. I should have left that one alone. Sorry.

Well I think that there is a lot of good info coming from both Teila and Macro.

On the other side, we may also have both basic requirements and spending priorities.

Just as an example, when I switched to digital I was perfectly happy with two fixed lens cameras covering the 28-600 mm focal range in 24x36 mm. Image quality was good enough for my needs.

The reason I jumped on DSLRs was that I wanted to use old gear. Those images I took with those small cameras are still perfectly OK in 4K-projection.

If you are happy with what you have, there is very little need for change. Just as an example, I have a telephoto zoom that mostly does a decent job. It has some issues so I am considering to replace it, possibly with a Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 zoom. But, I don't think it works that well with the AF on the A7rII. But, I seldom use AF on the A7rII.

On the other hand, I may consider switching to the Canon zoom and acquire a 90D or 7DII body for shooting bird and things like that.

With birds, an optical viewfinder is probably an advantage. The crop factor is also beneficial, so, in many cases an APS-C DSLR may make more sense than a full frame mirrorless. Horses for the courses as the late Michael Reichmann used to say.

Best regards


-- hide signature --

Erik Kaffehr
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow