How much IQ do you really lose with a Canon?

[emdundronald]

Hi-

When I had a Hassy it was really better than my Leica. Every ilage was just better. When I got a Phase back, IQ was really better on the back vs. a Canon dslr, Mamiya lenses were good, and the Phamiya was horrible, especially focus speed.

Now I have a choice between getting a 50 or 100MP Sony sensor camera (Fuji or Hassy) or a Canon or Sony between 45 and 60MP. What real difference will I see in image quality if I don’t enlarge/crop hugely?

 

[JNK 100]

It will depend how large you print.

A3+ probably would show very little benefit if any .

 

[Miriquidi]

Now I have a choice between getting a 50 or 100MP Sony sensor camera (Fuji or Hassy) or a Canon or Sony between 45 and 60MP. What real difference will I see in image quality if I don’t enlarge/crop hugely?

As you are writing here, you probably have already a quite modern camera. What's the benefit you're expecting from an upgrade? If it's a non fixed-lens-camera, what about your old lenses?

It's a bit strange, that you have Hasselblad and Fuji (both not that good AF) and Canon and Sony on the list (both very good AF). If the AF of a Hasselblad is fine and you need that much resolution, I would look to a Panasonic S1RII. There you have an open mount with several good optics manufacturers.

By the way.:How did you focus your PhaseOne/Mamiya System, when you had it. You were frustrated by the autofocus with the one AF-point or was it anything different?

 

[Macro guy]

I've lost at least 15 points with my Canon

 

[BuhI]

I've lost at least 15 points with my Canon

Had I only known back then :-( I had Canons years before being tested.

 

[Macro guy]

I've lost at least 15 points with my Canon

Had I only known back then :-( I had Canons years before being tested.

It's better not to know

 

[Schrodingers cat]

We will likely be judging in different manners using different criteria.

For your situation, the only answer that holds up is "rent first".

Were I judging the question in regard to my personal situation, I'd say not much, but YMMV. Like to pixel peep? Reading between the lines, I suspect you are more discerning than most users.

I have had Hasselblad cameras with both 50 and 100 mm sensors and like to crop hard. The 100 works better for me. I have a 45mm sensor body and don't find it terribly insufficient compared to my 100mp body as long as I don't crop hard. I've never had a 60mp body.

Not being on instagram I was only able to see a handful of your images, but in my view the subject matter would be well served by any of the cameras mentioned.

--
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.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

I think you need to link us to a portfolio of you most common images. For example if you were to always shoot with a 600mm f4 on a Canon or Sony, then GFX is not for you , as even the longest available lens , the 500, is only equivalent to a 400mm on 35mm.

If you are a general travel,landscape and hobby shooter , or a professional that does mostly commercial and industrial stuff, then the GFX 100s II or GFX 100 II are great choices. My GFX 100S II body was around $4500 and zoom lenses can be found when on offer for £1500 to £1800 and are great. So prices are quite competitive against Canon R for example. Its so nice to be able to crop a frame by 50% or more and still create a big print without having to lower the pixels per inch to low quality levels.

There are weak points , like the near focus compare to 35mm lenses, but with a Fringer adapter or similar your lens choice is enormous and allows all the old favorite 645 and some 35mm optics.

 

[Crispy_Bee]

The question is: what do you mean by "image quality"?

If it's sharpness, resolution, detail,... then you need to look at lenses and your technique and - most important of all - aperture. No sense in shooting a 100MP image at f16 or f22.

In the past when 35mm lenses with a wide aperture were somewhat soft wide open, medium format allowed for a very nice background separation with a very sharp in-focus subject - but that was mainly with larger medium format such as 6x7 (or 645 with certain lenses such as the Mamiya 80mm 1.9).
Back then medium format was also great because of the small grain size in relation to the subject and magnification for printing, allowing for cleaner images. But with modern fullframe sensors the actual real difference is....negligible. And many modern lenses (for fullframe) are super sharp wide open, allowing for background separation with precise and fast autofocus - all with the benefits of IBIS, low noise levels, wide dynamic range even at higher ISOs,... what more can you want?

The only real difference that still remains is the image ratio of 4:3 (for GFX sensors at least), which can be an advantage as it requires less cropping for more square formats (such as 4:5 for example).
But in the end it's a question of needs and requirements and what's available in terms of lens selection, other accessories.... For example: If you're into wildlife photography and/or macro photography, a smaller format with a wider lens selection (such as actual 1x macro lenses, focal lengths beyond a rather slow 500mm, a fast 300mm) and a way faster and more accurate auto-focus makes far more sense.

My advice: Rent, borrow, test, try out and compare. Don't just buy into medium format hoping or expecting to get a better results and/or a higher image quality.

 

[SrMi]

When resizing a 50MP and a 100MP image to the same size, a difference in detail can be observed. Having more data is always suitable for post-processing (NR, transformations).

Whether the difference matters to you is a subjective opinion.

Additionally, IQ is not solely determined by sensor size and resolution.

 

[JimKasson]

Hi-

When I had a Hassy it was really better than my Leica. Every ilage was just better. When I got a Phase back, IQ was really better on the back vs. a Canon dslr, Mamiya lenses were good, and the Phamiya was horrible, especially focus speed.

Now I have a choice between getting a 50 or 100MP Sony sensor camera (Fuji or Hassy) or a Canon or Sony between 45 and 60MP. What real difference will I see in image quality if I don’t enlarge/crop hugely?

There was a time when the gap between full-frame and medium format digital cameras was easy to see. When full-frame sensors topped out around 16 megapixels and medium format backs delivered 39 megapixels, the difference in detail and tonal smoothness was hard to miss. If you were printing large or needed the most image information possible, medium format was often the only choice. Full-frame was good, but not in the same league.

Today, the numbers have grown but the ratio has stayed roughly the same. Full-frame cameras now commonly offer around 50 megapixels, while medium format systems deliver anywhere from 100 to 150 megapixels. On paper, the same advantage remains. Medium format still gathers more data, still has larger photosites for a given resolution, and still offers potentially better tonal rendering and microcontrast. But the practical differences between formats have become less clear, especially in typical viewing conditions.

A major reason for this shift is how we consume images. Most photographs today are viewed on screens, and most screens fall far short of matching even 24 megapixels in resolution. A 4K display is roughly 8 megapixels, and even 8K monitors barely reach 33 megapixels. Meanwhile, large prints have become less common, and when they do appear, they are often seen at a distance where added resolution doesn’t translate into perceptible detail.

The result is that full-frame cameras often deliver what is effectively “good enough” quality for most uses. The leap from 16 to 50 megapixels brought full-frame into a zone where its images satisfy the needs of most photographers and viewers. Medium format still offers technical advantages, but those benefits have become subtler and more situational. They may show up in huge gallery prints, demanding commercial work, or in the hands of photographers who are meticulous about extracting every ounce of image quality. But for many others, the cost, weight, and workflow differences make full-frame the more practical tool.

It’s not that medium format has lost its edge. It’s that full-frame has closed the gap enough that for many purposes, the distinction no longer matters. The camera that delivers the results you need is the one that’s right for the job, and today, that’s more likely to be a full-frame body than it was when the pixel counts were lower and the differences more stark.

 

[SrMi]

Hi-

When I had a Hassy it was really better than my Leica. Every ilage was just better. When I got a Phase back, IQ was really better on the back vs. a Canon dslr, Mamiya lenses were good, and the Phamiya was horrible, especially focus speed.

Now I have a choice between getting a 50 or 100MP Sony sensor camera (Fuji or Hassy) or a Canon or Sony between 45 and 60MP. What real difference will I see in image quality if I don’t enlarge/crop hugely?

There was a time when the gap between full-frame and medium format digital cameras was easy to see. When full-frame sensors topped out around 16 megapixels and medium format backs delivered 39 megapixels, the difference in detail and tonal smoothness was hard to miss. If you were printing large or needed the most image information possible, medium format was often the only choice. Full-frame was good, but not in the same league.

Today, the numbers have grown but the ratio has stayed roughly the same. Full-frame cameras now commonly offer around 50 megapixels, while medium format systems deliver anywhere from 100 to 150 megapixels. On paper, the same advantage remains. Medium format still gathers more data, still has larger photosites for a given resolution, and still offers potentially better tonal rendering and microcontrast. But the practical differences between formats have become less clear, especially in typical viewing conditions.

A major reason for this shift is how we consume images. Most photographs today are viewed on screens, and most screens fall far short of matching even 24 megapixels in resolution. A 4K display is roughly 8 megapixels, and even 8K monitors barely reach 33 megapixels. Meanwhile, large prints have become less common, and when they do appear, they are often seen at a distance where added resolution doesn’t translate into perceptible detail.

The result is that full-frame cameras often deliver what is effectively “good enough” quality for most uses. The leap from 16 to 50 megapixels brought full-frame into a zone where its images satisfy the needs of most photographers and viewers. Medium format still offers technical advantages, but those benefits have become subtler and more situational. They may show up in huge gallery prints, demanding commercial work, or in the hands of photographers who are meticulous about extracting every ounce of image quality. But for many others, the cost, weight, and workflow differences make full-frame the more practical tool.

It’s not that medium format has lost its edge. It’s that full-frame has closed the gap enough that for many purposes, the distinction no longer matters. The camera that delivers the results you need is the one that’s right for the job, and today, that’s more likely to be a full-frame body than it was when the pixel counts were lower and the differences more stark.

Except for pixel peeping, which I enjoy but do not assign to ultimate importance, I agree that the difference between MF and FF has shrunk. What remains is the difference between systems, specifically camera bodies and the available lenses for each system. For me, that has become a more relevant criterion than the resolution.

 

[UsherFellig]

Hi-

When I had a Hassy it was really better than my Leica. Every ilage was just better. When I got a Phase back, IQ was really better on the back vs. a Canon dslr, Mamiya lenses were good, and the Phamiya was horrible, especially focus speed.

Now I have a choice between getting a 50 or 100MP Sony sensor camera (Fuji or Hassy) or a Canon or Sony between 45 and 60MP. What real difference will I see in image quality if I don’t enlarge/crop hugely?

With a FF 40-61mp Canon, Sony or Nikon, you "only" or "merely" get the technical IQ of 6X6, 6X7, and 6X9 on 120 film, and in the higher reaches of that rez count you will "only" or "merely" be in the technical IQ territory of 4X5 film.

How will you ever be able to endure the degradation of it? Of course, it could be worse. You could really lower yourself and go 24mp on FF, in which case you will "only" have technical IQ around equal to that of 645 120 film.

Another way of putting it is unless you crop a lot or frequently print bigger than, say, 20X30" (that's being conservative Re print size), you're not losing anything significant. Of course, many digital MF users will insist the dynamic range and editing malleability, etc., is something at another level, and perhaps it is. But for practical purposes, well, . . .

 

[Miriquidi]

[...]

It’s not that medium format has lost its edge. It’s that full-frame has closed the gap enough that for many purposes, the distinction no longer matters. The camera that delivers the results you need is the one that’s right for the job, and today, that’s more likely to be a full-frame body than it was when the pixel counts were lower and the differences more stark.

Well written, also the rest.

One argument I want to place in the room: If a R5 is so good, that it doesn't matter anymore, than for most people an APS-C camera with the 40 MP Fujifilm sensor can also be considered good enough. If you have good optics, skill, enough light, ....

One big difference between most digital medium format and full frame (&APS-C) sensors is the aspect ratio. To me that's important, my brain doesn't work with 3:2, especially in portrait orientation.

 

[SrMi]

[...]

It’s not that medium format has lost its edge. It’s that full-frame has closed the gap enough that for many purposes, the distinction no longer matters. The camera that delivers the results you need is the one that’s right for the job, and today, that’s more likely to be a full-frame body than it was when the pixel counts were lower and the differences more stark.

Well written, also the rest.

One argument I want to place in the room: If a R5 is so good, that it doesn't matter anymore, than for most people an APS-C camera with the 40 MP Fujifilm sensor can also be considered good enough. If you have good optics, skill, enough light, ....

One big difference between most digital medium format and full frame (&APS-C) sensors is the aspect ratio. To me that's important, my brain doesn't work with 3:2, especially in portrait orientation.

If APS-C is good enough, then m43 is good enough as well , and it uses the "correct" ratio.

 

[Macro guy]

[...]

It’s not that medium format has lost its edge. It’s that full-frame has closed the gap enough that for many purposes, the distinction no longer matters. The camera that delivers the results you need is the one that’s right for the job, and today, that’s more likely to be a full-frame body than it was when the pixel counts were lower and the differences more stark.

Well written, also the rest.

One argument I want to place in the room: If a R5 is so good, that it doesn't matter anymore, than for most people an APS-C camera with the 40 MP Fujifilm sensor can also be considered good enough. If you have good optics, skill, enough light, ....

One big difference between most digital medium format and full frame (&APS-C) sensors is the aspect ratio. To me that's important, my brain doesn't work with 3:2, especially in portrait orientation.

If APS-C is good enough, then m43 is good enough as well , and it uses the "correct" ratio.

An easy way to get an idea whether m43 is good enough is to use your GFX at ISO 640 as your base ISO or crop down to 15mp.

 

[SrMi]

[...]

It’s not that medium format has lost its edge. It’s that full-frame has closed the gap enough that for many purposes, the distinction no longer matters. The camera that delivers the results you need is the one that’s right for the job, and today, that’s more likely to be a full-frame body than it was when the pixel counts were lower and the differences more stark.

Well written, also the rest.

One argument I want to place in the room: If a R5 is so good, that it doesn't matter anymore, than for most people an APS-C camera with the 40 MP Fujifilm sensor can also be considered good enough. If you have good optics, skill, enough light, ....

One big difference between most digital medium format and full frame (&APS-C) sensors is the aspect ratio. To me that's important, my brain doesn't work with 3:2, especially in portrait orientation.

If APS-C is good enough, then m43 is good enough as well , and it uses the "correct" ratio.

An easy way to get an idea whether m43 is good enough is to use your GFX at ISO 640 as your base ISO or crop down to 15mp.

I was joking about the argument that because there is little difference between MF and FF, little difference between FF and APS-C, and little difference between APS-C and m43, then there muste be little difference between m43 and MF. I do not believe that is the case, though some m43 cameras can produce PDRs that are close to MF's PDRs (in-camera frame averaging).

 

[Miriquidi]

If APS-C is good enough, then m43 is good enough as well , and it uses the "correct" ratio.

I use µ4/3s myself. But I don't agree that its good enough in the way Jim wrote about it. Jim essentially wrote, that pictures from modern high-res full frame and cop-medium-format cameras (with proper shooting technique, ... ) can't be distinguished on essentially all "non-professional" print / view media anymore. That clearly don't apply to µ4/3s, as it is stagnating at 20 or 25 MP.

The µ4/3s systems is build for temporal image resolution, not lateral image resolution, at a rather affordable price. That are two points, people here are not looking for.

Maybe one day OMDS brings a camera lacking Quad-Pixel-AF and use it's 80 MP Sensor with full resolution.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

Using that reasoning, there is little difference between one step and another going down from upstairs, but I do wish you luck if you slip and traverse four steps in one motion !

 

[JimKasson]

If APS-C is good enough, then m43 is good enough as well , and it uses the "correct" ratio.

I use µ4/3s myself. But I don't agree that its good enough in the way Jim wrote about it. Jim essentially wrote, that pictures from modern high-res full frame and cop-medium-format cameras (with proper shooting technique, ... ) can't be distinguished on essentially all "non-professional" print / view media anymore.

I think that’s an overstatement of what I wrote, although with the right definition of nonprofessional maybe not. I said that the number of situations in which FF is good enough is increasing with time, though.

That clearly don't apply to µ4/3s, as it is stagnating at 20 or 25 MP.

The µ4/3s systems is build for temporal image resolution, not lateral image resolution, at a rather affordable price. That are two points, people here are not looking for.

Maybe one day OMDS brings a camera lacking Quad-Pixel-AF and use it's 80 MP Sensor with full resolution.