How much IQ do you really lose with a Canon?

[Teila Day]

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.

...

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.

.... and to think that not too long ago, I used to catch stink eye for saying such

Well this discussion has mostly gone the way I expected. Fullframe seems to be a lot closer to MF these days than once upon a time.

Most definitely.

Of course in the same period phones grew up, grew teeth, and mostly killed the point and shoot and low end camcorders.

Correct.

Edmund
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

Today there is little practical advantage of medium format outside of the 100 and 150mp offerings. I'd be really hard pressed to buy a 100mp body years ago, let alone today. Leaf shutters add real-world utility. To my eye.. the aging 150mp Phase one is really the only game in town when it comes to buying a new medium format camera, and it's long-in-the-tooth. However the IQ4 back is feature rich.

The 50MP cameras are the best for long exposures with LENR disabled. No hot pixel trouble and you have shutter speeds up to an hour so no cable release flapping in the breeze.

Worlds above bodies from a few iterations back, that's for sure. I wish all bodies offered at least an hour open shutter by default. The Phase/IQ4 does as well. I expect to see innovative strides in noise reduction and highlight protection via "AI" in future bodies. I can imagine some really neat patents coming down the pipe in that regard.

 

[Teila Day]

I was hoping I'd get to see a digital 6x7'ish solution a 645 size body with a sensor larger than 54x40'ish some day, and enough pixels to rival 8x10 image quality (technically highly unlikely/non feasible of course). What about 250mp on a 54x40'ish slab? Maybe?

That hope had a real rationale in the oughts, when digital technology was in a crude stage. But if the reference is to analogue 6X7, that IQ, detail resolution and level of print enlargeability has indeed arrived and has arrived in portable, almost shockingly convenient and affordable form in today's 40-60mp FF sensors. With IBIS.

Indeed it has. However this part... "and enough pixels to rival 8x10 image quality". We're almost there with 150mp, but not quite. I really do like the 6x7 aspect ratio, but I understand how unrealistic a 67x56 sensor would be. You mentioned portability - that's a marvel in itself today. People can get 4x5 quality today, from a small camera, with AF, 6fps, IBIS, lens stabilization, etc.. just makes you 'chuckle' when you compare today to 'back then'. I hope I get to see more of what tomorrow brings in visual arts technology.

Not talking about you now, but these stupendous advances are simply not appreciated and marveled over enough today. You can buy a Nikon Z7 like new for a grand. The photo era we are now seeing is nothing short of amazing.

Definitely. The advances that a photographer has to work with today is really heads above yesteryear camera bodies film or digital. It wasn't too long ago (or so it feels) that cameras like the Nikon D2x and Canon 5D were heavy hitters. Today, you definitely get more performance per dollar spent.

You couldn't be more correct.

 

[JNK 100]

I'm an open source guy these days and now I've got used to darktable. I find it vastly superior to lightroom. It's masking tools and the ability to duplicate processing modules each with their own set of masks are effectively like layers and masks in photoshop.

No way I would ever go back to any software that has an actual or even a threat of a subscription model hanging over it.

I think subscription models create competition

I would never have bought Affinity otherwise
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

My problem with subscription models is what happens if you stop paying. An approach I think would make them perfectly reasonable options, would be if is as soon as your subs lapse, you are no longer able to import new images, but it continues to work with your back catalogue, enabling you to do everything to those images forever.

But the method they do use, means effectively they own your past edits. It's not like you can export your raws and sidecar files to a new program and carry on as if nothing has changed. The best you can do is export your entire back catalogue as finalised tiffs or jpgs.

I see signing up to a subscription editor as a voluntary handing over of your past edits as hostages to ensure you continue to subscribe for the rest of your life. I don't like being manipulated and blackmailed like this, so no subscriptions for me. Not for image editing. Too much invested in my edits.

In 2019 I went open source, and switched full time to Ubuntu Linux and darktable (I'd been running dual boot on and off for years). As a Windows/LR guy, it took a while for me to really figure out darktable, plus a few version upgrades until it worked like I wanted, but now I'm up to speed with it, I wouldn't go back to Windows/lightroom even if they made it free.

I do keep a second box running with win 10 and LR 6.14, the final lifetime licence version. This is for all my pre 2019 images that I never figured out how to convert to darktable. Darktable supports some LR features and can import them, but many it doesn't, which means you can't transfer your LR edits into darktable a useful way. I also find the print module in LR to be better than darktable's. That hasn't had much attention or upgrades in years for some reason. It's almost like the devs don't think printing is worth spending dev time on...

I feel the same way about LR - it doesn't sit right with me.

DXO Photolab works better for me in any case and it is just a one-off payment.

It has the best NR in the business too in my opinion.

 

[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.

...

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.

.... and to think that not too long ago, I used to catch stink eye for saying such

Well this discussion has mostly gone the way I expected. Fullframe seems to be a lot closer to MF these days than once upon a time.

Most definitely.

Of course in the same period phones grew up, grew teeth, and mostly killed the point and shoot and low end camcorders.

Correct.

Edmund
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

Today there is little practical advantage of medium format outside of the 100 and 150mp offerings. I'd be really hard pressed to buy a 100mp body years ago, let alone today. Leaf shutters add real-world utility. To my eye.. the aging 150mp Phase one is really the only game in town when it comes to buying a new medium format camera, and it's long-in-the-tooth. However the IQ4 back is feature rich.

The 50MP cameras are the best for long exposures with LENR disabled. No hot pixel trouble and you have shutter speeds up to an hour so no cable release flapping in the breeze.

Worlds above bodies from a few iterations back, that's for sure. I wish all bodies offered at least an hour open shutter by default. The Phase/IQ4 does as well. I expect to see innovative strides in noise reduction and highlight protection via "AI" in future bodies. I can imagine some really neat patents coming down the pipe in that regard.

Now that cameras have built in intervalometers the need for long shutter speeds is diminished.

 

[SrMi]

I'm an open source guy these days and now I've got used to darktable. I find it vastly superior to lightroom. It's masking tools and the ability to duplicate processing modules each with their own set of masks are effectively like layers and masks in photoshop.

No way I would ever go back to any software that has an actual or even a threat of a subscription model hanging over it.

I think subscription models create competition

I would never have bought Affinity otherwise
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

My problem with subscription models is what happens if you stop paying. An approach I think would make them perfectly reasonable options, would be if is as soon as your subs lapse, you are no longer able to import new images, but it continues to work with your back catalogue, enabling you to do everything to those images forever.

But the method they do use, means effectively they own your past edits. It's not like you can export your raws and sidecar files to a new program and carry on as if nothing has changed. The best you can do is export your entire back catalogue as finalised tiffs or jpgs.

I see signing up to a subscription editor as a voluntary handing over of your past edits as hostages to ensure you continue to subscribe for the rest of your life. I don't like being manipulated and blackmailed like this, so no subscriptions for me. Not for image editing. Too much invested in my edits.

In 2019 I went open source, and switched full time to Ubuntu Linux and darktable (I'd been running dual boot on and off for years). As a Windows/LR guy, it took a while for me to really figure out darktable, plus a few version upgrades until it worked like I wanted, but now I'm up to speed with it, I wouldn't go back to Windows/lightroom even if they made it free.

I do keep a second box running with win 10 and LR 6.14, the final lifetime licence version. This is for all my pre 2019 images that I never figured out how to convert to darktable. Darktable supports some LR features and can import them, but many it doesn't, which means you can't transfer your LR edits into darktable a useful way. I also find the print module in LR to be better than darktable's. That hasn't had much attention or upgrades in years for some reason. It's almost like the devs don't think printing is worth spending dev time on...

I feel the same way about LR - it doesn't sit right with me.

DXO Photolab works better for me in any case and it is just a one-off payment.

It has the best NR in the business too in my opinion.

DxO Photolab is not a one-off payment for me as I regularly need to buy updates to add new/improved features and new cameras and lenses.

 

[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.

...

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.

.... and to think that not too long ago, I used to catch stink eye for saying such

Well this discussion has mostly gone the way I expected. Fullframe seems to be a lot closer to MF these days than once upon a time.

Most definitely.

Of course in the same period phones grew up, grew teeth, and mostly killed the point and shoot and low end camcorders.

Correct.

Edmund
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

Today there is little practical advantage of medium format outside of the 100 and 150mp offerings. I'd be really hard pressed to buy a 100mp body years ago, let alone today. Leaf shutters add real-world utility. To my eye.. the aging 150mp Phase one is really the only game in town when it comes to buying a new medium format camera, and it's long-in-the-tooth. However the IQ4 back is feature rich.

The 50MP cameras are the best for long exposures with LENR disabled. No hot pixel trouble and you have shutter speeds up to an hour so no cable release flapping in the breeze.

Worlds above bodies from a few iterations back, that's for sure. I wish all bodies offered at least an hour open shutter by default. The Phase/IQ4 does as well. I expect to see innovative strides in noise reduction and highlight protection via "AI" in future bodies. I can imagine some really neat patents coming down the pipe in that regard.

Now that cameras have built in intervalometers the need for long shutter speeds is diminished.

I assume you are thinking of frame averaging. Without in-camera support, the challenge of handling gaps between frames remains.

--
https://blog.kasson.com

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

It also matters what output aspect ratio you want. I want 5:4 as in a 16x20" print. So I must frame accordingly and crop to get there. And I have to crop a significantly greater amount to get to 5:4 from 3:2 than I do from 4:3.

I will have significantly greater resolution left from a 100 MP MF sensor after the crop than I will from a 60 MP FF one.

Stan

 

[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.

...

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.

.... and to think that not too long ago, I used to catch stink eye for saying such

Well this discussion has mostly gone the way I expected. Fullframe seems to be a lot closer to MF these days than once upon a time.

Most definitely.

Of course in the same period phones grew up, grew teeth, and mostly killed the point and shoot and low end camcorders.

Correct.

Edmund
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

Today there is little practical advantage of medium format outside of the 100 and 150mp offerings. I'd be really hard pressed to buy a 100mp body years ago, let alone today. Leaf shutters add real-world utility. To my eye.. the aging 150mp Phase one is really the only game in town when it comes to buying a new medium format camera, and it's long-in-the-tooth. However the IQ4 back is feature rich.

The 50MP cameras are the best for long exposures with LENR disabled. No hot pixel trouble and you have shutter speeds up to an hour so no cable release flapping in the breeze.

Worlds above bodies from a few iterations back, that's for sure. I wish all bodies offered at least an hour open shutter by default. The Phase/IQ4 does as well. I expect to see innovative strides in noise reduction and highlight protection via "AI" in future bodies. I can imagine some really neat patents coming down the pipe in that regard.

Now that cameras have built in intervalometers the need for long shutter speeds is diminished.

I assume you are thinking of frame averaging. Without in-camera support, the challenge of handling gaps between frames remains.

I’ve never found that to be a problem in practice.

 

[kciuk aka Ken60]

Exactly, make a square print from a 45mp 35mm digital, and lets print it big at 300ppi. At 300ppi you have 19" max ! whereas the GFX would offer 28" .

 

[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.

...

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.

.... and to think that not too long ago, I used to catch stink eye for saying such

Well this discussion has mostly gone the way I expected. Fullframe seems to be a lot closer to MF these days than once upon a time.

Most definitely.

Of course in the same period phones grew up, grew teeth, and mostly killed the point and shoot and low end camcorders.

Correct.

Edmund
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

Today there is little practical advantage of medium format outside of the 100 and 150mp offerings. I'd be really hard pressed to buy a 100mp body years ago, let alone today. Leaf shutters add real-world utility. To my eye.. the aging 150mp Phase one is really the only game in town when it comes to buying a new medium format camera, and it's long-in-the-tooth. However the IQ4 back is feature rich.

The 50MP cameras are the best for long exposures with LENR disabled. No hot pixel trouble and you have shutter speeds up to an hour so no cable release flapping in the breeze.

Worlds above bodies from a few iterations back, that's for sure. I wish all bodies offered at least an hour open shutter by default. The Phase/IQ4 does as well. I expect to see innovative strides in noise reduction and highlight protection via "AI" in future bodies. I can imagine some really neat patents coming down the pipe in that regard.

Now that cameras have built in intervalometers the need for long shutter speeds is diminished.

I assume you are thinking of frame averaging. Without in-camera support, the challenge of handling gaps between frames remains.

I’ve never found that to be a problem in practice.

It is quite common when you have movement in the scene. E.g., Olympus does not allow shutter speeds faster than the sensor readout time, and Phase One warns if the shutter speed is too fast and will show gaps.

 

[Stan Disbrow]

Hi,

My textile printer is happy with 300 PPI. My paper printer wants 360 PPI. I would prefer to feed any printer actual captured pixels as opposed to made up ones.

That said, I could get by with the 60 MP sensor in a FF camera or the 50 MP in an MF one.

Stan

 

[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.

...

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.

.... and to think that not too long ago, I used to catch stink eye for saying such

Well this discussion has mostly gone the way I expected. Fullframe seems to be a lot closer to MF these days than once upon a time.

Most definitely.

Of course in the same period phones grew up, grew teeth, and mostly killed the point and shoot and low end camcorders.

Correct.

Edmund
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

Today there is little practical advantage of medium format outside of the 100 and 150mp offerings. I'd be really hard pressed to buy a 100mp body years ago, let alone today. Leaf shutters add real-world utility. To my eye.. the aging 150mp Phase one is really the only game in town when it comes to buying a new medium format camera, and it's long-in-the-tooth. However the IQ4 back is feature rich.

The 50MP cameras are the best for long exposures with LENR disabled. No hot pixel trouble and you have shutter speeds up to an hour so no cable release flapping in the breeze.

Worlds above bodies from a few iterations back, that's for sure. I wish all bodies offered at least an hour open shutter by default. The Phase/IQ4 does as well. I expect to see innovative strides in noise reduction and highlight protection via "AI" in future bodies. I can imagine some really neat patents coming down the pipe in that regard.

Now that cameras have built in intervalometers the need for long shutter speeds is diminished.

I assume you are thinking of frame averaging. Without in-camera support, the challenge of handling gaps between frames remains.

I’ve never found that to be a problem in practice.

It is quite common when you have movement in the scene.

Never seen it. If doing star trails, I guess it could be an issue, but there are apps to fix that.

E.g., Olympus does not allow shutter speeds faster than the sensor readout time,

Isn't the whole point to get long effective exposures? Why have a short base exposure?

and Phase One warns if the shutter speed is too fast and will show gaps.

 

[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.

...

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.

.... and to think that not too long ago, I used to catch stink eye for saying such

Well this discussion has mostly gone the way I expected. Fullframe seems to be a lot closer to MF these days than once upon a time.

Most definitely.

Of course in the same period phones grew up, grew teeth, and mostly killed the point and shoot and low end camcorders.

Correct.

Edmund
--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald

Today there is little practical advantage of medium format outside of the 100 and 150mp offerings. I'd be really hard pressed to buy a 100mp body years ago, let alone today. Leaf shutters add real-world utility. To my eye.. the aging 150mp Phase one is really the only game in town when it comes to buying a new medium format camera, and it's long-in-the-tooth. However the IQ4 back is feature rich.

The 50MP cameras are the best for long exposures with LENR disabled. No hot pixel trouble and you have shutter speeds up to an hour so no cable release flapping in the breeze.

Worlds above bodies from a few iterations back, that's for sure. I wish all bodies offered at least an hour open shutter by default. The Phase/IQ4 does as well. I expect to see innovative strides in noise reduction and highlight protection via "AI" in future bodies. I can imagine some really neat patents coming down the pipe in that regard.

Now that cameras have built in intervalometers the need for long shutter speeds is diminished.

I assume you are thinking of frame averaging. Without in-camera support, the challenge of handling gaps between frames remains.

I’ve never found that to be a problem in practice.

It is quite common when you have movement in the scene.

Never seen it. If doing star trails, I guess it could be an issue, but there are apps to fix that.

I was thinking more of people, vehicles, and branches.

E.g., Olympus does not allow shutter speeds faster than the sensor readout time,

Isn't the whole point to get long effective exposures? Why have a short base exposure?

Sorry, I was not clear. The shutter speed of a single frame must be slower than the readout time.

and Phase One warns if the shutter speed is too fast and will show gaps.

 

[DavidMillier]

I didn't have a lot of luck when I tried frame averaging in post. It's a shame that only Phase One provide it in camera (not sure whether the Olympus version is the same?).

My problem is that darktable comes with a beautiful Lua script for automatically stacking and combining raws. Unfortunately, I have found it frustratingly unreliable. Sometimes it works perfectly and sometimes it does all the stacking and aligning then falls over without outputting anything. I'm sure there must be a way of diagnosing what is going on; I've made my attempts without getting to the bottom of it and gave up. Pity, because it is a neat tool. I don't want to mess about with multiple software products to process my images, I want to do everything in darktable and for the most part it just works. But this one has defeated me.

 

[SrMi]

I didn't have a lot of luck when I tried frame averaging in post. It's a shame that only Phase One provide it in camera (not sure whether the Olympus version is the same?).

Some Olympus cameras provide it as well but "only" up to 128 frames. Pentax DSLRs may also have it and Nikon DSLRs have multiple exposure (raw results) which can be used for averaging as well (up to 9 frames?).

My problem is that darktable comes with a beautiful Lua script for automatically stacking and combining raws.

There are command line tools for combining raws but, I know only those for Windows or Mac:

Loading…

github.com

Unfortunately, I have found it frustratingly unreliable. Sometimes it works perfectly and sometimes it does all the stacking and aligning then falls over without outputting anything. I'm sure there must be a way of diagnosing what is going on; I've made my attempts without getting to the bottom of it and gave up. Pity, because it is a neat tool. I don't want to mess about with multiple software products to process my images, I want to do everything in darktable and for the most part it just works. But this one has defeated me.

--
2024: Awarded Royal Photographic Society LRPS Distinction
Photo of the day: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/photo-of-the-day-2025/
Website: https://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/wp/
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)

 

[DavidMillier]

I didn't have a lot of luck when I tried frame averaging in post. It's a shame that only Phase One provide it in camera (not sure whether the Olympus version is the same?).

Some Olympus cameras provide it as well but "only" up to 128 frames. Pentax DSLRs may also have it and Nikon DSLRs have multiple exposure (raw results) which can be used for averaging as well (up to 9 frames?).

My problem is that darktable comes with a beautiful Lua script for automatically stacking and combining raws.

There are command line tools for combining raws but, I know only those for Windows or Mac:

https://github.com/horshack-dpreview/OctaveRawTools#raw-image-stacker

Unfortunately, I have found it frustratingly unreliable. Sometimes it works perfectly and sometimes it does all the stacking and aligning then falls over without outputting anything. I'm sure there must be a way of diagnosing what is going on; I've made my attempts without getting to the bottom of it and gave up. Pity, because it is a neat tool. I don't want to mess about with multiple software products to process my images, I want to do everything in darktable and for the most part it just works. But this one has defeated me.

The darktable Lua script makes use of ImageMagick I think. i am sure an intelligent person could find an error log and debug what is going on but I've had no luck. Sometimes it will happily stack 15 images, sometimes it balks at 2. No idea what causes it to fail. I've played around with every configuration setting and I can't see any settings that make it fail. It just does.

 

[Miriquidi]

Indeed.

Phase one doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling regarding their financial health or having any kind of foothold in the still camera marketplace. I'm not seeing eager support / updates that breathe life or consumer confidence in the XF line.

Do you have any quantitative insights? I thought, they are more concentrating onto OEM market for industrial and defense industry?

The reservations maybe connected to XF being a DSLR system, what is not the smartest choice for high resolution photography. I remember Nikons D800 and all the problems that arise with that approach, if you're dealing with 36 MP. Taking that technology plattform beyond 200+ MP is a bold task.

 

[Miriquidi]

Indeed it has. However this part... "and enough pixels to rival 8x10 image quality". We're almost there with 150mp, but not quite. I really do like the 6x7 aspect ratio, but I understand how unrealistic a 67x56 sensor would be.

Expect at least a 3:2 aspect ratio for next gen sensors, since it's better for their aerial reconnaissance branch.
New sensors that large won't be stacked CMOS technology, since it costs to much dynamic range. If you would get 250 or 400 MP, how long are you willing to wait for scanning the sensor? And are you willing to dump all your existing XF lenses?
I don't think that going beyond 6x4,5 cm is wise.

 

[Crispy_Bee]

I was hoping I'd get to see a digital 6x7'ish solution a 645 size body with a sensor larger than 54x40'ish some day, and enough pixels to rival 8x10 image quality (technically highly unlikely/non feasible of course). What about 250mp on a 54x40'ish slab? Maybe?

That hope had a real rationale in the oughts, when digital technology was in a crude stage. But if the reference is to analogue 6X7, that IQ, detail resolution and level of print enlargeability has indeed arrived and has arrived in portable, almost shockingly convenient and affordable form in today's 40-60mp FF sensors. With IBIS.

Indeed it has. However this part... "and enough pixels to rival 8x10 image quality". We're almost there with 150mp, but not quite. I really do like the 6x7 aspect ratio, but I understand how unrealistic a 67x56 sensor would be. You mentioned portability - that's a marvel in itself today. People can get 4x5 quality today, from a small camera, with AF, 6fps, IBIS, lens stabilization, etc.. just makes you 'chuckle' when you compare today to 'back then'. I hope I get to see more of what tomorrow brings in visual arts technology.

We're far beyond 8x10" and actually have been even long before the 150MP backs - as long as the lens and shooting technique 'allow' for such a high effective resolution.

But generally speaking: with modern technology like pixel shift and even more importantly focus stacking, we can quickly and easily get resolutions far beyond what would have been possible with film and conventional photography. Even the plain old simple stitching results in better image quality than what large format ever provided.

Now you might say "well, let's just use a larger sensor with more pixels" but it's not that easy. The lenses have to keep up and provide the resolution across the frame at a rather wide aperture on a very large sensor. Easier said than done and the bigger the sensor the more difficult, expensive, heavy and big it'll get (and the AF will have to carry more glass - likewise for OIS).

 

[emdundronald]

I went to have a look at the Canon R5 MarkII today, put a plastic fantastic 50 on it. It's incredibly light and easy to shoot with in that configuration, especially for portraits with the foldout screen. Interestingly, the original R5 feels unbalanced. I think that I prefer the plasticky R5II over the Fuji RF at roughly equivalent price, because the lens on the RF is just a teeny bit too wide and too slow for my use patterns, and because let's face it there is basically no photographic problem the R5 cannot solve with my existing EF lens set.

My intuition after taking a few shots with the Canon is that the Fuji has a better sensor at high ISO by at least one stop, but in low light you lose the advantage because of the slow lens.

We certainly are a bit spoilt for choices these days.

I want to say one more thing: After thinking about what is swaying my decision, it is basically the fact that I like speed of use. I used to shoot the fashion shows here in Paris, and I like taking my pictures very very fast. I like the experience of being behind the viewfinder, composing fast and then choosing the moment when taking stills. The R5 ticks this special box. My Leica doesn't do speed, and my old dSLRs are as obsolete and cumbersome as the dodo.I think I really want the camera I carry with me most to take pictures "thoughtlessly", however strange that may sound.

One interesting ability of the Canon that is not found in MF, AFAIK, is precapture, which almost turns it into a time machine.

I apologize to members of this forum who don't understand such an extended hesitation about a $5K purchase and the need to prioritize between speed of use and quality. I don't like good enough any more than the rest of you, but in the end the camera that gets the shot is the one I need to have with me.

Edmund

--
Ouch, my name is mistyped - my name is Edmund Ronald
http://instagram.com/edmundronald