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?

JimKasson · Jul 15, 2022

Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

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

Stan The Magician

When I was at Rolm, some of the engineers, tired of the product managers questions about how things worked, started saying "FM". The F stood for a present participle that can't be used here. The second letter stood for "magic". After a while, the product managers started answering some questions from the sales folk the same way, with the implication being you don't really need to know about this. It was not the best way to deal with those questions, but it Added some humor to the discussions. I even once heard a salesperson use it with a customer.

Erik Kaffehr · Jul 15, 2022

Switching systems is associated with a significant cost. Not so much for a camera with a lens, but if we have a major 'investment' in lenses, replacing all comes with a significant costs.

Most of the sensor used in digital cameras are made by Sony. Just as an example all the following cameras use a similar sensor design from Sony:

Fujifilm XT4
Sony A7rIV
Fujifilm GFX 100/100S
Phase One IQ 4150

What set these systems apart is that they have different size of sensors, meaning different numbers of pixels.

So, the difference between the systems are sensor size and the maximum possible resolution.

The size of the sensor matters a bit. That is because a larger sensor is capable of counting more photons. Photon statistics determines sensor noise, mostly. If we can fully utilize the capacity of the sensor.

The GFX 100 sensor is 68% larger than say the Sony A7rIV sensor. So, it will have 30% better SNR (Signal Noise Ratio), when exposed fully to the right, compared to the Sony A7rIV sensor. Does this matter? It may depend on your needs.

Another way to see it would be that the GFX 100 sensor would yield the same SNR at 168 ISO as the A7rIV at 100 ISO, again assuming exposure fully to the right.

To really know how we expose, we need a tool showing raw histograms.

Another important factor is the lens. If we make prints of a certain size, a larger sensor format will need less magnification. So if we use the same lens on two sensors, the larger sensor will deliver sharper results.

But, using the same design effort, a lens covering a smaller format will be sharper. The best way to understand this is to think angular resolution. The lens needs to cover a certain angle of view. Let's say 60 degrees, we may assume that the lens is corrected to within 1 minute of arc. That lens would resolve 3600 individual points, regardless of sensor size.

But, 24x36 mm lenses are often fast lenses, so 24x36 mm designers are spending a lot on improving performance at large apertures. 'Professional' primes are often f/1.4 on full frame.

It would be possible to make moderate aperture lenses for 24x36 mm that are very well optimized, but those would still be expensive. There are some moderate aperture lenses for 24x36, like the Voigtlander APO Lanthars, or some of the Zeiss Loxia lenses that have new designs.

It is quite probable that some medium format makers would make moderate aperture lenses that are excellent performers.

On the other hand, if you develop a fast lens that performs excellent at full aperture, it will be even better stopped down one or two stops.

It seems that lens designs for the GFX and also Hasselblad's X-series lenses are quite complex designs and it seems that at least the GF lenses achieve excellent performance. Something we know due to the diligent efforts of Jim Kasson.

Jim has looked at some H and V system Hasselblad lenses and sold them off, in part because the GF lenses were better performers.

The GFX 50 sensor had a finesse of it's own. The microlenses were undersize and that yields better perceived sharpness. Obviously, the pixel cannot resolve smaller detail than it's area open to light. So the pixel 'blurs' the image with it's opening, normally called pixel aperture. My guess is that is intended to reduce optical cross-talk. My Phase One P45+ sensor has a somewhat similar approach and Kodak, who made the sensor, has clearly stated that the reason was to reduce optical 'cross-talk'. Modern BSI (Back Side Illuminated) sensor reduce that problem.

Due to the above factors, the GFX 100 sensor may need more sharpening than the GFX 50R/S sensor, but it also handles sharpening better.

So the GFX system has some properties that go beyond the sensor size. My guess would be that the undersize microlenses are a feature of the 33x44 mm Sony sensor, as I see pretty much of the same shape on MTF data for X1D and Pentax 645Z.

The way I would see it, MFD was once very expensive, with the Pentax 645 being an exception. Fujifilm has taken 33x44 mm digital to affordable cost with the GFX 50 system and made a lot of improvements going to 100 MP.

The Pentax 645Z makes a lot of sense, especially when used with the existing Pentax 645 lenses that can often be bought at great prices. The same applies to using Pentax or other MF lenses on the GFX.

We still have 'full frame 645', 54x41 mm sensors, from Phase One and possibly Hasselblad, but they come at a price.

I am not sure the larger sensors are better than GFX, though. The size difference is not huge and the GFX has the advantage of being mirrorless, with a simpler and more accurate focusing.

Mads Bjerke, who used to be a frequent poster on this subforum, recently switched from GFX to Canon EOS 5R. Not because it was a better system, but because it worked better for his needs. He discusses it in this posting:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Best regards

Erik

Erik Kaffehr · Jul 15, 2022

JimKasson said:
Stan Disbrow said:

Hi,

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

Stan The Magician

Click to expand...

When I was at Rolm, some of the engineers, tired of the product managers questions about how things worked, started saying "FM". The F stood for a present participle that can't be used here. The second letter stood for "magic". After a while, the product managers started answering some questions from the sales folk the same way, with the implication being you don't really need to know about this. It was not the best way to deal with those questions, but it Added some humor to the discussions. I even once heard a salesperson use it with a customer.

Sometimes FM is better than AM...

Best regards

Erik

Stan Disbrow · Jul 15, 2022

Hi,

For me, it was about the need to increase my print size from 8x10 " to 4x that and my 16 MP wasn't up to that. Meaning my Nikon Df in small format and a Kodak Pro Back Plus in medium format.

Oh, I eyeballed a Nikon D850 and that would have done what my modest print size required. However, I found medium format to be a whole lot less money for an entire Pentax 645D system than just a D850 body.

That because the Pentax 40 MP Kodak CCD had been superseded by the 50 MP Sony CMOS. And then that was also in the Fuji GFX 50 series units. And then because of that the Fuji system was kicking the Pentax system downwards.

I took advantage of that.

But if it weren't for printing, I'd have been fine with 6 MP from the Kodak 760c. Thoseool great on screens. But we're needing help even at 8x10 back in 2004 and so another low cost foray into medium format with a Kodak back on an old Contax 645.

So, as you can see, I've done this twice now.

Stan

Stan Disbrow · Jul 15, 2022

Hi,

FM works better in the mobile environment. Especially when dealing with pesky ignition noise from gasoline engines.

Range is short though. And I mean at the same frequency. Not the broadcast AM where the band lends itself to a far longer range than broadcast FM.

It's all about power v bandwidth and AM is narrower. Hence a longer range.

AM gets better if you strip the carrier and then remove one sideband. Single Side Band. The bread and butter voice mode for many communications users.

Of course the narrow bandwidth isn't what you want for wide band music.

So AM and FM coexist. Winds up being a case of the right tool for the job.

Which brings us right back to our small v medium format discussion.

Stan

--

Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
Once you start down the DSLR path, forever will it dominate your destiny! Consume
your bank account, it will! Like mine, it did!

Macro guy · Jul 15, 2022

Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

FM works better in the mobile environment. Especially when dealing with pesky ignition noise from gasoline engines.

Range is short though. And I mean at the same frequency. Not the broadcast AM where the band lends itself to a far longer range than broadcast FM.

It's all about power v bandwidth and AM is narrower. Hence a longer range.

AM gets better if you strip the carrier and then remove one sideband. Single Side Band. The bread and butter voice mode for many communications users.

Of course the narrow bandwidth isn't what you want for wide band music.

So AM and FM coexist. Winds up being a case of the right tool for the job.

Which brings us right back to our small v medium format discussion.

Stan

I thought that since FM stood for... err... copulating magic, AM stood for... err... "backside illuminated" magic.

Stan Disbrow · Jul 15, 2022

Hi,

It can stand for whatever you'd like!

I was just struck by how analogous AM and FM radio winds up being to SF and MF cameras.

Note I kept out Continuous Wave and Vector Modulation.

Stan

JimKasson · Jul 15, 2022

Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

It can stand for whatever you'd like!

I was just struck by how analogous AM and FM radio winds up being to SF and MF cameras.

Note I kept out Continuous Wave and Vector Modulation.

Stan

Not to mention trellis coding. But I digress.

Teila Day · Jul 15, 2022

Doppler9000 said:
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.

Click to expand...

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.

When comparing run-of-the-mill cameras + macro lenses that I've used to medium format offerings mated to a common, nothing special, all-to-typical 120mm macro lens, I typically get results like this when shooting medium format. Do you find yourself typically getting better results using 35mm digital?

50mp medium format, 120mm macro ( left)......... 20mp 35mm digital, 100mm Zeiss makro (right)

i can pull a larger size out of the MF file for composite(s) or print when compared to the full frame file.

I find that if I shoot subject matter at a range that's too close for many lenses and I want to manipulate that file, MF gives me the better versatility and overall result.

What about a 50mp Canon (Canon 100mm macro lens) v. 150mp Phase (120mm macro lens) in situations such as this? What would you say the result would be?

--
Teila K. Day

Getting Started

John Crowe · Jul 16, 2022

It does depend on specific cameras. From your comparison here, one could conclude that a 50MP 35mm digital would be extremely close to the 50MP GFX, if not better.

Obviously a 150MP PhaseOne would be that much better again.

Erik Kaffehr · Jul 16, 2022

John Crowe said:
It does depend on specific cameras. From your comparison here, one could conclude that a 50MP 35mm digital would be extremely close to the 50MP GFX, if not better.

Obviously a 150MP PhaseOne would be that much better again.

Perhaps not so obvious.

It's all about the 'sum of parts'.

And just to say, the most important part may be the photographer.

Making best use of a camera is not that easy. A camera may be capable of producing a 100 MP image, but only if the lens is sharp enough. Even than focus needs to be optimal and camera shake minimized.

So, for optimally sharp images we would need a careful photographer, a camera system that allows for accurate focus and that causes minimal shutter shock. To that comes a good tripod and possibly image stabilization.

We also need to expose so we fully utilize the sensor if we want make best use of the noise characteristics of the camera.

If we pixel peep at actual pixels, we may note small imperfections in the image, or if we print very large.

But, I have perfectly good A2 (16"x23") prints on my wall that were shot on 16 MP APS-C.

Once we print, sharpening matters a lot. It is well known that low frequency detail dominates impression of sharpness. Proper sharpening can maintain MTF at around 100% up to half Nyquist with a good lens. As long as we can keep MTF close to 100% within the limits of human vision, the image will be optimally sharp.
Going from 33x44 mm to 54x41 mm is not a huge step. Both the GF and X (Hasselblad) series of lenses seem to be complex designs. Also, I would think that GFX and X1D achieves more accurate focus than say Phase One XF.

These MYF plots from the Phase One IQ 4150 and the GFX 100 indicate that GFX 100 is a bit sharper, in the images taken from 'DPReview Studio Scene' . But the GFX 100 shows 21% MTF at Nyquist while the IQ 4150 pegs around 8% MTF at it's Nyquist limit. So, the IQ4150 will alias less than the GFX 100.

Link. This case, also from DPR Studio Test Scene, GFX 50S shows intensive aliasing and the Phase One IQ 4150 shows none.

In comparison mode, which scales the images to largest common size, aliasing is the obvious difference.

But note, most photographers don't find aliasing to be a great problem. Why is that?

In most cases the aliasing is note really noticeable and I guess that it can be reduced by less than optimal workflow.

This was just a comparison shot with four cameras and three lenses. All viewers preferred D. With A and B I think most viewers preferred B over A . The same camera was used, but A was shot with an excellent prime and B with a good zoom. C has the lowest resolution, but it is helped by an Optical Low Pass filter. E is the classic MFD with no OLP filter but large pixels.

The merit of the example above is that it is just an ad hoc experiment, stopping on the road side, with:

A reasonable place to park
A good subject near the road with good detail
A lot of gear in the trunk of my RV

Just to say, I made prints from these crops at different PPIs. The differences were very much present in the prints.

There was a change in light for image 'E' which I couldn't balance out with reasonable post processing.

A small hint, both the GFX 100 and the Phase One IQ 4150 share pixel design with the camera used in image 'D'. That camera has 60 millions of them while GFX has 102 and IQ 4150 151.

Best regards

Erik

--
Erik Kaffehr
Website: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net
Magic uses to disappear in controlled experiments…
Gallery: http://echophoto.smugmug.com
Articles: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles

tjkoko · Jul 16, 2022

Rob de Loe said:
Rob de Loe wrote:......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.

Admittedly I am a newbie to medium format (MF) with my newly acquired GFX50R. Can you please point me to an article(s) that would address those "basic issues" for said camera.

In my first two outings with the unit using the GF63mm lens, a tripod may well be de rigour. (EDIT) I need to shoot using smaller apertures and longer exposures. Also on my older computer, I was initially disappointed a viewing my photos...until zooming in when more detail and sharpness became well apparent.

--
I still use my trusty but not dusty Leica DLux4.
Tia and thanks much for your patience,
...and the Dlux4 never ever let me down.
.....tjkoko

Doppler9000 · Jul 16, 2022

Teila Day said:
Doppler9000 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

When comparing run-of-the-mill cameras + macro lenses that I've used to medium format offerings mated to a common, nothing special, all-to-typical 120mm macro lens, I typically get results like this when shooting medium format. Do you find yourself typically getting better results using 35mm digital?

I would call this “close-up” and not macro photography. The distinction is important, because the issues I outlined about coverage come into play when the subject is magnified to 1:1, for example. Assuming the same sensor technology, the medium format camera has an advantage only if the subject is too big for the sensor, the lens can cover the bigger sensor at 1:1, and the lens is as good as the 35mm digital lens.

This scene does not trigger the threshold conditions of macro.

Other variable have to be consistent to make a meaningful comparison, for example, are the sensors of the same quality? What is the 20 MP sensor?

Teila Day said:
50mp medium format, 120mm macro ( left)......... 20mp 35mm digital, 100mm Zeiss makro (right)

i can pull a larger size out of the MF file for composite(s) or print when compared to the full frame file.

I find that if I shoot subject matter at a range that's too close for many lenses and I want to manipulate that file, MF gives me the better versatility and overall result.

A key issue with comparisons like this, or any really test, as Jim has pointed out, is making sure things are equivalent in all ways, particularly with regard to lighting and focus. A close up like this has a shallow depth of field, so unless you are very careful, a particular feature may not be in focus in both images. In the pair above, for example, the full frame panel is lit very differently and appears to be out of focus, rendering the comparison moot.

Teila Day said:
What about a 50mp Canon (Canon 100mm macro lens) v. 150mp Phase (120mm macro lens) in situations such as this? What would you say the result would be?

As I said, this not a comparison that would elicit insight into the macro capabilities, because the subject is significantly larger than the sensors.

At 1:1 magnification, and if the lens on the Phase was as good as the Canon, then you could capture larger subjects on it. A run of the mill 120mm MF macro seems unlikely to be as good, though I would look to the 70mm or 105mm Sigma Art lenses, if your 35mm digital camera can mount them, over the Canon. A more comparable lens to the Sigma would be the Rodenstock Digaron 105mm, which is 8 to 10X the cost.

To be clear, the issues I am talking about are relevant only as you approach 1:1 and higher magnifications. If this is a significant photographic interest, and unless you are photographing subjects loo large for the 24x36mm sensor, AND are willing to spend much more on lenses, you are probably better off with 35mm digital - a Sony A7RIV body and the Sigma 105mm Art Macro would cost less that the Digaron macro lens alone.

Robert O’Toole does very careful comparisons. The first image below is the full 1:1 subject, a silicon wafer, the second is the crop outlined in the upper right corner, using the Sony A7RIV-Sigma Art 105mm combo.

1x-crop-outlines-Nikon-Printing-Nikkor-105mm-f2.8A-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg

Full-frame-corner-100-percent-view-Sigma-105mm-F2.8-DG-DN-Macro-Art-lens-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg

The 105mm f/2.8 Printing Nikkor, crop below, beats out the Sigma. This is among the very best ~1:1 lenses ever made. It is purpose built for this magnification and cannot be used at magnifications very far off this without performance suffering greatly.

Full-frame-corner-100-percent-view-Nikon-Printing-Nikkor-105mm-f2.8A-www-Closeuphotography-com.jpg

Robert O’Toole’s 1:1 Macro test.

For those interested in magnifications >1:1, medium format becomes exceedingly costly, as the only lenses that cover the larger sensors are low-production industrial products like large image circle line scan lenses.

Doppler9000 · Jul 16, 2022

John Crowe said:
It does depend on specific cameras. From your comparison here, one could conclude that a 50MP 35mm digital would be extremely close to the 50MP GFX, if not better.

Obviously a 150MP PhaseOne would be that much better again.

If you want a lens to cover that sensor at 1:1+ magnification, it ~~will~~ could be very costly.

JimKasson · Jul 16, 2022

Doppler9000 said:
John Crowe said:

It does depend on specific cameras. From your comparison here, one could conclude that a 50MP 35mm digital would be extremely close to the 50MP GFX, if not better.

Obviously a 150MP PhaseOne would be that much better again.

Click to expand...

If you want a lens to cover that sensor at 1:1+ magnification, it will be very costly.

The Rodenstock Apo Rodagon D 75mm f/4 will cover. It is very good at 1:1.

John Crowe · Jul 16, 2022

Well, we are only talking about capability. If someone actually wants to spend their money on a 150MP camera, then they would pay for a lens for it.

At least comparing the highest MP FF to the 50MP 33x44mm is fairly similar cost.

Doppler9000 · Jul 16, 2022

JimKasson said:
Doppler9000 said:

John Crowe said:

It does depend on specific cameras. From your comparison here, one could conclude that a 50MP 35mm digital would be extremely close to the 50MP GFX, if not better.

Obviously a 150MP PhaseOne would be that much better again.

Click to expand...

If you want a lens to cover that sensor at 1:1+ magnification, it will be very costly.

Click to expand...

The Rodenstock Apo Rodagon D 75mm f/4 will cover. It is very good at 1:1.

Good call! I actually own this lens but had forgotten it had such a big image circle. For those shopping, there are 1x and a 2x variants of the lens. The Rodenstock Magnagon, which comes up here and there, is similar to the 2x variant. These lenses all have very narrow operating windows with regard to magnification, but are some of the very best macro values. They require a bellows or well-baffled helicoid to use, of course.

Charles_S · Jul 16, 2022

tjkoko said:
tjkoko said:

Rob de Loe wrote:......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...

Admittedly I am a newbie to medium format (MF) with my newly acquired GFX50R. Can you please point me to an article(s) that would address those "basic issues" for said camera.

In my first two outings with the unit using the GF63mm lens, a tripod may well be de rigour. (EDIT) I need to shoot using smaller apertures and longer exposures. Also on my older computer, I was initially disappointed a viewing my photos...until zooming in when more detail and sharpness became well apparent.

site:dpreview.com GFX50R issues - Google Search

Doppler9000 · Jul 16, 2022

John Crowe said:
Well, we are only talking about capability. If someone actually wants to spend their money on a 150MP camera, then they would pay for a lens for it.

At least comparing the highest MP FF to the 50MP 33x44mm is fairly similar cost.

This Rayfact 2-5X lens is over $18,000…but it will cover the Phase.

cf6e1f64d9de42ffbee3d081e128548b.jpg.png

marco1974 · Jul 16, 2022

Erik Kaffehr said:
The Pentax 645Z makes a lot of sense, especially when used with the existing Pentax 645 lenses that can often be bought at great prices.

And, it's such a joy to use in the field! (IMHO, of course)

Marco

What makes medium format digital cameras worth it?

Well-known member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Community Leader

Community Leader

Community Leader

Veteran Member

Community Leader

Well-known member

Community Leader

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts