Reading mode: Light Dark

Is medium format noticeably better than full frame DSLR?

Go to last post
A

AlexTheCat

New member
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I think this is something that only those who live in the medium format world would know but is the imagery from digital medium format noticeably better than from, say, a full frame DSLR with roughly the same pixel count? I realize it all depends on the situation but as a general rule would that be true?

For example, I'm viewing the sample images from a Hasselblad X1D compared to a Sony a7R IV and it seems like with the Hasselblad colors are cleaner, in portraits skin tone is better, and overall clarity is better.

Would it be true to say that once you experience medium format digital photography you can't go back to a lesser format? Or at least, once you experience medium format you will always notice a difference when you shoot with full-frame or smaller format?
 
This is a pretty good comparison. In the end, as expected, there is a 2/3 stop noise difference
 
First and foremost is subject matter. I'd say there's quite a bit of typical photographic subject matter where it matters not a bit.

Secondly I think it's partly dependent on how one is using the camera. There are going to be ways of using the camera that might accentuate what are often/may be esoteric differences. In my experience it's been using the camera in low or lower light situations.

As Jim Kasson and others have pointed out, some of this is in the lenses.

And I think a great deal depends on how picky/sensitive one is to what may be pretty small differences. I'm someone who is picky and sensitive; and I have seen them myself and now can't un-see them. In my case it has to do with tonality differences and transitions.

Finally, 2 extremely important points:
  • The "average" viewer is nearly if not completely blind to almost all distinctions that we enthusiasts or pros find important.
  • Until I have compared every camera with comparable pixel counts or pitches to the ones I use, and also used exactly the same lenses in all of those tests, under exactly the same conditions, in and out of a studio, and further equalized every single thing in those tests, I am not confident I could testify in a court of law that there is a difference---maybe it's just a difference between manufacturers, and not formats. Have I seen one? I believe I have, and not just in my own comparisons but in a handful of others (but don't get me started on "the medium format look" as it usually is argued).
I think it's a thorny question. All i can say is that for my most important work, professional or personal, I use medium format cameras.
 
….. I think you’ll find it’s highly use case dependent. Subject, processing, personal preference are gonna make a huge difference.

I’ve owned a number of MF systems and for a whole lot of circumstances my Z9 is a way better solution. You’re never really gonna know unless you rent.

i’d be perfectly happy if the Z8 or Z9 was the only camera I could have.

--
Personal travel snapshots at https://www.castle-explorers.com
1. Making good decisions is generally the result of experience.
2. Experience is generally the result of making bad decisions.
3. Never underestimate your capability for doing incredibly stupid s**t.
 
Last edited:
Judge for yourself...

(The Studio shot comparison tool on DPReview)
(The Studio shot comparison tool on DPReview)

.. if that's what you are into.

-
Creating images to tell a story... just for you!
Cheers,
Ashley.
 
Last edited:
AlexTheCat said:
I think this is something that only those who live in the medium format world would know but is the imagery from digital medium format noticeably better than from, say, a full frame DSLR with roughly the same pixel count? I realize it all depends on the situation but as a general rule would that be true?
Click to expand...
There will be less noise. The lenses will tend to be better with a GFX 50 or X1D, but you'll have more choice with a FF camera. But the key word here is noticeably. That well depend a lot on print size, subject matter, and viewing conditions.
AlexTheCat said:
For example, I'm viewing the sample images from a Hasselblad X1D compared to a Sony a7R IV and it seems like with the Hasselblad colors are cleaner,
Click to expand...
What do you mean by cleaner? Less noise? That is likely.
AlexTheCat said:
in portraits skin tone is better,
Click to expand...
For raw files? Assuming native developer, that has everything to do with Phocus, and little to do with the format.
AlexTheCat said:
and overall clarity is better.
Click to expand...
What were the lenses involved?
AlexTheCat said:
Would it be true to say that once you experience medium format digital photography you can't go back to a lesser format?
Click to expand...
I don't know of a medium format photographer who doesn't also use a smaller format. It would seem that is an answer to your question.
AlexTheCat said:
Or at least, once you experience medium format you will always notice a difference when you shoot with full-frame or smaller format?
Click to expand...
Always? No. Sometimes? Sure.
 
Yes, it seems like better tonality is something you can get from medium format.

Thank you for the comparison tool. It seems like the Z9 is pretty close to the only Hasselblad offered in the tool. The other full-frame cameras seemed pretty close.

This photographer makes an interesting point about color science and skin tones:
 
AlexTheCat said:
I think this is something that only those who live in the medium format world would know but is the imagery from digital medium format noticeably better than from, say, a full frame DSLR with roughly the same pixel count? I realize it all depends on the situation but as a general rule would that be true?

For example, I'm viewing the sample images from a Hasselblad X1D compared to a Sony a7R IV and it seems like with the Hasselblad colors are cleaner, in portraits skin tone is better, and overall clarity is better.

Would it be true to say that once you experience medium format digital photography you can't go back to a lesser format? Or at least, once you experience medium format you will always notice a difference when you shoot with full-frame or smaller format?
Click to expand...
I think most MF users have one or two of smaller format cameras or almost full system.
 
IMO, having owned and used APS‑C, full frame, and Medium Format (GFX for years) for both work and personal shooting, MF can deliver subtler gradations in tone and color, along with finer detail. It is noticeable to me, and I would assert to others, when working with the files. MF is especially useful if you plan to make very large prints. For tasks that require FF, it is a viable format that I make use of.
That said, this MF vs. high‑end full frame comparison question has been discussed here extensively in the past, nearly every few weeks, sometimes with examples and side‑by‑side analyses. A quick run through the MF forum’s “search” function will give you a lot of material that, in the end, may yield far more info than a single thread can provide.
 
BobsYourUncle said:
IMO, having owned and used APS‑C, full frame, and Medium Format (GFX for years) for both work and personal shooting, MF can deliver subtler gradations in tone and color, along with finer detail. It is noticeable to me, and I would assert to others, when working with the files. MF is especially useful if you plan to make very large prints. For tasks that require FF, it is a viable format that I make use of.
That said, this MF vs. high‑end full frame comparison question has been discussed here extensively in the past, nearly every few weeks, sometimes with examples and side‑by‑side analyses. A quick run through the MF forum’s “search” function will give you a lot of material that, in the end, may yield far more info than a single thread can provide.
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose you're right about this eternal topic :)

I'll search for previous threads about the topic.
 
AlexTheCat said:
I think this is something that only those who live in the medium format world would know but is the imagery from digital medium format noticeably better than from, say, a full frame DSLR with roughly the same pixel count? I realize it all depends on the situation but as a general rule would that be true?

For example, I'm viewing the sample images from a Hasselblad X1D compared to a Sony a7R IV and it seems like with the Hasselblad colors are cleaner, in portraits skin tone is better, and overall clarity is better.

Would it be true to say that once you experience medium format digital photography you can't go back to a lesser format? Or at least, once you experience medium format you will always notice a difference when you shoot with full-frame or smaller format?
Click to expand...
No, if you mean 35mm sensors (full frame? Which doesn’t make sense because every camera is “full frame”)

But if you want to feel good about buying one - the bigger sensor (still not medium format) has slightly better dynamic leeway in extreme exposure situations.

i use GFX systems because of the film simulation, lenses and the way Fujifilm cameras work.
 
MF capture 70% more area (60MP FF compared 102MP MF with same focal length).
 
Hi,

The final output aspect ratio also matters. No one has mentioned this yet.

I am usually wanting to get to a 5:4 aspect ratio. So, this means cropping from a 3:2 aspect ratio for FF or from a 4:3 aspect ratio for MF.

I have to snip off significantly more with 3:2 than from 4:3. So when I was looking to move from my lower resolution FF, I chose a 50 MP class MF over a 45 MP FF.

The same holds for 100 MP MF v 60 MP FF.

Stan
 
Major reason I returned to photography this year with m4/3 is because of 4:3. I could easily chosen 3:2 35mm picked up 5dmk2, A7rmk2.

Even though my m4/3s DR, Noise, MP doesn't hold up to equivalent era 35mm sensors.

Just now seen this decal skin for Gfx100 mk1.

Gfx100 mk1 skin 😹. Gonna pick it up.
Gfx100 mk1 skin 😹. Gonna pick it up.

Yep gonna be on my Gfx100 when eventually I pickup a Gfx100 mk1 with warranty who knows when. Gonna pick up this skin by december just incase production stops.

--
Photography after all is interplay of light alongside perspective.
 
Last edited:
AlexTheCat said:
I think this is something that only those who live in the medium format world would know but is the imagery from digital medium format noticeably better than from, say, a full frame DSLR with roughly the same pixel count? I realize it all depends on the situation but as a general rule would that be true?
Click to expand...
Yes it is noticeably better. But bear in mind aspect ratio. if you are shooting 3:2 on X1D, it is going to be closer to FF than if you shoot 4:3 or 1:1 on FF.
AlexTheCat said:
For example, I'm viewing the sample images from a Hasselblad X1D compared to a Sony a7R IV and it seems like with the Hasselblad colors are cleaner, in portraits skin tone is better, and overall clarity is better.
Click to expand...
these are completely different imaging pipelines, so it wouldn't be an apples to apples comparison. it's usually more about gradual transitions and less magnification of optical imperfections.
AlexTheCat said:
Would it be true to say that once you experience medium format digital photography you can't go back to a lesser format? Or at least, once you experience medium format you will always notice a difference when you shoot with full-frame or smaller format?
Click to expand...
I think it's true, that if you can live with the limitations of the GFX/X-system, then you are unlikely to want to use FF. For me, I think, if you are shooting primes on ff, you are better off with medium format. But, there aren't lenses like the 200-600 or 35-150 avaialable on GFX yet, so the inconvenience is currently a bit excessive. The step up is also significantly less than from APS-C to FF.

What I hadn't realized until very recently, is how niche the MF systems are, and all the downsides that come with that.

--
Cold Spring Hot Spring. Lamassu. Safari Bob
https://www.instagram.com/seetheamericas/
 
Last edited:
JimKasson said:
SafariBob said:
I think it's true, that if you can live with the limitations of the GFX/X-system, then you are unlikely to want to use FF.
Click to expand...
And vice versa. I am hardly ever torn between which system to use when faced with a project. Horses for courses, and all that.
Click to expand...
maybe, but gfx isn’t that much more expensive than higher end ff, with material improvements in image quality, so i would say the trade offs point in the MF direction.
 
SafariBob said:
JimKasson said:
SafariBob said:
I think it's true, that if you can live with the limitations of the GFX/X-system, then you are unlikely to want to use FF.
Click to expand...
And vice versa. I am hardly ever torn between which system to use when faced with a project. Horses for courses, and all that.
Click to expand...
maybe, but gfx isn’t that much more expensive than higher end ff, with material improvements in image quality, so i would say the trade offs point in the MF direction.
Click to expand...
Depends on the situation. For portraits, these days I always use FF. Most likely a Z8 and the Plena for tight shots. Also the Z8 and the 105/1.4.
 
JimKasson said:
SafariBob said:
JimKasson said:
SafariBob said:
I think it's true, that if you can live with the limitations of the GFX/X-system, then you are unlikely to want to use FF.
Click to expand...
And vice versa. I am hardly ever torn between which system to use when faced with a project. Horses for courses, and all that.
Click to expand...
maybe, but gfx isn’t that much more expensive than higher end ff, with material improvements in image quality, so i would say the trade offs point in the MF direction.
Click to expand...
Depends on the situation. For portraits, these days I always use FF. Most likely a Z8 and the Plena for tight shots. Also the Z8 and the 105/1.4.
Click to expand...
Well thinking about it from a film perspective, if there was no cost to using larger format film, people would have tended to use Medium format I think, not sure about large format, but I don't see that many advantages beyond cost of doing 35mm over 120. So I would imagine the same to be true for digital.

For me, I think the downside of GFX / X-system, beyond the lack of my favorite lenses, is that it isn't that much larger than FF. if they had used the 53x40 sensor it would be a no brainer. What I will say is that they have been able to retain a lot of the larger MF format benefits even in a crop-MF system. But this was sort of true of APS-C as well, and partially stems from the greater light sensitivity of digital over film.
 
SafariBob said:
JimKasson said:
SafariBob said:
JimKasson said:
SafariBob said:
I think it's true, that if you can live with the limitations of the GFX/X-system, then you are unlikely to want to use FF.
Click to expand...
And vice versa. I am hardly ever torn between which system to use when faced with a project. Horses for courses, and all that.
Click to expand...
maybe, but gfx isn’t that much more expensive than higher end ff, with material improvements in image quality, so i would say the trade offs point in the MF direction.
Click to expand...
Depends on the situation. For portraits, these days I always use FF. Most likely a Z8 and the Plena for tight shots. Also the Z8 and the 105/1.4.
Click to expand...
Well thinking about it from a film perspective, if there was no cost to using larger format film, people would have tended to use Medium format I think, not sure about large format, but I don't see that many advantages beyond cost of doing 35mm over 120. So I would imagine the same to be true for digital.
Click to expand...
A few advantages of FF over MF:
  • Frame rate
  • Noise, for stacked sensor cameras
  • AF speed
  • AF reliability
  • AF modes
  • Lens selection
I would not use an X2D for portraits, given other alternatives, because of its AF limitations. I have successfully used a GFX 100x for portraits, but like the results and the process better with the Z8 and the two lenses above.
SafariBob said:
For me, I think the downside of GFX / X-system, beyond the lack of my favorite lenses, is that it isn't that much larger than FF. if they had used the 53x40 sensor it would be a no brainer. What I will say is that they have been able to retain a lot of the larger MF format benefits even in a crop-MF system. But this was sort of true of APS-C as well, and partially stems from the greater light sensitivity of digital over film.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
DOF and low light performance of medium format vs full frame
2
Replies
38
Views
21K
Stan Disbrow
Stan Disbrow
AfzalKhanVisuals
I want to upgrade from Full Frame to Medium Format.
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
21K
AfzalKhanVisuals
AfzalKhanVisuals
Jeroen1969
Newbee to the Medium Format Universe
2 3
Replies
49
Views
12K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
greyhoundrick
  • Question Question
?: Your recommendations for a lower priced Med Format camera
2
Replies
37
Views
7K
Benjamin Kanarek
Benjamin Kanarek
the-ninth
Upgrade to medium format from Canon full-frame
3 4 5
Replies
82
Views
12K
Mikhail Kartashov
M

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top