Medium format cameras offer something that’s hard to match with other systems: incredible detail. If you’ve ever wondered how different medium format is compared to full frame, you’re not alone. Many people are curious whether the larger sensor is worth the extra cost or if they really need it for their style of photography.
Coming to you from Leigh & Raymond Photography, this detailed video compares the image quality of medium format and full-frame cameras. The comparison focuses on aspects like resolution, dynamic range, and bokeh. Using the Fujifilm GFX 100S and the Panasonic Lumix S5 II, the video shows side-by-side examples in different shooting environments, including cityscapes and landscapes. One key takeaway is the ability of medium format to capture an incredible amount of detail, especially when zooming in on distant objects. However, modern full frame cameras, particularly those with high-resolution modes like the S5 II, can hold their own, even mimicking the clarity of medium format in some cases.
The video also emphasizes how medium format excels when it comes to creating shallow depth of field, producing that beautiful bokeh effect. For portrait photographers, this can be a game-changer. However, as shown in the Flagstaff, Arizona, field test, the difference between the two formats isn’t always as significant as you might expect. While the medium format offers smoother transitions from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, the full frame images remain impressively sharp and show nice transitions with similar lenses. This makes you question whether the difference is enough to justify the price for your specific work.
Another aspect discussed is the practical differences in usability. Medium format cameras are typically bulkier and slower, which can be a challenge if you’re used to the quicker autofocus and faster shooting speeds of full frame models. When shooting astrophotography near the San Francisco Peaks, the video highlights how medium format’s larger sensor offers greater dynamic range in shadows, but lacks some of the night-friendly features available in full frame models like the Lumix S5 II, such as enhanced live view for manual focusing in the dark.
Ultimately, the comparison showcases that while medium format delivers some of the best image quality available, full frame cameras are catching up in ways that are making the choice more nuanced than ever before. The question of whether you need medium format really comes down to your personal shooting style and what you prioritize in your photography. Check out the video above for the full rundown.
For the resolution test, she compares the 100MP GFX to a 96MP multi-shot capture from a 24MP S5II. I don't buy it. Comparing to a 60MP body, with and without multi-shot, would be more informative about the maximum possible performance of each system.
Your very limited to using those multi shot modes...nothing moving ...its really a sideways photo stack
A GFX 100s ii is brilliant
Medium format? Been there, done that. Hasselblad, Mamiya. Not worth the extra weight and limited lens selection compared to high-end 24x36.
The GFX 100s ii is 883 grams ....its compsfr meduim format. I lohe Fujifilm cameras and all their quirks.
Also from a cropping perspective its brilliant...i can crop 250% and still reatin an image
What that means is less lenses
My 100-200 is kinda 200-400 at 50 megapixels
Ok my last point medium format has slowed me down ...the GFX100S II is fast enough . Ive shot surfers and bike riders with it.
I carry two lenses for landscapes ...20-35 100-200
I can crop in so much
The files 😍 👌
Very much depends on the application, at present, no full frame camera is capable of competing with Fuji's 100mp or 400mp pixel shift for fine art reproduction. Horses for courses, these are tools for us to pick and one cannot equal to another for their intended use.
It was funny how I ended up in medium format is that I fell in love with Fujifilm colours. I mean who doesn't and I was missing a low light performance of a full frame camera and I did not want to leave the Fuji colour science so I started looking at medium format because that is the next camera up from their APC range and I started with the 50 megapixel medium format and we have to remember Fujis medium format is a little bit smaller than Haselblad. I absolutely loved the files that came out of the GFX 50S ii. My jaw literally hit the ground the first time I pixel peeped. And then when I started doing prints, it was just beautiful to look at and I could not go back to full frame now. I have the upgraded GFX 100s II. Now I sound like a medium format snob but I'm not. I just love beautiful image quality and the best possible image that I can get and I make good income from my Photography and my other day job as well so I can afford it and it certainly not a status symbol camera it's functional for me as well. The other thing about this camera is that it gets me to slow down because it's not a running gun system I used to take 50 to 60 photos on my landscape sheets and now I'm probably down till about 20 but I can guarantee you all of them are pretty much keepers because it gets you to slow down and concentrate on what you're doing and that's why I really like about it. The weight is a myth. The GFX 100s II weighs less than a nikon Z8 or Nikon D850. And it fits really well in the hands. And I barely have to edit my files. That's the other thing I love about this camera.
For most people, I don't know even if it's worth the upgrade from aps-c to full-frame. Lower noise, high weight, bigger and a lot more expensive. Perhaps aps-c it's better and for bad light, use some noise AI reduction algorithms.
there is nothing wrong with the camera that you own. I only upgraded to GFX because I could afford it and it's a direction that I wanted to go in for my artwork and other things I do and life is short and I want to pursue my dreams, I'm a very good photographer and I do really well so I can afford it.
"My jaw literally hit the ground the first time I pixel peeped."
Literally.
How many stitches?
yeah, it was like that. The files out of the GFX camera have to be seen to be believed. People go all it's just another camera. No it ain't..... but in many ways the GFX cameras are tricky to use. They're not the easiest cameras to use. There's a methodical process. You need to go through when you are taking photos and it's definitely got me to slow down which I like.
You actually had to go to a doctor for stitches to close a wound on your chin? How much blood did you lose? Is there a scar now?
"literally"
https://youtu.be/dTRKCXC0JFg?si=jjj5lNTj0JHWF12A
You don't need to be a smart arse to get your point across....!!
Apparently, I do. First time around, I was gentle. Second time needed a 2x4.
I would suggest working on your own Photography not sure how you were allowed on the page given the standard of your images quite laughable.... Now take that little camera of yours and go and work on some photography skills. The word photographer after your name is actually embarrassing to the Photography community. I've looked at your images and oh my gosh yeah sorry can you maybe just go over to the mobile phone territory and learn how to hold a camera and then come back and start commenting?....
And your mother wears army boots.
Keep digging, mate. I just hope that people don't pay money for your Photography. Goodbye now.
My clients know nothing of your hopes.
It's funny because I actually don't think they exist you keep believing you've got Client champ no worries why would you be on this page then?......
All this because you don't know what "literally" means.
If someone said maybe an obscure word in a pub or a restaurant, would you say the same thing because if you did that probably put you in hospital!!!.... I dare you to go out on the street with your big mouth and start saying the same stuff that you say online... Would you like me to pre-book your ambulance now?
the problem is mate. You don't have one bit of evidence to suggest that you actually have paid clients....lol
Wow. You're truly deranged.
No not the ranged at all. Just calling out of fraudster when I see it. You're clearly fraudulent. You only have to look at your images on the Internet to realise that you are not a photographer and look at some of the comments you've made to other people as well it's not just me. It's other people on the page and someone is finally calling you out on it.
Uh huh. Bye. Literally.
FRAUDSTER!!! How come you don't post photos on the page then that's right because you can't take a photo?
I can afford it, so I went from aps-c to full-frame. From a Canon 600d + Tamron 17-50 F2.8 to Canon R8 + Canon 24-70 F2.8 RF.
Yes, slight less noise, less chromatic aberration and distortion on corners (perhaps for aps-c it should be better with the Canon 17-55 F2.8), slight better viewfinder (canon 600d viewfinder was really bad, Canon R8 is like Canon R10, a bit better), a lot of more weight (lens)... Looking the photo results, I'm really not more happy than before.
In fact, now I think that full-frame, for extra size and weight, only make sense if you get some extras like high MP cameras (45 MP and up): If you zoom in, you have more detail, if you zoom out, you have more sharpness.
And the whole thing about how cameras with lots of MP and low light are worse... Photos with low light are always worse. What are you going to prioritize, 10% of the photos (low light, few MP) or 90% of the photos (acceptable light, lots of MP)?
The game has changed. I turned pro in '84, mostly in weddings and social photography and used MF ('Blad) and there were clear benefits of the larger format with film.
But I read a lot of nonsense about "resolution" with digital...to double the "resolution" you need 4 x the pixel count. The number of pixels determines how large you can print and I doubt frankly that most print 30" x 20" or larger, if that?
The lens defines the "detail" more than the number of pixels...and with AI now capable of creating new "intuitive" information instead of just interpolation the original sensor pixel count is becoming less relevant.
I still work with a couple of D700's because for most of the pro work I do the biggest prints customers buy are A4. But running a file through "enhance" in PS quadruples the file size to create effectively a 30 x 20" print if you want one...AI analysis looks at noise and sharpness too.
If you take into account the average resolving power of the human eye and the distance you should look at prints depending on their size you could come to the conclusion that the pixel wars are just that...after all, apart from tweaks, what else can they "improve" to keep selling stuff?
I've got a 20"x30" inkjet print on semi-gloss paper that looks plenty detailed. It's a forest scene shot with an 11MP Canon EOS-1Ds. No Super-Rez applied.
Missed my point I suspect..to create a 30 x 20 print from 11mp would need interpolation...because native resolution from that pixel count would create around an A4. No magic, just maths! My D700's are 12mp...virtually identical. Simples...just divide the pixel dimensions by print res, typically 300ppi to calculate print dimensions. Printing around 250ppi would give you a bigger print with negligible compromise.
AI enhancement to create larger file sizes is more "intelligent" than just "old fashioned" interpolation which creates no new information...
But put simply ...for a 30" print the long dimension if printed at 300ppi would require 9000 pixels in that dimension...7,500 pixels if printed at 250 ppi....
Thought I was providing a supporting example of a small-ish file yielding a large-ish print.
What, then, was the point that I missed?
If I were still a bokeholic (from a decade ago), for people shoots, going for the creamiest background blur SOOC, I would consider medium format. But, as of late, probably last 5 years, bokehliciousness is not a priority for me anymore. Typically, I like just enough blur to separate the subject and still be able to tell the background. Sometimes, more blur. Sometimes, less or no blur.
And, from the medium format images I see online and from the sample RAW files I've downloaded and edited, I don't really see a discernible difference with other formats. Meaning, I'm not like, "Oh. My. God! The medium format look is for realz, 'yo!" At the end of the day, when it's exported and viewed normally, they all look equally fine.
I've moved from format to format over the years, but I stay put for a good amount of time with each change. This go-round I wanted to add a larger format to my APS-C kit for landscape photography. For the total cost of body and new lens system I chose medium format over full frame. To make sure, I rented both FF and MF.
I do see a difference in my 11X14 and 16X20 prints between MF and FF. It is subtle, but pleasing. The MF camera produces a smoother highlight rolloff, and to me this helps contribute to better dimensionality in print. You might not groove on this effect, but it makes me happy.
Since when is a sensor format change an 'upgrade"?
Since the camera manufacturers realized they could boost profits by upselling customers on larger-format cameras. Hence the term "full-frame". They want everyone to believe 1", Micro Four Thirds and APS cameras capture only part of a picture. I'm surprised the medium-format makers aren't calling it "fuller-frame".