Digital medium format cameras

A good example of subjective assessment.

These cameras are small enough to use as walk abouts. Maybe not for fast action (or maybe they can be) but they could certainly be used as walk about, day out or holiday cameras. Yes, they may be overkill but if someone has the disposable money and gains pleasure from the lovely files (and has a large HDD) then I say fill your boots :D
 
Last edited:
The medium format sensor really spoils you versus full frame - the colours, dynamic range and ISO - the files are a real pleasure to work with. The whole process of using the Hasselblad camera is far more engaging than the Sony A9.

There is no bragging, only enthusiasm.
That will depend very much on the subject matter medium format is not a good option for motorsports...
 
These cameras are small enough to use as walk abouts. Maybe not for fast action (or maybe they can be) but they could certainly be used as walk about, day out or holiday cameras. Yes, they may be overkill but if someone has the disposable money and gains pleasure from the lovely files (and has a large HDD) then I say fill your boots :D

For landscape/portrait shooters they will be great. I would love one for no other reason that I can. I like photography and by extension I like cameras and camera gear. Beat's alcohol and tobacco and designer clothes :D
 
The question is: how objective are you being? The theory of Cognitive Dissonance suggests that, having spent a great deal on cameras and lenses, some individuals will claim to see enhanced qualities that a disinterested individual will not. This is why subjective opinions on image quality are not to be trusted and efforts to provide a universally accepted set of standards for image quality continue.
I'm not sure about MF cameras, but when Toby (snerkler) posted some images blind taken M43 and FX and processed etc to look the same, it wasn't hard for me to pick the FX images and to know I preferred them, even at the limited size they were displayed on TP.

I think at smaller sizes the difference FX and MF will be harder to see, but still present, and certainly when printed large. Thing is, not everyone will be able to see that, just like not everyone benefits from hifi, but it doesn't stop it being real.
 
For landscape/portrait shooters they will be great. I would love one for no other reason that I can. I like photography and by extension I like cameras and camera gear. Beat's alcohol and tobacco and designer clothes :D

To be honest I would like a Hasselblad X1D but although I could have one (and I know Mrs WW wouldn't object) the fact that I'd spent that much on camera and lens would eat at me which is a little odd considering how much I've wasted on stupid cars over the years :D I suppose even if we're lucky enough to have the money some will always see spending this much on a non essential thing as morally difficult to justify. I have no issue with other people buying this gear, it's a personal decision and some would spend as much on a once in a lifetime (or more often) holiday or quite easily on a new car when they perhaps don't really need one.
 
The question is: how objective are you being? The theory of Cognitive Dissonance suggests that, having spent a great deal on cameras and lenses, some individuals will claim to see enhanced qualities that a disinterested individual will not. This is why subjective opinions on image quality are not to be trusted and efforts to provide a universally accepted set of standards for image quality continue.
Like I said I can only speak for my own experience, I see what I see and would not have kept the GFX if I hadn't seen the difference, the difference is there, I see it and I am not imagining it or making it up to justify the expensive equipment.

Subjectively is, I believe, how most people view photographs myself included but I don't hold a contradictory belief that I am right and someone else is wrong (Cognitive Dissonance) nor do I seek to convert anyone. I take photos for my own pleasure and sometimes share them, if you believe that the 6MP APSC shots are as good I am not trying to convince you otherwise, both your and my opinions are indeed subjective and we are both entitled to them.
 
That will depend very much on the subject matter medium format is not a good option for motorsports...
Then again both medium and large format has been used with success for sports, action and motor sports photography ;)
 
To be honest I would like a Hasselblad X1D but although I could have one (and I know Mrs WW wouldn't object) the fact that I'd spent that much on camera and lens would eat at me which is a little odd considering how much I've wasted on stupid cars over the years :D I suppose even if we're lucky enough to have the money some will always see spending this much on a non essential thing as morally difficult to justify. I have no issue with other people buying this gear, it's a personal decision and some would spend as much on a once in a lifetime (or more often) holiday or quite easily on a new car when they perhaps don't really need one.
If I were you I'd treat myself to the Blad. If we only owned what we needed or consumed what we needed life would be frightfully dull. Having money means you don't have to have a frightfully dull life.
 
...but I don't hold a contradictory belief that I am right and someone else is wrong (Cognitive Dissonance)
Nor do I. The point of my post was to provoke someone to present objective evidence that the MF cameras are better for general use than other cameras, if such evidence exists. So far, my post seems to have failed in that aim.
 
Nor do I. The point of my post was to provoke someone to present objective evidence that the MF cameras are better for general use than other cameras, if such evidence exists. So far, my post seems to have failed in that aim.

Define general use. I only ever take pictures of landscapes and buildings. I have no desire to shoot anything else. Something with a bigger sensor, larger photosites, sharper lenses, more dynamic range will always be better to use. I like pixel peeping and viewing at 100% then zooming out again. I saw a big jump from going from a Nikon D5000 straight to a D800. I cannot imagine I wouldn't see a jump going from my D810 to a 645z or GFX50s.

Indeed @Canon Bob was kind enough to send me a TIFF on from his 645z - and the difference is there - not as big a leap from a D5000 to a D800 but it is certainly there - particularly in the highlights - there is a finesse and subtly I cannot quite describe but it is there. Sharpness wise the lens he sent on to me had no visible edge softening and thats from a 28-45 zoom. I've only really seen that with a long zoom (70-200 2.8) and on the Sigma ART primes on the full frame. The wider Nikon Zooms are laughable in terms of soft edges compared to the centre, just laughable. This thing was sharp as a tack even in the extreme corners. The resolution is a good kick up too. My machine didn't cope with it too well though and you'll want a powerful PC with lots of RAM (think maybe 64gb) and if you use a multi threaded editing suite like C1pro or On1 RAW as many cores/threads as you can possibly afford plus a powerful GPU to take advantage of the hardware acceleration these suites utilise.
 
Last edited:
If I were you I'd treat myself to the Blad. If we only owned what we needed or consumed what we needed life would be frightfully dull. Having money means you don't have to have a frightfully dull life.

I'm happy enough with my creaking old Sony A7 but I do treat myself to new lenses now and again.
 
Then again both medium and large format has been used with success for sports, action and motor sports photography ;)
110 format film has been used for landscapes, that doesn't make it a good option.
In the very early days of motorsports LF would have been the only choice. As far as I know the first MF roll film (Kodak 101) wasn't introduced till a year after the first motor race. The more standard 120 roll film was 5 years later. We've moved on quite a bit since then.

Modern motorsports are much faster paced than they were in the 1890's, average speeds are typically over 10x faster.
To get results you need a responsive system that can be moved around quickly, ideally one that also focuses rapidly - I've used manual focus lenses & spoilt more than a few shots by having unexpected action happen outside of my prefocused zone even the width of the track can make a big difference with long lenses.
 
Last edited:
110 format film has been used for landscapes, that doesn't make it a good option.
In the very early days of motorsports LF would have been the only choice. As far as I know the first MF roll film (Kodak 101) wasn't introduced till a year after the first motor race. The more standard 120 roll film was 5 years later. We've moved on quite a bit since then.

Modern motorsports are much faster paced than they were in the 1890's, average speeds are typically over 10x faster.
To get results you need a responsive system that can be moved around quickly, ideally one that also focuses rapidly - I've used manual focus lenses & spoilt more than a few shots by having unexpected action happen outside of my prefocused zone even the width of the track can make a big difference with long lenses.
Modern films and digital are also over 10x faster now ;)
 
Modern films and digital are also over 10x faster now ;)
True but irrelevant. I didn't suggest Medium format can't be used for motorsports just claimed its not a good option.
Even with the Paris - Rouen endurance race of 1894 with the winners average speed of 10.4mph some better photos would have been possible with less cumbersome cameras. Unfortunately my time machine isn't working - or I wouldn't be in 2020!
 
Something with a bigger sensor, larger photosites, sharper lenses, more dynamic range will always be better to use.
I'm open to being convinced but I know that I have pictures taken with my micro four thirds sensors that please me as much or sometimes more than pictures taken on my full frame sensors. This leads me to think that people who have spent a lot of money on a large sensor system are inclined to see distinctions that others might not agree are present.
 
True but irrelevant. I didn't suggest Medium format can't be used for motorsports just claimed its not a good option.
Even with the Paris - Rouen endurance race of 1894 with the winners average speed of 10.4mph some better photos would have been possible with less cumbersome cameras. Unfortunately my time machine isn't working - or I wouldn't be in 2020!
Well my comments wasnt to get into arguments but rather a hit at the chiseled in stone vores on what difference genres of photography are. The fresh air we get from klages from people with new ideas and sometimes old gear shows its not always about good pans of speeding racing machines
 
Nor do I. The point of my post was to provoke someone to present objective evidence that the MF cameras are better for general use than other cameras, if such evidence exists. So far, my post seems to have failed in that aim.

Andrew, I think a lot of well qualified users might struggle with the phrase 'general use' part of that comment, and would probably reject MF as a better general use tool compared with FF or even crop in some form. If I HAD to have a true general use system then I would probably pick M43 for the advantages it brought with reach for sports and wildlife, low weight for travel, excellent image stabilisation etc, but I don't own a 'general use' system at all, but rather one that's tailored to what I like to photograph.

If I may, I'd like you to come on a journey with me. My first camera as an adult was a 'Cosmic Symbol' - Russian camera-like object that took sort of photographs. I graduated from there to a Pentax SLR, then to Minolta, but never found the results with 35mm satisfying. Even as 6X4 enprints images lacked depth, clarity etc, and when I started printing this became even more obvious. Eventually I acquired a Bronica ETR, and this was much better for taking pictures of places, people & similar, and although image quality wasn't perfect, it was quite acceptable. There are still pictures on my wall taken with this camera that I printed in the late 80's.

Then there was a gap full of children and poverty.

Photography restarted semi-seriously with a 8MP Samsung larger sensor compact (images were visibly better to me than other typical compacts at the time) with eventual acquisition of a 20MP APS-C DSLR. I remember being aware at the time of early ownership never really being happy with image quality, even when using Zeiss lenses, and many of my pictures using this are really hard-looking where I've fought to wring more detail and depth from images. That was eventually replaced with Nikon Fx which helped a bit, but probably due to poor optics, was never really satisfactory even though it was much better. In turn that was replaced with my sony A7, and for the first time since using digital I felt like image quality was fully acceptable - no more was I struggling for greater detail and better tonal gradation through the image, especially where I've started using prime lenses. It's given me a freedom to manage images in a way that's more expressive and less constrained by camera and lens limitations.

However.

There's something about the rendering from a yet larger format camera that I miss. I see it in images from Dan Cook, I sometimes see it in MF film images. There's a way a yet larger sensor renders that I would like: a depth, a smoothness, a sublety that is hard to create with even a full-frame camera. If I owned and used such a tool it wouldn't drastically transform my pictures, but it would make them somewhat better, and as important, they would be more pleasing to *me* than they are now, at least sometimes.

All this is, of course, subjective.

For objective evidence you should probably go look at DXO. :)
 
There's something about the rendering from a yet larger format camera that I miss. I see it in images from Dan Cook, I sometimes see it in MF film images.
This is definitely the case with film. I started out with 35mm in the mid 1960s, using a Pentacon SLR with the 3 element Meritar lens. When I aquired my first 6x6 TLR, a Rollop with the 4 element Ennit, the leap in image quality was immediately clear. When I started using 5x4 the improvement was even more obvious. It was also the case that the difference in quality between negatives on Pan F or Panatomic-X and negatives on HP3 or Tri-X was equally clear.

In the case of digital photography, my experience is that the differences are not so obvious. It is the claim that they are which I am interested in evaluating. I don't state that there are no differences but I do not as yet see any clear evidence that the output from a MF digital will be obviously better in any manner than the output from a good quality APS digital or even from a MFT compact.
 
Last edited:
I'm open to being convinced but I know that I have pictures taken with my micro four thirds sensors that please me as much or sometimes more than pictures taken on my full frame sensors. This leads me to think that people who have spent a lot of money on a large sensor system are inclined to see distinctions that others might not agree are present.

Do you ever use the 100% preview function. Better camera, same photographer, same place, same time = better results.
 
I think he's saying that if you look really closely you'll see that larger formats give you better results, in a technical sense and if that's what is meant I agree. Sometimes IMO smaller format pictures can look lovely and it may be that only when looking closely any larger format superiority can be seen.
 
I've avoided chiming in because, I feel it will be a waste of my time to convince someone else - and convince them of what exactly, I don't think Andrew should consider digital medium format, he is clearly happy with the image quality of his camera. Digital medium format will probably be a step backward - because image quality is the only place where it excels, you'd be left with a camera that's just slower, that doesn't sound 'better' to me.

I will bring in some JPG examples, but I know how they really don't prove anything, you don't know how they started life - and how do we know a mobile phone wouldn't have given us the exact same photo if you didn't take the two side by side?? well if that's the argument, I'm out because it's not worth my time to argue.


First up..

First four photos were taken at ISO 3200, hand held with no noise reduction - the point being they are what I'd consider very clean, I'd happily shoot ISO 3200 without noticeable deterioration of image quality.

Even at ISO 3200 these images have enough play in them for me to balance the highlights and shadows, in the dog photo towel highlights were overly bright - I can reduce those to a level without noticeable deterioration of image quality.

The general theme of the raw files is that you can push and pull shadows & highlights "without noticeable deterioration of image quality" - it's a reason that I choose to use the X1D II instead of my Sony A9 for professional work when appropriate - the Sony A9 is better for most professional work I do, because I need the fast AF and longer reaching lenses for sports/theatre/concerts.

X1D II - XPAN London by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

X1D II - XPAN London by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

X1D II - Guildford Station by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

907x 45/4 - Yuffie by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

More on dynamic range, within reason, I can be confident that I'm able to balance light/shadows in an image

X1D II - Cinema by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Onto colour.. that's a difficult one (since people will just state they have a difference preference, fine), I much prefer the 14-bit colour output coming from my Hasselblad - and even though I still post process it (for better or worse), it's a better starting point than my Sony A9 - and the Leica Q2.

I've had the X1D, X1D II and now the X907, they all have the same sensor and these portraits are pretty much as Hasselblad X1D gave me them

b1512199.jpg


b1512262.jpg


b1512334.jpg
 
Last edited:
But why bother trying to convince people, I don't care to, I've been told the following photo could have been taken on an iphone and look pretty much the same

X1D II XCD 80mm 1.9 - Louise by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

There's something about using a wide angle lens on a large sensor that gives the wide view with less distortion, and it's seen throughout the range of lenses - I don't think I have anything to share which can help me explain this though.

Lens rendering? just a random assortment- I'm losing momentum now, been stuck at home since March :D I'll just be told .. looks no different..

I know there are better examples out there..

Local walk - x907 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

X1D II - XCD 80mm - Bubblegum Tree by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

X1D II - XCD 135 - Street by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

X1D II - XCD 80 - Yuffie by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Local walk - x907 by Daniel Cook, on Flickr

Oh there is also the added tonal quality that comes with large sensor/colour depth
The beauty and build of the cameras
The lack of lightning AF/fps just makes the process of photography more engaging..

but i would never want to convince someone to buy one, if they needed convincing they will probably be disappointed.
 
Last edited:
There's something about using a wide angle lens on a large sensor that gives the wide view with less distortion, and it's seen throughout the range of lenses - I don't think I have anything to share which can help me explain this

There is also the compression effect of using a longer focal length to get a wide view on a larger sensor.

I have the same view captured on my X100F (APSC) with WCL - 19mm (28mm FF equiv FOV) and my Fuji GSW690III-65mm (28mm FF equiv FOV) - there are noticeable differences in the way distant objects - in my case buildings are presented- I’m away from my office now, but I’ll see if I can post it later
 
...but i would never want to convince someone to buy one, if they needed convincing they will probably be disappointed.
Thank you.

Those two posts provide the best discussion so far and the images give some context to the claims. I'm still not convinced but at least I understand where you are coming from and why you feel the expense of the equipment is worth it to you.
 
I think he's saying that if you look really closely you'll see that larger formats give you better results, in a technical sense and if that's what is meant I agree. Sometimes IMO smaller format pictures can look lovely and it may be that only when looking closely any larger format superiority can be seen.
If that was actually what he'd said I would disagree, he said 'better camera' which doesn't always mean larger format.
The thing that makes a camera better will depend heavily on the subject type. Yes for many subject types a larger format can contribute to a better result.
However for some subjects a bulky camera may be unable to get to the subject & a boroscope type web cam connected to a phone might be a better camera for these.

My own medium format cameras are all cheaper film models with inferior optics. There's no doubt in my mind that even phone cameras will often be able to produce better results.
Despite the again fairly cheap optics my 5x4 bodies would definitely be able to do things a digital camera will struggle with (without very considerable post processing). I'm not convinced I'm a good enough photographer to achieve that, but I'll still enjoy playing with them :)
 
There is also the compression effect of using a longer focal length to get a wide view on a larger sensor.

I have the same view captured on my X100F (APSC) with WCL - 19mm (28mm FF equiv FOV) and my Fuji GSW690III-65mm (28mm FF equiv FOV) - there are noticeable differences in the way distant objects - in my case buildings are presented- I’m away from my office now, but I’ll see if I can post it later

I'll leave you to work out which was which!

IdisrdRh.jpg
 
I'll leave you to work out which was which!

IdisrdRh.jpg

Is the bus also a little distorted in the left? (apsc image)

I like how it takes the shine of surfaces and brings out their colour, here it's just some cobbled flooring - but it happens with skin as well, as well as other surfaces of course.
 


It's like here with X1D vs Sony A7RIV



Whilst the X1D image looks flatter, that's great news when it comes to editing - the A7RIV has a higher contrast and less even tonal range / skin

just look around the entire scene, couch, window etc..
 
Last edited:
If that was actually what he'd said I would disagree, he said 'better camera' which doesn't always mean larger format.
The thing that makes a camera better will depend heavily on the subject type. Yes for many subject types a larger format can contribute to a better result.
However for some subjects a bulky camera may be unable to get to the subject & a boroscope type web cam connected to a phone might be a better camera for these.

My own medium format cameras are all cheaper film models with inferior optics. There's no doubt in my mind that even phone cameras will often be able to produce better results.
Despite the again fairly cheap optics my 5x4 bodies would definitely be able to do things a digital camera will struggle with (without very considerable post processing). I'm not convinced I'm a good enough photographer to achieve that, but I'll still enjoy playing with them :)

If he comes back he may clarify... but by better camera in this thread I'd assume better by virtue of giving technically better results, DR, colours and the like, and we're talking digital here not film. Better in this regard is a different thing from other definitions of better such as better because it fits it in your pocket or better by being operationally swift enough to capture birds in flight but if debating this is what this has come to it's run the gamut for me.
 


It's like here with X1D vs Sony A7RIV



Whilst the X1D image looks flatter, that's great news when it comes to editing - the A7RIV has a higher contrast and less even tonal range / skin

just look around the entire scene, couch, window etc..

That was my experience of the 645z file I was sent on - flatter than belgium but loads more latitude in post with shadows and highlights. A very interesting example of why I feel the urge.
 
Is the bus also a little distorted in the left? (apsc image)

I like how it takes the shine of surfaces and brings out their colour, here it's just some cobbled flooring - but it happens with skin as well, as well as other surfaces of course.

I prefer the right, finer detail in the blacks on the lamp, more natural blue sky etc
 
That was my experience of the 645z file I was sent on - flatter than belgium but loads more latitude in post with shadows and highlights. A very interesting example of why I feel the urge.

For a while i'd been looking at the portraits/environment portraits done using the more expensive medium format cameras £30k+

The X1D comparisons were more akin of those than the 'glossy by comparison' full frame images.

This is what gave me the urge, even though I kind of 'glossed' over it in my posts above :D
 
Last edited:
For a while i'd been looking at the portraits/environment portraits done using the more expensive medium format cameras £30k+

The X1D comparisons were more akin of those than the 'glossy by comparison' full frame images.

This is what gave me the urge, even though I kind of 'glossed' over it in my posts above :D

Money no object I'd go for one of the H series or Phase 1 systems...but you need £50k plus for the glass. If my numbers ever came up. I'd love to experience that sort of camera and optical quality
 

‘only‘ £2900 :)
 
Last edited:

‘only‘ £2900 :)

They're just up the road (well, 40min, but round here that's close). Wonder what I'd get for a used A7 outfit...... :oops: :$

Scrub that, 10 YO design, that's too old in digital regardless of format.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top