to MF or not to MF?

Hi all,

I'm thinking in updating my photography gear. I own a D800 from 2013. Works pretty well and it's able to produce very nice images. The camera is much better than me.

Why am I considering MF? Love the still, paused photography, composition, detail and crop, in a single image you can find a lot of interesting sub-images.

No need video at all. I would buy a camera without video capabilities if possible.

Nikon guy here, I thought Z8 but it's in a similar price range that the GFX 100S (Spain).

Not being a pro it's a huge amount of money (especially if you have other expensive hobbies).

I always shot handheld, I've tripod and monopod but like that "freedom". One of the initial gaps with D800 was sharpness due to the mirror shock. Digging in the forum I have read similar threads about this topic with mixed responses.

I would like to know your opinion if jumped from FF to MF, what I must consider before and what could be the minimum recommended investment (camera + lense(s)).

Thanks!!

Syrah said:

Hi all,

I'm thinking in updating my photography gear. I own a D800 from 2013. Works pretty well and it's able to produce very nice images. The camera is much better than me.

Why am I considering MF? Love the still, paused photography, composition, detail and crop, in a single image you can find a lot of interesting sub-images.

No need video at all. I would buy a camera without video capabilities if possible.

Nikon guy here, I thought Z8 but it's in a similar price range that the GFX 100S (Spain).

Not being a pro it's a huge amount of money (especially if you have other expensive hobbies).

I always shot handheld, I've tripod and monopod but like that "freedom". One of the initial gaps with D800 was sharpness due to the mirror shock. Digging in the forum I have read similar threads about this topic with mixed responses.

I would like to know your opinion if jumped from FF to MF, what I must consider before and what could be the minimum recommended investment (camera + lense(s)).

Thanks!!

Click to expand...

Will start very simple. Two images, two cameras. 1.) Nikon D850 + PCe19 in the year 2022. 2.) Fuji gfx 100 2 + gf 30ts, this year. Not the same day, and month, but exactly the same position. Have downsized both images to 6114 pixels, saved as jpg. But for your situation,i give you some 100 percent examples of both images, saved as tif. The nikon file with 140 megabyte, and the fuji file with 300 megabyte, in filesize. You can play around, and check if you want that amount of data. I have complete migrated from nikon ff to the fuji gfx world. Of course, the used fuji lens here is one of the most expensive out of the series. Have got a mad hobby, the idea was to shot every building in the city of munich, working on it since 2004.. still on the run, it will never end.

Now the examples, those tell you more than 1000 words. The lenses, there is now answer possible. You must jump through this forum, and pick your needs.

Nikon d850 + pc19



Fuji gfx 100 series, (2 here) + gf 30 ts



No monopod, tripod used.

The original images. Nikon ! 140mb ! https://malus.exotica.org.uk/~zeg/fuji/d850vsgfx1002/_DSC5707elisabethtengstr34d85019.TIF

and the fuji ! 300 mb ! https://malus.exotica.org.uk/~zeg/fuji/d850vsgfx1002/_DSF1103elisabethgfx100230ts.tif

bye,bye richard

The choice is simple (so to say) :
> in theory there is little difference so MF is not justified (for very nice landscape pictures, ssee Nasim Mansurov review of Nikon Z7II at https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-z7-ii)
> in practice there is some difference :
1/ an objective one the aspect ratio : do you prefer 4:3 or square or on the opposite 3:2 ?
2/ also objective : Gfx lenses are really very very good
3/ color renderings are different, so you might prefer one or another
4/ Gfx files are said to be more malleable in post production (and with Fuji cameras it is good idea to try Capture 1, at least as the first PP step)
5/ tactile feeling and of the cameras are different, you might prefer one or the other

Only you can decide : which system are you more comfortable with ?

So, some practical suggestions that come from hands on experience:

With Nikon
> at least with Z7/Z7II, stick to 64 ISO if you want the highest possible quality pictures
> Z7 is incredibly cheap for its performance, if you can live with a single card (almost no problems in practice but you never know)

With Gfx:
> almost eveyone says Gfx100 is better than Gfx50. Some people, including myself and some videos on youtube, think Gfx50SII can be a better alternative if you are not interested in video or very fast AF. Especially, image rendering on Gfx50 is softer that rendering on Gfx100

> 2 basic lenses for Gfx are the 50mm and the 35-70mm zoom : cheap, light and very high quality. Other gfx lenses may be a little better, but less practical and more expensive

> do not hesitate to try adapted lenses on Gfx, they can be very interesting
Look at """Lenses: Coverage of Full Frame Lenses on Larger Formats"""

Hope this helps

Syrah said:

Hi all,

I'm thinking in updating my photography gear. I own a D800 from 2013. Works pretty well and it's able to produce very nice images. The camera is much better than me.

Click to expand...

I used D800 back in 2012, and over the years, went from D800 to D800E to D810. Love those cameras.

Syrah said:

Why am I considering MF? Love the still, paused photography, composition, detail and crop, in a single image you can find a lot of interesting sub-images.

Click to expand...

I had a great lens lineup, 200mm F2 and 105mm F/1.4 E to name a few. Still, when I tried the GFX 50S, I was so impressed that I placed an order then and there.

Syrah said:

No need video at all. I would buy a camera without video capabilities if possible.

Nikon guy here, I thought Z8 but it's in a similar price range that the GFX 100S (Spain).

Not being a pro it's a huge amount of money (especially if you have other expensive hobbies).

I always shot handheld, I've tripod and monopod but like that "freedom". One of the initial gaps with D800 was sharpness due to the mirror shock. Digging in the forum I have read similar threads about this topic with mixed responses.

Click to expand...

Yes, they had a shutter shock, which was almost gone in D810. With GFX, you can choose electronic shutter so no vibrations at all, or EFCS.

Syrah said:

I would like to know your opinion if jumped from FF to MF, what I must consider before and what could be the minimum recommended investment (camera + lense(s)).

Click to expand...

I got into the system with the 110mm, your preference may vary. 110mm is an amazing lens, and if you want to do landscapes, 20-35mm is great. For general purpose 35-70mm or 32-64mm, or 45-100mm.

The clean files, the malleability of the Raws, the tonal gradation, the fine grain noise at high ISO, the high resolution, exceptional resolving capability of the GF lenses, all of these will come as a shock at first, prepare for it. You'll love it.

Syrah said:

Thanks!!

Click to expand...

--
IG: https://www.instagram.com/manzurfahim/
website: https://www.manzurfahim.com

Why do you feel like you have to jump - why not just use both?

Back in the 'days of film' I would have used a 35mm system, a Medium format system & Large format system...



.. and I would have used 6x7...



.. & 6x12 roll film backs too.

Today I own and use both a medium format system...



.. and a 35mm system; as well as a little Sony and an iPhone.

Horses for courses, as they would say.

-
Creating images to tell a story... just for you!
Cheers,
Ashley.

What do you do with your images? If you just post them on social media I would say no reason to spend the money for medium format, nobody will be able to tell the difference between a 20mp full frame or a 102mp medium format shot on Instagram.

You might seriously consider the possibility of using one of the AI tools to uprez your images. They are good and getting better all of the time.

I use a GFX for my primary camera but I trade it without qualms for a smaller/lighter outfit that had lenses as good that uprez'd nicely.

Why spend $$$ when you might solve the problem very inexpensively?

(Former D800e owner here...)

--Darin

You can do tons more in post with the 100 MP camera image than the 20 MP which can translate to and benefit any size jpeg export. Besides, that old web res logic is a bit contorted and I think a weak argument against buying great high res cameras.

There are so many ways to use that res. I'm addicted to it and can tell the difference instantly on my high res monitors.

People have been making that low web res argument on DPR and everywhere else for 25 years as res steadily increased in cameras. Yet cameras keep getting more res. I want more than 100 MP please.

Plus it's his / her hobby. Let this photographer buy the best if he / she wants.

[Content deleted by moderator]

--
Greg Johnson, San Antonio, Texas
https://www.flickr.com/photos/139148982@N02/albums

Greg7579 said:

I want more than 100 MP please.

Click to expand...

The Phase One XF IQ4...



.. just for you!

-
Creating images to tell a story...
Cheers,
Ashley.

It's always easy to spend other peoples money, you should buy a Phase One IQ4 back so you can have a larger sensor and more megapixels that you want.

The OP didn't give much info on what they shoot just that they like slow photography no video and like to crop for detail and interesting sub images and they are comparing a 100s and Z8 as they are similar price and they are not a pro and it's a huge amount of money for them. It's not a lot to go on for recommendations, you can do all that with any modern body and right lenses.

If they are just putting pictures on Instagram it's overkill, some of the best shots I've seen on there are from iphones. Now if they are looking to do big prints or make a photo book then yes spend the money and get the 100s if they have the cash.

Take a look on the Canon forums here, lots of people talking people out of upgrading R5's to R5 II and pretty much everyone saying don't buy the R1. I'm one of the people saying unless you shoot sports the R3 is the better buy over the R1. The R3 is the best camera I've ever shot with.

KiloHotelphoto said:

What do you do with your images? If you just post them on social media I would say no reason to spend the money for medium format, nobody will be able to tell the difference between a 20mp full frame or a 102mp medium format shot on Instagram.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be for anybody else to tell the difference? Why not himself?

If he wants to be impressed by 102MP files, if he wants to pixel peep, look at the details, explore the details that are otherwise lost in a small 20mp files. Then he should. Forget whoever needs to be impressed on IG.

I still get impressed every time I look at a GFX file. To me, this could be the only reason if someone wants to switch to MF.

Sure if they want to pixel peep get the 100s but they didn't give us much info on what they wanted to do. Like the guys at Wild And Exposed used to always say when asked about gear, "It depends" there are no right or wrong answers some tools are better for some jobs though.

They said they don't need video and like to go slow and have the ability to crop in so maybe medium format film would be a way to go. A Pentax 645 or Hasselblad 500 and they can get scans much larger than 102mp.

KiloHotelphoto said:

Sure if they want to pixel peep get the 100s but they didn't give us much info on what they wanted to do. Like the guys at Wild And Exposed used to always say when asked about gear, "It depends" there are no right or wrong answers some tools are better for some jobs though.

They said they don't need video and like to go slow and have the ability to crop in so maybe medium format film would be a way to go. A Pentax 645 or Hasselblad 500 and they can get scans much larger than 102mp.

Click to expand...

The OP said:

"Why am I considering MF? Love the still, paused photography, composition, detail and crop, in a single image you can find a lot of interesting sub-images."

Maybe that is what he wants to do. I am not sure about scans, do you think they can produce details better than the GFX or any recent medium format camera? Older cameras / lenses weren't very good at resolving small details AFAIK.

With a drum scan you can get several hundred megapixels from a film medium format negative. A couple guys I watch on Youtube do it with 6x6, 645 and 6x17 negatives that are all much larger than the sensor used in Pentax, Fuji and Hasselblad digital medium format. Even with smaller at home scanners they are able to get huge files, it looks like a time consuming process though but if you're just doing a hand full of shots and want the maximum amount of detail that is the way to go.

I would love to try the Hasselblad 500 cm or the Fuji 6x17 but I have no experience with film and it would become hugely expensive trial and error for me and I also just don't have the time right now. Maybe if I ever get to do this thing called retired I hear about I'll try and learn it.

Manzur Fahim said:

KiloHotelphoto said:

What do you do with your images? If you just post them on social media I would say no reason to spend the money for medium format, nobody will be able to tell the difference between a 20mp full frame or a 102mp medium format shot on Instagram.

Click to expand...

Why does it have to be for anybody else to tell the difference? Why not himself?

If he wants to be impressed by 102MP files, if he wants to pixel peep, look at the details, explore the details that are otherwise lost in a small 20mp files. Then he should. Forget whoever needs to be impressed on IG.

I still get impressed every time I look at a GFX file. To me, this could be the only reason if someone wants to switch to MF.

Click to expand...

Totally agree, Manzur. Although I do a fair amount of printing, many images are used on social media. But I don't care, because the files look fabulous and are a joy to work with. We should use whatever we want that allows us to get the most out of our photography (budget permitting, of course).

darinb said:

You might seriously consider the possibility of using one of the AI tools to uprez your images. They are good and getting better all of the time.

I use a GFX for my primary camera but I trade it without qualms for a smaller/lighter outfit that had lenses as good that uprez'd nicely.

Why spend $$$ when you might solve the problem very inexpensively?

(Former D800e owner here...)

Click to expand...

In the past, I typically found inexpensive work-around solutions , which lasted a couple of years until I realize how much time or opportunities I lost with the work-around (e.g. in post processing), and finally purchased the proper hardware kit saving time and making life easier.

ampimagedotcom said:

Why do you feel like you have to jump - why not just use both?

Back in the 'days of film' I would have used a 35mm system, a Medium format system & Large format system...



.. and I would have used 6x7...



.. & 6x12 roll film backs too.

Today I own and use both a medium format system...



.. and a 35mm system; as well as a little Sony and an iPhone.

Horses for courses, as they would say.

-
Creating images to tell a story... just for you!
Cheers,
Ashley.

Click to expand...

Exactly so. Smaller formats truly can do a better job for hand-held available light shots. Larger format bring more image quality / resolution when conditions allow. The larger the format the slower it is, not only in terms of the frame rates but also shutter speeds.

Syrah said:

Hi all,

I'm thinking in updating my photography gear. I own a D800 from 2013. Works pretty well and it's able to produce very nice images. The camera is much better than me.

Click to expand...

I was the owner of the D800E than the D850 than I switch to the GFX100S.

Syrah said:

Why am I considering MF? Love the still, paused photography, composition, detail and crop, in a single image you can find a lot of interesting sub-images.

Click to expand...

You will be super happy with the GFX 100S in that case. The image quality is outstanding (at least with the GF lenses I own), and even you don't «need» this kind of resolution, if you «like» or do it very often re-frame you can do than much more than with the D850.

Syrah said:

No need video at all. I would buy a camera without video capabilities if possible.

Nikon guy here, I thought Z8 but it's in a similar price range that the GFX 100S (Spain).

Click to expand...

I will say it's different kind of gear. Even with the GFX 100S II or the GFX 100 II they say (I don´t own it) the AF tracking/detecting if much better than the GFX 100S it's still behind the Z8.

Syrah said:

Not being a pro it's a huge amount of money (especially if you have other expensive hobbies).

Click to expand...

Because I come from D850 of course I «study» than question a lot, and end up to the conclusion, if you take in account the image quality then the difference of price is not such huge.

Even the weight is almost equivalent (still in same «quality» of lenses)

Syrah said:

I always shot handheld, I've tripod and monopod but like that "freedom". One of the initial gaps with D800 was sharpness due to the mirror shock. Digging in the forum I have read similar threads about this topic with mixed responses.

Click to expand...

Indeed that's the reason I change my D800E to the D850.

With the GFX 100S (or the Z8) you will get the IBIS than going to improve a *lot* how low you can go handheld.

Syrah said:

I would like to know your opinion if jumped from FF to MF, what I must consider before and what could be the minimum recommended investment (camera + lense(s)).

Click to expand...

For me the only downside is the missing of long telephoto (even we now have the 500mm/F5.6 ~ 400mm in FF) and for someone (not me) missing of light travel zoom (meaning ~ 24-200)

In resume : If you like very sharp image, if you don't care fast tracking AF, if you don't buy every lenses in the Nikon/Canon line up, if you don't want take this opportunity to go much lighter (APC) then go for it. You will be super happy.

Z

Manzur Fahim said:

KiloHotelphoto said:

Sure if they want to pixel peep get the 100s but they didn't give us much info on what they wanted to do. Like the guys at Wild And Exposed used to always say when asked about gear, "It depends" there are no right or wrong answers some tools are better for some jobs though.

They said they don't need video and like to go slow and have the ability to crop in so maybe medium format film would be a way to go. A Pentax 645 or Hasselblad 500 and they can get scans much larger than 102mp.

Click to expand...

The OP said:

"Why am I considering MF? Love the still, paused photography, composition, detail and crop, in a single image you can find a lot of interesting sub-images."

Maybe that is what he wants to do. I am not sure about scans, do you think they can produce details better than the GFX or any recent medium format camera? Older cameras / lenses weren't very good at resolving small details AFAIK.

Click to expand...

With 30 years experience as a drum scan operator, I can assure you they can't.

I loved my medium format film gear. It can produce beautiful results, without question, but the files from medium format digital are very different. For technical quality and flexibility of image processing digital medium format is far superior.

And to comment on a post above about a system like a D800/D800E/D810 punching in the same class as a GFX by using AI tools to "increase" image "resolution," that is a fool's errand.

I have countless D800E images that stand on their own. That are great images in my opinion. They don't need to be "improved" with Gigapixel or the like. I have done many such conversions. And they are interesting as an exercise, and yes, do allow enormous prints. But that does not make the smaller format the "equivalent" of a GFX file in any way. And remember, AI image enlargement can be applied to GFX files as well.

In the end, it's the skill of the photographer to get out of any camera format what he or she has in his or her creative capabilities. The camera used makes no difference.

But if one wants to use a GFX 100(x) or a Hasselblad X2D or a Phase system, only those systems will perform like those systems. And. yes, they are absolutely worth the price of admission. There is no need to wring one's hands in that regard. The difference is incremental, not universe-shattering, but that increment is unmistakable, significant and justifiable. The only decision is to spend the money or not spend the money. The outcome will not be an uncertainty.

FWIW, although I think my D800E and D810 systems can do superb work, In the 3 years since I've gotten my GFX 100S, the Nikons have gathered dust. The Sony sensor in the GFX is a big factor, of course, but the Fuji lenses elevate the experience beyond any Nikkor F-mount lens I have except for a Zeiss Milvus 135/2, and maybe 200mm f/2 and 105 f/1.4E. My 180/2.8 is no slouch either. But the GFX system is something else.