Want to try Medium Format

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
MattPointZero
MattPointZero Senior Member • Posts: 1,369
Re: Want to try Medium Format
2

The Davinator wrote:

SafariBob wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

MattPointZero wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

MattPointZero wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

MattPointZero wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

MattPointZero wrote:

PWPhotography wrote:

50mp GFX-50R or S doesn't have much IQ advantage over A7r IV. Only GFX-100 has clear advantage but only if you print in very large size. But guess Sony has next 80~100mp FF sensor in developing that likely better in other areas so will narrow the gap.

I could afford GFX-100 and lenses but I have no interest to build a MF system. FF IQ is good enough, much much more versatile and has much better lens choice. Instead I own three Sony FF cameras (A7r IV, A7r III and A9) and many lenses. I rather spend extra money into trips.

Nobody can answer for you but yourself on your priority.

Check this video, 24mp A9 vs mighty GFX-50s

http://www.jasonlanier.com/blog/2017/6/12/the-shoot-between-jason-lanier-and-ken-wheeler-the-angry-photographer-using-the-sony-a9-and-the-fuji-gfx

Despite having got rid of the GFX system, I don't agree with this - it might seem that way from youtubers, but having had both systems there is absolutely an identifiable IQ jump on the medium format.

The caveat is that it is dependent what you are shooting and the environment. Shooting in the street and handheld at distance, you likely won't notice huge differences. Shooting on a tripod, or at higher ISO, or in a studio, or where a narrow DoF is key to the shot, the MF is markedly better - the pixel level noise on the A7Riv against the GFX is hugely different. The GFX50S I had took the cleanest images I have ever taken when it was at it's best, and there is no doubt that the tonality for want of a better word is superior - you will notice clear gradation of tonal change in the MF where there will be only shadow on the FF.

I don't see much difference but actually A7r IV resolves a bit more details than GFX-50s/r in DPR test studio

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7riv&attr13_1=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_2=panasonic_dcs1r&attr13_3=nikon_z7&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=715&x=-0.22139602169981923&y=-0.6817345301035821

For DR (shadow lifting), the difference is not that huge especially if compared to 42mp A7r III and 24mp A7 III

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=sony_a7riv&attr144_1=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr144_2=sony_a7riii&attr144_3=sony_a7iii&attr146_0=100_6&attr146_1=100_6&attr146_2=100_6&attr146_3=100_6&normalization=full&widget=205&x=-0.11091193253163786&y=-1.053181153165256

For narrow DOF, thought you have more FF option than MF such as 50mm f0.95, 35mm f1.2, 50mm f1.4 (Canon has 50mm f1.2), 85mm f1.4 (Canon has 85mm f1.2), 105mm f1.4, 135mm f1.8.

Per per-pixel high ISO cleanness, then A7s-series is the best

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7sii&attr13_1=fujifilm_gfx50s&attr13_2=panasonic_dcs1r&attr13_3=nikon_z7&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=25600&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&normalization=full&widget=715&x=-0.12007884085486091&y=-0.9941881866261394

I don’t mean this to be flippant, but have you ever spent any time shooting with medium format? You are supporting my point in a way - if you make this judgement based on the dpr test scene, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s nothing in it - and sometimes that’s right, there isn’t. But if you shoot with one in a range of situations you will see that there is a clear IQ advantage with MF, when used in the right setting. I have thousands of images shot with both systems that clearly demonstrate it! However, FF carries lots of use and speed advantages that mean it is still the best choice for many people...me included.

https://petapixel.com/2019/07/18/sony-a7r-iv-vs-medium-format-image-quality-and-high-iso-comparison/

Matt Granger found it can rival 50mp MF cameras. I said GFX-100 that has newer BSI-sensor does have clear advantage but not GFX-50 or other 50mp MF cameras.

In terms of image quality—noise, dynamic range, colors—Granger’s first impressions are that Sony’s newer backside-illuminated sensor does a great job keeping up with the larger, lower-resolution 50MP sensors inside its medium format competition.

But then GFX-100 is not that versatile as A7r IV and GFX lens choice although not that bad but nothing close to FF line-up. Still the difference only becomes obvious when you print very big.

I can only stress again that you are basing your view on a youtuber- it may make a decent fist of keeping up with medium format, and it offers many versatility advantages but the image quality is not as good.

Guess I am not alone to say in this thread so that no much difference between A7r IV, D850 and 50mp 0.8x MF cameras and bunch of credible review sites such as DPR self) said the same. Please post scientific well-controlled side by side test photos in RAW and let us independently process and compare if you don't mind? Make sure you use the best FF lenses such as 135 GM, Sigma FE 105 Art, new 85/1.4 Art, Voigtlander 50/2.0 APO, 35/1.2 Art etc. I also said Fuji GFX-100 does have clear advantage, to be clear. But believe Sony and Canon are developing 80~100mp sensors with potential 16-bit color space to narrow the gap. Nevertheless not worth to buy 50mp MF cameras now and I am not the only person said so in this thread.

Then just asking yourself why you sold MF and only keep FF if the difference is big and clear as you suggested that seems contradict each other? I'd not if this is true.

I'm struggling a little with this.

Would you answer directly if you have any actual experience of using the MF kit I am talking about side by side with the A7Riv? You haven't actually said if any of your points are founded on your own use and experience?

If you ask me if I ever handle MF cameras? Yes I handled and took a few shot. Got RAW files and processed in home. But I don't have to own MF cameras and not trying to pretend own as someone. I could afford MF system. My Antarctic trip with wife alone could afford a GFX-100 and most GFX lenses. As I said I rather spend that money into trips. FF IQ is good enough to me. GFX-50 is not that significant better in IQ but only GFX-100. But then Phase One XF IQ4 0.65x (larger MF) 150mp is another level above 0.8x Fuji GFX-100 if you could afford and could carry a big/heavy tripod.

I have zero interest in mounting 'well controlled side by side tests' - I am just trying to share my direct user experience and views on a forum for people to take or leave - I suspect I am debating with someone who has never used one, and even if you had, your view may be completely different to mine, which is fine, of course. We all appraise these things differently to a degree. You list your favourite lenses, but I have only really shot the A7Riv and the GFX with the best lenses (135 GM, 65mm APO F2, Sigma 35mm 1.2 and for fuji...well they are all incredible, but the 110mm F2 is the best portrait lens I ever had the pleasure to shoot, even against the superb 135 GM)

But I have seen some creditable review sites such as DPR self (that compared 50mp MF to D850 and 5DsR) and don't see huge difference as you tried to suggest earlier. So your opinion is odds against those. Therefore I suggest you post RAW files to prove.

And I think in your slightly jumbled last sentence you are suggesting I ask myself why I changed to FF as though I am undermining my own statement - but I don't need to ask myself as I have explained fully in my first post that whilst the image quality is to me clearly superior, many other use aspects (speed, IBIS in the 50S, flash sync speed limitations) meant that as an overall package, for my kind of photography, FF offered close enough IQ and improvements in the other areas that made it the more sensible (but not best image quality) option for me. Your mileage of course may vary.

'Close enough IQ'as you now seems agreed is one in my observation and from what I have heard. If not close enough you'd not sell MF and only keep FF that makes better sense now. Funny is that someone (not suggesting you) equal himself as a MF spokesman but we have not seen a single photo from outspoken

Agree with all of the above, essentially, with the caveat that if you are buying the best (prime) lenses money can buy, better buy gfx lenses than otus, 135 1.8 etc. But then, I think you want the gfx100

The Fuji 110 is one of the best portrait lenses I’ve ever used. It’s lenses like that, that will show the superiority of Medium Format over the smaller 35 format

This is inarguable - That lens is the one reason I miss the MF, it is unbelievably, astoundingly good, even against the also fantastic 135GM.  Incredible lens, the best I have ever used.

 MattPointZero's gear list:MattPointZero's gear list
Sony a7R IV Sigma 35mm F1.2 DG DN Tamron 20mm F2.8 Di III OSD Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG GN
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Lan
Lan
Lan
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow