What makes medium format digital cameras worth it?

hokyungbenjaminbenlee · Jul 13, 2022

My question is what makes digital medium format cameras worth owning one? Is it the sensor size? Is it the colour bit-depth? Is it the image quality? or is it just for the show? Obviously, with medium format film cameras, the film size is bigger leading to images that are sharper and cleaner without noise however, I am not sure what the advantages are with the digital medium format cameras.

I am posting this because I recently got intrigued by the medium format digital camera after seeing the result from Hasselblad's X1D II 50C medium format digital camera which looked amazing. Naturally, I have done some research online and many of the photographers compared the Hasselblad camera to Sony's a7RIV. The reason is that Hasselblad's sensor is produced by Sony and a7RIV has a higher sensor resolution of 61 megapixels compared to 50 megapixels. I noticed that with a digital system, a bigger sensor doesn't necessarily translate to higher sensor resolution or higher bit-depth. If that is the case are there advantages in spending double or triple the cost of a full-frame camera and acquiring a medium format digital camera such as Hasselblad X1D II 50C or Lecia S3 or Fujifilm GFX 50S II?

I have done some comparisons of common digital medium format cameras, Hasselblad X1D 50C, Leica S3 and Fujifilm GFX 50S II along with Sony a7RIV and noticed that Hasselblad is the only one that has 16-bit depth while others only have 14 bit-depth which is equivalent to most other full-frame cameras. When comparing Leica S3 to Sony a7RIV, Leica has 14 bit-depth, 64 megapixels, 3 FPS contrast-based autofocus burst rate and costs a whopping $19995 while Sony has the same 14 bit-depth, 61 megapixels, 10 FPS phase-detect autofocus burst rate and costs merely $2998.

Looking purely at the spec sheet, it seems like there aren't any clear advantages with medium format cameras when compared to high-end full-frame cameras. I heard people saying that the end result is much nicer when using a medium format camera however, I think that is to do with the particular brand's colour science and the lens being used.

Can someone help me understand why photographers shoot with medium format digital cameras?

Doppler9000 · Jul 14, 2022

Charles_S said:
OMG,

if I had a cent for every time someone started a thread like this......

What would your hourly rate be if we count taking the time to comment ; )

Erik Kaffehr · Jul 14, 2022

JimKasson said:
Valued Customer said:

Here is a good video interview with Michael Clarke:

Truth about sensor formats | with Michael Clark & GFX 100S

Click to expand...

Summary, with notes:

Thanks for enduring a long video.

JimKasson said:
What you’re doing with the camera, especially the target medium, influences what camera you should use. Right!

Sensors are made of silicone. Wrong!

JimKasson said:
Bigger sensor means higher photon signal to noise ratio. Right!

16-bit precision Is a huge deal. Wrong!

Used to be a selling point for ancient MFD backs.

JimKasson said:
Lenses are a differentiator. Right!

I don't know. It is quite feasible that excellent lenses could be made for smaller formats. Just as an example, I have a couple Voigtlander APO Lanthars (65/2 and 35/2) and I think they are quite good on the A7rIV.

JimKasson said:
The GFX 100S is better because of magic. Wrong!

Right about the magic, but having more pixels may be good, comparing to say A7rIV

JimKasson said:
Precision is important for retouching. Wrong!

Once in Photoshop and 16-bit format, processing is done with 15 bits, anyway.

JimKasson said:
16-bit precision is an important MF differentiator. Wrong!

Used to be 14 bits on Phase One.

JimKasson said:
MF autofocus isn’t as good for action as the AF in FF systems. Right!

I wouldn't think that is a law of nature. But only GFX 100/100S has phase detection.

JimKasson said:
Smaller cameras are faster. Wrong!

Again, not a law of nature. But I think that may often be the case.

Also, I would suggest that if we need speed, chances are we don't strive for perfection.

Having a near optimal workflow, I would suggest that having more pixels is probably an advantage.

JimKasson said:
Familiarity breeds efficiency. Right!

No argument with that!

In the end, striving for maximum IQ, I would certainly think that cameras like GFX 100S make sense. With the 50 MP sensor, I am not so sure.

Best regards

Erik

Kiwisnap · Jul 14, 2022

I cannot exactly say.

It is not - for me at least - a matter of technical specs. I have shot faster cameras. Lighter cameras. More versatile cameras.

However I have not shot anything that produces images that move me or inspire me to do better more than the GFX100 does.

I know the camera and lenses are more than adequate to produce a quality of work that I aspire to and if I am to ever produce anything of that quality, this is the camera that will drive me to do it.

For example, I entered 3 images into the 'in camera landscape' category of New Zealand's largest professional photography competition, the NZIPP Iris Awards. I was gratified that all 3 scored highly enough in the preliminary judging to get through to the Live Judging during the week of the Awards. All three were shot on the GFX and would not have been (in my view) the images that they are if they were shot on FF or APSC.

For me, another valuable aspect is knowing that whilst there will be slow improvements in sensor tech, body design etc, the GFX100 is a largely hand built specialist device that will satisfy my photographic needs for years to come. 102 MP will not disappoint, the body is robust, the features useful and the camera, whilst a bit eccentric sometimes in the way it does (or doesn't) do things, is generally excellent. The glass is all excellent, robust and well built with the intent to deliver years and years of stellar images.

GFX is to Hasselblad as Lexus is to Mercedes or as Grand Seiko is to Rolex. The feeling of quality and intent is meaningful and inspiring to me.

Rob de Loe · Jul 14, 2022

I use movements extensively in my work. It so happens that my personal sweet spot for wide-ish angles is a 33mm x 44mm sensor combined with a 35mm lens for 645 film. This gives an angle of view that I find wide enough for almost every situation. Canon's terrific tilt-shift lenses are of course an option for people who want wider, but I use all my lenses on "adapters" that provide more flexibility -- so they have to be manual.

Smaller sensors do not work as well for my use case. A 24mm x 36mm lens still needs medium format lens to have a large enough image circle for movements. I used the same 35mm lens I use on GFX with a Sony A7R and it wasn't wide enough, of course, because the angle of view is narrower. I also built a full tilt-shift outfit around APS-C, using 35mm film lenses, but the problem is the same: the widest decent performer I had was 24mm.

So that's one thing what makes medium format worth it for me.

On top of that practical consideration, I really genuinely like the GFX 50R. It's always on a tripod, so the ergonomics are ideal for me. Even after three years of using it, I still am very happy with the files it produces. I wouldn't say no to three more stops of dynamic range.

But that's not happening for a while, if it does happen. So in the meantime it continues to serve me well.

darinb · Jul 14, 2022

>>

The GFX 100S is better because of magic. Wrong!<<

I think you made an error there, Jim.

--Darin

JimKasson · Jul 14, 2022

darinb said:
>>

The GFX 100S is better because of magic. Wrong!<<

I think you made an error there, Jim.

Read Arthur C. Clarke's comment about magic.

https://lab.cccb.org/en/arthur-c-cl...ed-technology-is-indistinguishable-from-magic

gameshoes3003 · Jul 14, 2022

As a shopper, I don't think any item is ever worth it if you have to question if its value. It doesn't matter if you're a professional or a hobbyist. A camera is a tool of the arts. Just go with your gut feeling on it. If you don't see a perceivable benefit, don't buy it.

I have the Hasselblad X1Dii. I like how easy it is to use (autofocus could use work though...), and I like how the files come out. Some people may count this as a detractor but I like how "finished" the RAW files look. I'm a lazy editor so the less editing I need to do, the better.

Below is a photo I made last year using the 90mm F3.5. I like the detail, and I like the colors. How do you colors look to you? Take a look at the dust on the balloon fabric, what do you think of it? How do you feel about 4x3 instead of 3x2?

I like what I'm getting, however, I'm willing to bet that full frame gear can make this exact image very well. So don't feel like you're missing out on something major by sticking with full frame.

View attachment c8d1348d6ce34335bb6227e84a8ed92f.jpg

moimoi · Jul 14, 2022

BackToNature1 said:
Rand 47 said:

It’s not worth it at all if you don’t print - and print fairly large. And, if one is going to put the toes in the water of medium format, and you do print and print large, then the GFX 102 mp bodies are the way to go, to “my” way of thinking in terms of price / performance. If you shoot for FB and IG or other digital presentation modes, then there is not point at all in thinking about medium format.

Something not really explored in your original post is why type of photography you primarily do. There are many shooting situations where medium format would be one of the worst choices.

But, I can tell you this much because I do file optimization and make prints for many photographers using all brands, models, formats, etc. - there is a noticeable difference in file quality / malleability using the Phase sensors and the GFX 102 mp sensors versus all the rest. They’re just better overall, easier to work with, have better tonal gradation. This is “subjective” but based on pretty deep experience in the real world, making carefully crafted prints. Something that “specs” and pixel peeping tests can’t “get to” - if that makes sense.

I can also say this. I’ve used in my personal work state of the art FF and GFX 102 mp cameras, and for me, for reasonably static types of subject, and making large prints - there’s no comparison. But to be fair, one has to be able to see and appreciate such differences. I can easily make comparison prints that the average viewer would consider equivalent. That doesn’t mean they are.

Let me toss this final thought into the mix. In my experience printing for others, there is A LOT more difference in file quality, print quality in the finished product that is the result of how the photographer handles the files, than there is a difference in the capability of the sensor that made the original captures. I print for some folk who have what may be considered the ultimate in gear in terms of image quality, and their files are crap. They’ve been tortured and tonally crushed to the point of making me wonder why they don’t just use their cell phones.

Rand

Click to expand...

The only thing really stopping more folks from getting MF is cost. An yes, most folks that are actually doing photography be that PRO an or the most enthusiastic non Pros can tell the difference. An no, printing has literally ZERO to do with whether or not one should want/need it.

Thanks for pointing that out.. Printing should NOT be the sole (or main) reason why choosing towards the MF option.

BackToNature1 said:
It's the IQ jump be that for personal use or whatever. Who wouldn't want the best possible images from the start. I am stating that with the assumption we are talking about capable photographers to start with. Plus I have seen MF use for far more than what some claimed it is supposed to be limited to. With great results.

Yup, IQ and image processing from larger sensors are a joy. I would say that one of the shortcomings of the MF is AF speed. BIF and Sport photography, I would probably stick with FF but for many other applications, the GFX system is perfectly adequate under good hands.

Cheers,

Max

JimKasson · Jul 14, 2022

moimoi said:
BackToNature1 said:

Rand 47 said:

It’s not worth it at all if you don’t print - and print fairly large. And, if one is going to put the toes in the water of medium format, and you do print and print large, then the GFX 102 mp bodies are the way to go, to “my” way of thinking in terms of price / performance. If you shoot for FB and IG or other digital presentation modes, then there is not point at all in thinking about medium format.

Something not really explored in your original post is why type of photography you primarily do. There are many shooting situations where medium format would be one of the worst choices.

But, I can tell you this much because I do file optimization and make prints for many photographers using all brands, models, formats, etc. - there is a noticeable difference in file quality / malleability using the Phase sensors and the GFX 102 mp sensors versus all the rest. They’re just better overall, easier to work with, have better tonal gradation. This is “subjective” but based on pretty deep experience in the real world, making carefully crafted prints. Something that “specs” and pixel peeping tests can’t “get to” - if that makes sense.

I can also say this. I’ve used in my personal work state of the art FF and GFX 102 mp cameras, and for me, for reasonably static types of subject, and making large prints - there’s no comparison. But to be fair, one has to be able to see and appreciate such differences. I can easily make comparison prints that the average viewer would consider equivalent. That doesn’t mean they are.

Let me toss this final thought into the mix. In my experience printing for others, there is A LOT more difference in file quality, print quality in the finished product that is the result of how the photographer handles the files, than there is a difference in the capability of the sensor that made the original captures. I print for some folk who have what may be considered the ultimate in gear in terms of image quality, and their files are crap. They’ve been tortured and tonally crushed to the point of making me wonder why they don’t just use their cell phones.

Rand

Click to expand...

The only thing really stopping more folks from getting MF is cost. An yes, most folks that are actually doing photography be that PRO an or the most enthusiastic non Pros can tell the difference. An no, printing has literally ZERO to do with whether or not one should want/need it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out.. Printing should NOT be the sole (or main) reason why choosing towards the MF option.

If I never printed and expected my images never to be used at high resolution, I’d not have an MF camera. And I have had a lot of them.

moimoi said:
moimoi said:

It's the IQ jump be that for personal use or whatever. Who wouldn't want the best possible images from the start. I am stating that with the assumption we are talking about capable photographers to start with. Plus I have seen MF use for far more than what some claimed it is supposed to be limited to. With great results.

Click to expand...

Yup, IQ and image processing from larger sensors are a joy. I would say that one of the shortcomings of the MF is AF speed. BIF and Sport photography, I would probably stick with FF but for many other applications, the GFX system is perfectly adequate under good hands.

Cheers,

Max

Erik Kaffehr · Jul 14, 2022

JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:

Thanks for pointing that out.. Printing should NOT be the sole (or main) reason why choosing towards the MF option.

Click to expand...

If I never printed and expected my images never to be used at high resolution, I’d not have an MF camera. And I have had a lot of them.

JimKasson said:

JimKasson said:

It's the IQ jump be that for personal use or whatever. Who wouldn't want the best possible images from the start. I am stating that with the assumption we are talking about capable photographers to start with. Plus I have seen MF use for far more than what some claimed it is supposed to be limited to. With great results.

Click to expand...

Yup, IQ and image processing from larger sensors are a joy. I would say that one of the shortcomings of the MF is AF speed. BIF and Sport photography, I would probably stick with FF but for many other applications, the GFX system is perfectly adequate under good hands.

Cheers,

Max

Click to expand...

I would be with Jim on this, although I fail to see MFD advantages at reasonable print sizes. Jim has far more knowledge about printing than I do.

On the other hand, I would think that in many cases the photographer is more of a limiting factor than gear.

Once we are in depth of field, critical sharpness will be impossible. Allowing for a large CoC means that we will have a large part of the image out of focus. Opting for a small CoC diffrcation will reduce sharpness, especially with excellent lenses.

Making the sensor larger doesn't really help with DoF.

If we use 'hyperfocal' focusing, everything will be out of focus, except a small part of the mid field.

But, DoF tables are not irrelevant. Just consider a 24" 100 PPI computer screen. It shows just around 2MP and it is like A3 size and the image still looks good.

Once we see an image on screen, it will be resampled to a smaller size. The exception is mostly 8K, which is around 50 MP, but we need a huge screen for 8K being useful.

I would think that good printers can produce fine detail down to around 360 PPI, I know that Jim has looked into that. If we have a camera that delivers fine detail beyond 360 PPI, printing at 720 PPI may make sense, not so much for the detail but because higher sampling removes aliasing.

I would recall from Jim's data that the sharpest GF lens is the GF 110/2, probably around f/4. Stopping down to f/8 drops much of that performance.

So, my take would be that any image we see, except looking at 1:1 scale on a monitor or a high DPI print has been trough resampling and a lot of processing.

Best regards

Erik

Teila Day · Jul 15, 2022

hokyungbenjaminbenlee said:
My question is what makes digital medium format cameras worth owning one?

Today:

1. ... When other cameras can't come close to medium format (MF) resolution. I'm excluding the 50mp variety. The only reasonable resolutions I'm seeing in medium format today are 100mp and 150mp... I'd like to see 150 be the floor of medium format and even higher resolution(s). A 50mp macro shot, doesn't look like 150mp of the same subject matter. I can't think of a time when larger and more detailed doesn't look better to me. from printing, to cropping, resolution = more options for me.

2. When other cameras can't give the versatility of leaf shutter lenses and in order to use higher shutter speeds and sync to strobes, one has to resort to using HS (hyper sync) or HSS (high speed sync) etc. Leaf shutter lenses mean one can sync with strobes from practically any date of manufacture. Not having to screw around with HSS or HS is very useful. That's versatility.

3. Large sensors - in practice, I like being able to get closer to the subject with my telephoto lenses when shooting MF, and enjoy the added versatility with wider focal lengths. It's like using a 17mm lens on APS-c then on a 35mm film body. There's a practical difference.

When I print, I usually print no smaller than 20x30'ish inches. After post processing and cropping here and there, resolution is useful. I also like seeing stitching detail in certain fabrics, and even detail in lint and debris.. etc..

The image quality of the larger sensors is more of a quibble as tech gets better, as far as I'm concerned. I'll let other get into superlatives. I'm concerned with practical differences that I can readily see and use.

Today, that's about it. Resolution and leaf shutters (when applicable).

There used to be a gaggle of MF cameras and backs to choose from, but today if i had to purchase (it would really have to be necessary as I think it's a bad time to buy), I'd only look at the 100 and 150mp options; fuji and phase one respectively.

--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com

Doppler9000 · Jul 15, 2022

Teila Day said:
hokyungbenjaminbenlee said:

My question is what makes digital medium format cameras worth owning one?

Click to expand...

Today:

1. ... When other cameras can't come close to medium format (MF) resolution. I'm excluding the 50mp variety. The only reasonable resolutions I'm seeing in medium format today are 100mp and 150mp... I'd like to see 150 be the floor of medium format and even higher resolution(s). A 50mp macro shot, doesn't look like 150mp of the same subject matter.

With macro, the constraint becomes the size of the image circle, unless you are willing to spend a lot on highly-specialized lenses. Below this level, pixel pitch (at a given sensor technology generation) within the image circle is the binding constraint on image quality.

Teila Day said:
I can't think of a time when larger and more detailed doesn't look better to me. from printing, to cropping, resolution = more options for me.

2. When other cameras can't give the versatility of leaf shutter lenses and in order to use higher shutter speeds and sync to strobes, one has to resort to using HS (hyper sync) or HSS (high speed sync) etc. Leaf shutter lenses mean one can sync with strobes from practically any date of manufacture. Not having to screw around with HSS or HS is very useful. That's versatility.

3. Large sensors - in practice, I like being able to get closer to the subject with my telephoto lenses when shooting MF, and enjoy the added versatility with wider focal lengths. It's like using a 17mm lens on APS-c then on a 35mm film body. There's a practical difference.

When I print, I usually print no smaller than 20x30'ish inches. After post processing and cropping here and there, resolution is useful. I also like seeing stitching detail in certain fabrics, and even detail in lint and debris.. etc..

The image quality of the larger sensors is more of a quibble as tech gets better, as far as I'm concerned. I'll let other get into superlatives. I'm concerned with practical differences that I can readily see and use.

Today, that's about it. Resolution and leaf shutters (when applicable).

There used to be a gaggle of MF cameras and backs to choose from, but today if i had to purchase (it would really have to be necessary as I think it's a bad time to buy), I'd only look at the 100 and 150mp options; fuji and phase one respectively.

Erik Kaffehr · Jul 15, 2022

Charles_S said:
OMG, if I had a cent for every time someone started a thread like this......

You would earn 15-30 cents.

Understanding how things work main gain or loose like 20 k$US assuming you consider a complete kit with lenses. Much less if you are like a single lens guy.

Best regards

Erik

Charles_S · Jul 15, 2022

Erik Kaffehr said:
Charles_S said:

OMG, if I had a cent for every time someone started a thread like this......

Click to expand...

You would earn 15-30 cents.

Understanding how things work main gain or loose like 20 k$US assuming you consider a complete kit with lenses. Much less if you are like a single lens guy.

Best regards

Erik

I think you took this too literally. This topic has been discussed ad-nauseam.

Charles_S · Jul 15, 2022

Doppler9000 said:
Charles_S said:

OMG,

if I had a cent for every time someone started a thread like this......

Click to expand...

What would your hourly rate be if we count taking the time to comment ; )

Good one. But it is a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. I am hobby photographer, so no hourly rate.

Doppler9000 · Jul 15, 2022

Charles_S said:
Doppler9000 said:

Charles_S said:

OMG,

if I had a cent for every time someone started a thread like this......

Click to expand...

What would your hourly rate be if we count taking the time to comment ; )

Click to expand...

Good one. But it is a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. I am hobby photographer, so no hourly rate.

This was Erik’s point, I believe. Little to no cost to asking and answering, with high potential benefit to avoiding a mistake. Some tolerance for repetition seems necessary for forum enjoyment.

Rob de Loe · Jul 15, 2022

Doppler9000 said:
Charles_S said:

Doppler9000 said:

Charles_S said:

OMG,

if I had a cent for every time someone started a thread like this......

Click to expand...

What would your hourly rate be if we count taking the time to comment ; )

Click to expand...

Good one. But it is a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. I am hobby photographer, so no hourly rate.

Click to expand...

This was Erik’s point, I believe. Little to no cost to asking and answering, with high potential benefit to avoiding a mistake. Some tolerance for repetition seems necessary for forum enjoyment.

I have noticed a lot of new entrants to the medium format world, thanks to the lower cost of entry that came with Fuji. Not surprisingly, many people have the same questions. I see this on every forum. I don't mind much because peoples' thinking changes, and new people have new ideas.

Over at the Large Format Photography Forum they tried to address this by making some basic questions and answers available in one place. Unfortunately, most new participants ignored that part of the forum, which made the long-time members grumpy. So it goes.

Charles_S · Jul 15, 2022

Rob de Loe said:
Doppler9000 said:

Charles_S said:

Doppler9000 said:

Charles_S said:

OMG,

if I had a cent for every time someone started a thread like this......

Click to expand...

What would your hourly rate be if we count taking the time to comment ; )

Click to expand...

Good one. But it is a figure of speech, not to be taken literally. I am hobby photographer, so no hourly rate.

Click to expand...

This was Erik’s point, I believe. Little to no cost to asking and answering, with high potential benefit to avoiding a mistake. Some tolerance for repetition seems necessary for forum enjoyment.

Click to expand...

I have noticed a lot of new entrants to the medium format world, thanks to the lower cost of entry that came with Fuji. Not surprisingly, many people have the same questions. I see this on every forum. I don't mind much because peoples' thinking changes, and new people have new ideas.

Over at the Large Format Photography Forum they tried to address this by making some basic questions and answers available in one place. Unfortunately, most new participants ignored that part of the forum, which made the long-time members grumpy. So it goes.

I suppose. I am on LFF as well. I should have known better than to react. Lesson learned

Rob de Loe · Jul 15, 2022

Charles_S said:
Rob de Loe said:

I have noticed a lot of new entrants to the medium format world, thanks to the lower cost of entry that came with Fuji. Not surprisingly, many people have the same questions. I see this on every forum. I don't mind much because peoples' thinking changes, and new people have new ideas.

Over at the Large Format Photography Forum they tried to address this by making some basic questions and answers available in one place. Unfortunately, most new participants ignored that part of the forum, which made the long-time members grumpy. So it goes.

Click to expand...

I suppose. I am on LFF as well. I should have known better than to react. Lesson learned

You can also tell me to get bent. I'm not special.

Speaking of LFF, there are a couple folks on there who really don't like noob questions! If you've been on the receiving end of a blast from Dan you know what I mean!

Stan Disbrow · Jul 15, 2022

Hi,

All electronics are done using magic. Specifically smoke and mirrors. Notice that electronics quit once you let the smoke out....

Stan The Magician

What makes medium format digital cameras worth it?

Well-known member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts