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?

Pansottin · Jul 18, 2022

JimKasson said:
Pansottin said:

Jim, I found this brief explanation as I didn't know what these additional lenses were for in optical design:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/02/things-you-should-know-about-your-lenses-but-may-not/2

Therefore, these internal floating elements are designed and present for lenses that work at shorter distances and that allow close-up or macro; am I correct?

Click to expand...

Floating elements are sometime also used in lenses with no macro pretentions at all.

JimKasson said:

From what I understand, the presence of the tubes does not allow these floating elements to do their work; as you wrote.

Click to expand...

The tubes confuse the lens as to the actual magnification, and the lens does the wrong thing.

JimKasson said:

Does this cause a loss of sharpness due to lack of aberration correction?

Click to expand...

Yes. Mostly away from the center of the image.

JimKasson said:

I've been looking at the GF lens specs on the Fujifilm page and they indicate ED, Super ED and Aspherical lenses, in the optical design, but in my technical ignorance, I'm not able to figure out if some of these elements are floating elements ,-(

Will the GF80, GF110 and GF250 lenses, which are not exactly for close focusing, have these floating elements?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but I'll bet someone here does.

Looking forward to know

JimKasson said:
JimKasson said:

On which GF lenses will tubes perform better and worse; even if not for 1:1 macro, but close-up at least?

Click to expand...

If corner sharpness is not critical and the subject field isn't flat, I think the 18mm tube should be good on any of those three lenses. I have used the 18 mm tube on the 63, and it's been fine for what I was doing with it, but I don't know if it has floating elements.

Understood

Thanks a lot.

Stan Disbrow · Jul 18, 2022

Hi,

I used to use 135 format film long ago. Being into electronics, that was not so good. Then Kodak came along in the early 1980s with these 1 MP digital imager chips. I was IBM in those days, so no real issue buying some at $30k each. Made up some vision systems using them. Machines could then see if parts were on the boards right vs people. Worked great.

But Kodak had a demo unit on a Canon F1 film camera. So that was the seed for a digital way in the lab. Kodak was developing a commercial unit based on a Nikon F3. IBM got a contract to assist with the storage unit. So I began using that both with macro lenses and on a Scope.

As time wandered on, the cameras got smaller and the imagers larger. But it was always a Kodak something and still is. The Macro uses a 6 MP APS-H format and the Scope uses a 2 MP APS-C. Both old Kodaks, but the newest ones I've used for this.

The 6MP is on a Nikon F5 body, so it has the easily swapped focusing screens and viewfinders. I use the Chimney Finder, but can't think of the model number now. Or, no finder at all and just eyeball the focusing screen. Handy.

If I were to buy new, and I have specified a lot of these over the past few years for clients, is a Nikon SMZ 745T Trinocular Scope. And there are several camera options all the way to ones based on the D4/Df 16 MP chip. Available in both color and monochrome.

Just go for a boom stand for one as opposed to an integrated unit. Makes life easier.

For the Macroscope, pick anything that offers manual focus macro lenses and a good way to see what you're going to get. Right angle eyepiece works. Most units these days have articulating screens that would be great.

Might even use a GFX 50 mk-I. Lots of adaptable macro lenses for those.

Kind of akin to Jim's scanner, only different!

Maybe I ought to start calling it my FrankenScope rather than MacroScope!

Stan

ampimagedotcom · Jul 18, 2022

Closing down this account before the 10th of April 2023.

Cheers,
Ashley.
www.ampimage.com

Teila Day · Jul 19, 2022

Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

I used to use 135 format film long ago. Being into electronics, that was not so good. Then Kodak came along in the early 1980s with these 1 MP digital imager chips. I was IBM in those days, so no real issue buying some at $30k each. Made up some vision systems using them. Machines could then see if parts were on the boards right vs people. Worked great.

But Kodak had a demo unit on a Canon F1 film camera. So that was the seed for a digital way in the lab. Kodak was developing a commercial unit based on a Nikon F3. IBM got a contract to assist with the storage unit. So I began using that both with macro lenses and on a Scope.

As time wandered on, the cameras got smaller and the imagers larger. But it was always a Kodak something and still is. The Macro uses a 6 MP APS-H format and the Scope uses a 2 MP APS-C. Both old Kodaks, but the newest ones I've used for this.

The 6MP is on a Nikon F5 body, so it has the easily swapped focusing screens and viewfinders. I use the Chimney Finder, but can't think of the model number now. Or, no finder at all and just eyeball the focusing screen. Handy.

If I were to buy new, and I have specified a lot of these over the past few years for clients, is a Nikon SMZ 745T Trinocular Scope. And there are several camera options all the way to ones based on the D4/Df 16 MP chip. Available in both color and monochrome.

Just go for a boom stand for one as opposed to an integrated unit. Makes life easier.

For the Macroscope, pick anything that offers manual focus macro lenses and a good way to see what you're going to get. Right angle eyepiece works. Most units these days have articulating screens that would be great.

Might even use a GFX 50 mk-I. Lots of adaptable macro lenses for those.

Kind of akin to Jim's scanner, only different!

Maybe I ought to start calling it my FrankenScope rather than MacroScope!

Stan

Thanks for the explanation - definitely a unique use case. Perhaps you could be the next HP, after refining/marketing the "FrankenScope". We can all say we knew you pre- multi-billionaire status. I notice the digital imagery related to microscopes has bounded forward.

Some microscopes for metallurgy that I saw years ago had really tiny screens, but today it seems as monitors around 12" diag. and larger isn't unheard of. The bio-centered microscopes also seem much better - light years better than the Univ. equip. that I used in college back in 19- - ... 'ancient history'. No contest. The microscope that my grandkids use today is much better lit, with clearer optics in comparison.

For your work, would a much larger visual display and more resolution help or is the current tech (even if it were refined) good enough for your usage?

Stan Disbrow · Jul 20, 2022

Hi,

Actually, I don't use a screen at all. That is the current trend, to use a video camera to the PC and then onto a screen. Or, skip the PC and just camera to screen.

I still use the eyepieces and work direct with the optics. Once I have it all set, I switch the scope light path to a still camera. Then take a single shot. The memory card pops out and into the computer and only then do I see the image on the screen.

Of course what I'm using is pretty old. This Leica was built prior to digital photography.

But I have had newer gear in other places and it all worked the same way. Using a still camera. Some use the video camera way. But it's always easier to use actual eyepieces for working with the scope.

The current models from Nikon use the video camera approach if you are buying from that division. You can opt for a still camera from the imaging division if you'd prefer. It works the same way from other Scope makers as well.

There are specialty outfits that have bits and pieces from many companies and can configure just about anything you want. Actually, that's where I come in. Clients know they need such stuff, but don't know what to select. I go use their workflow and then spec out what fits their needs the best and order that.

Often times, though, clients send me their units and let me get to the bottom of the issues. That's when I use my own equipment. It could stand updating, but it isn't broke and so I don't fix it. I mean old Kodak cameras. No one uses those these days.

Stan

Abbazz · Jul 21, 2022

hokyungbenjaminbenlee said:
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.

[...]

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

Personally, I use medium format when I need more accurate color reproduction and smoother gradations. For example, bougainvillea pseudo-flowers are notoriously difficult to get right because they have shifting colors with lots of orange, red and magenta hues that turn into mush on most photographs. Here's an sRGB JPEG image that I recently took with the old Pentax 645D with 105mm lens:

Pentax 645D with P6x7 105mm f/2.4 + S82 close-up lens

When viewed at 100%, I find the colors much truer to life and the tonal gradations much smoother than I what I would get with a smaller format camera. And I I must say that I shoot a lot of smaller format cameras when I don't need the absolute best color fidelity, because shooting large and medium format is such a pain in the neck!

Cheers!

Abbazz

DavidMillier · Jul 21, 2022

Given that the mini medium format sensors are only a little bit bigger than full frame sensors, you wouldn't expect any major improvement in this respect based on sensor size alone. It's not like the jump from 35mm film to 6x9, more like 35mm+

Abbazz · Jul 21, 2022

DMillier said:
Given that the mini medium format sensors are only a little bit bigger than full frame sensors, you wouldn't expect any major improvement in this respect based on sensor size alone. It's not like the jump from 35mm film to 6x9, more like 35mm+

I wasn't specifically talking about 33x44mm or "full frame" sensors either. I shoot a lot on 6x9 film and my favorite small format camera (Samsung NX Mini) has a 1" sensor.

But I agree with you that there isn't much difference between 24x36mm and 33x44mm. To see a real difference, you need to compare cameras a least two steps apart on the scale of sensor formats, like for example 1" vs. APS-C (skipping Four-thirds) or APS-C vs. 33x44mm (skipping 24x36mm).

Cheers!

Abbazz

Stan Disbrow · Jul 21, 2022

Hi,

Uh-oh! You left out APS-H.

Sits in between APS-C and 135 full frame. And plenty of those still out there. Kodak offered it for a long time and Canon even longer. And that's my favorite sensor format to use with the Full Frame lenses. Kind of like the difference between the 645-C (as I call it) and the larger 645 sensor (or the Sony 100 MP v 150 MP current offerings).

The bottom line here is digital is only half as prolific with regards to formats as film was.

Come to think on it, I have four sensor sizes in use here. Missing u4/3 and the larger 150 MP 645 digital (still waiting for Pentax to pop one out (gonna be a long wait)).

Seems I only skipped over one....

Say... Is the larger 645 sensor large enough to call it 645 outright, or is that 645-H?

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!

Abbazz · Jul 21, 2022

Stan Disbrow said:
Hi,

Uh-oh! You left out APS-H.

Sits in between APS-C and 135 full frame. And plenty of those still out there. Kodak offered it for a long time and Canon even longer. And that's my favorite sensor format to use with the Full Frame lenses.

Hi Stan,

Yes, you are right and I am sorry for leaving out APS-H, a format I use and appreciate. I particularly love my Sigma sd Quattro H, which may be the last representant of a species on the verge of extinction.

Before the Sigma sd Quattro H, I think the previous APS-H camera was the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, which was released in 2009. I don't think there will be many more APS-H cameras in the future, maybe because the format has never succeeded in gathering a wide enough audience.

Cheers!

Abbazz

Search

What makes medium format digital cameras worth it?

hokyungbenjaminbenlee

Well-known member

Rand 47

Pansottin

Leading Member

Stan Disbrow

Veteran Member

ampimagedotcom

Senior Member

Attachments

Teila Day

Veteran Member

Stan Disbrow

Veteran Member

Abbazz

Senior Member

DavidMillier

Forum Pro

Abbazz

Senior Member

Stan Disbrow

Veteran Member

Abbazz

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts