YouTube is a great place to learn about photography. You can discover how to do something, research gear, and get inspiration. However, the problem with most photography content is that it’s structured around selling you stuff you don’t need. The latest example—a huge example—is the idea that you might need a 100-megapixel medium format camera.
The marketing hype around medium format cameras right now is ridiculous. Is the latest, sharpest, and most megapixel-heavy medium format camera going to improve your photography? Of course not!
YouTube Influencers
Brands are giving medium format cameras to influencers because they want to create demand. The problem? The vast majority of photographers don’t actually need medium format. Or 100 megapixels.
Many influencers who receive these cameras aren’t paying for them, so they’re not talking about the cost-benefit ratio.
The camera manufacturers are obviously hoping that if we watch our favorite influencers running around with $20,000+ worth of free gear, we’ll get the impression that medium format is the "ultimate" tool—something to aspire to own.
The truth is, in real-world shooting situations, full frame or even APS-C can be more practical, portable, and far more cost-effective.
Image Quality
Yes, medium format cameras can offer better dynamic range, and all those megapixels will give you a sharper image. But the gap between full frame and medium format isn’t as vast as it used to be. Modern full frame sensors have incredible resolution, dynamic range, and color accuracy.
I shoot professionally for commercial clients and photograph food and products for brand marketing projects and publications. I use a 24 MP or 47 MP camera. 24 MP is perfect for most projects, particularly if they only appear on websites or social media, which most commercial marketing work does.
I can understand the argument for using a medium format 100 MP camera for massive campaigns and product and fashion shoots that end up on large in-store posters where clarity and detail are the top priority. If post-production requires heavy image editing, having larger, cleaner files can help make the process easier. But we’re talking about top-tier commercial work here for big brands, where a photo might be manipulated for multiple uses and tasks like color changes to a product are required.
But running around a woodland with one of those cameras? I’ve even seen a video with someone using the new Hasselblad X2D for street photography, working hard to convince us it’s a great option to consider. Or maybe working hard to convince Hasselblad it was worth giving him the camera, and maybe they’ll give him a new lens next?
My position is that anything over 50 MP is overkill for serious hobbyists or even pros shooting commercial assignments.
The Myth of Sharpness
I find it fascinating that camera companies are constantly pushing the idea that more megapixels and sharper lenses equal better photos—and people buy into this idea.
The reality is that composition, lighting, and storytelling matter far more than how sharp the image ends up. A skilled photographer can light a subject and use a 17-year-old 12 MP camera and get better results than someone using the latest 100 MP camera who doesn’t know how to light and compose a shot.
Look at some of the most iconic photos shot by masterful photographers from the past 50–60 years. They used inferior cameras and lenses compared to what is available today. Their photos are in focus but not as clinically sharp as what a low-end camera is capable of today. Would more sharpness make those photos better? In most cases, no, of course not. A great photo tells a story, evokes a mood, or makes you feel something. Adding a little more sharpness won’t enhance that feeling any more.
Practicality
Medium format cameras are often bulkier, slower, and less versatile than full frame or APS-C options.
Before the great advancements of digital SLR and mirrorless cameras, I would use an SLR when I was out and about on location shoots and use a bulkier medium format for studio shoots.
I believe medium format is still best used as a studio camera, not something you run around the streets or mountains with. Sure, some of these cameras have become smaller, but when you consider the bigger, heavier lenses, you’re lugging around a lot of gear just to get a larger image file that you probably won’t even benefit from having.
Gear Obsession
Many photographers fall into the trap of thinking that upgrading their camera will automatically improve their work. But creativity, skill, intention, and vision will always be more important.
Despite what influencers may have you believe, a medium format camera won’t make you a better photographer. Or them. Investing in lighting, a workshop/course, traveling to interesting locations, or hiring a model for a few hours are all far better options for spending money to improve our craft.
There are two types of photographers: the type who uses a camera merely as a tool, as a means to capturing an image. He or she buys whatever they think will allow them to do the job at hand, and then they get on with creating. And then there’s the type of photographer who loves the technology, the design, the experience of a particular camera. The camera gear is as important as making photos with it—or even more so. Some of these guys collect every model, they’re brand fanboys, they love their cameras. I get that—I love a few of my cameras and vintage lenses. There’s nothing wrong with loving and collecting gear. And if you enjoy having the latest gear, go for it!
The point is, the influencers are giving the impression that the latest and greatest is better, no matter the brand. They don’t sit in either camp mentioned above. They jump around from brand to brand and create hype, depending on who can give them the most money or gear. We need to hear more from lovers, not sellouts.
Conclusion
It sounds like I’m knocking medium format cameras. I’m not. If I did more studio work that required massive, ultra-sharp, high-resolution files, it would be my choice. My issue—and this is something I will continue to talk about in other articles and videos, no doubt—is the constant pressure on social media to buy the latest gear and pursue sharper and larger image files, with the idea that we will get better results.
A sharper photo isn’t a better photo. It’s just sharper.
Medium format cameras have their place, especially for high-end commercial work, fine art, or studio photography. But for most photographers, they’re unnecessary, expensive, and impractical. Instead of chasing influencer trends and marketing hype, maybe we should focus on mastering our craft with whatever gear we already have?
I’d love to hear your thoughts—have you bought a medium format camera or are you tempted to? If yes, what’s your reasoning?
My landscape and art photography work revolves around a 36mp Nikon D800E and a Canon 11-color, 44" inkjet printer. I frequently make 40" x 60"prints. With Topaz Gigapixel AI upsizing software, I can get very acceptable quality at that size. Nobody has ever complained. And of course from a typical viewing distance for that size print, it wouldn't matter. But I'm not the typical viewer, so if I were in the prime of my career and selling a lot more than I do now, I'd jump on a Fuji GFX100II.
So would (have) I. I love printing big. I want to do so with as much quality and as little interpolation as possible. Yep, you can stand back and get acceptable quality. A local photographer in Victoria Australia is now selling large prints from DJI drones with M43's sensor and they look fine from a distance. But, if you are a perfectionist (as so many photographers are) then having the luxury of a much larger sensor, more megapixels and a more contemplative style of shooting has proven irresistible to me. The final factor is cost. You can now buy Fuji GF lenses that cost less then many of the Canon RF series. I was recently contemplating upgrading my old (very) 70-200 f4 to an RF lens, then realised that I could buy the GF 100-200 for less. That was when it was time to jump. So, you can rationalise all you like, about the value of FF systems, but they are no longer for me, other than a Q3 for walk around work
The sweet spot for you could be a D850 as the prices have fallen a lot recently and its a great upgrade path from a D800E... basically drop into your workflow and go. Waited 3-4 years before going over to the Z series but still shoot my trusted D850 occasionally.
I've had my eye on the D850 for years... nearly pulled the trigger a couple times. Always to remember that my D800E works fine, so I'll wait to buy another camera when the one I have needs a major repair of some sort. Never has. 12 years and god knows how many shutter clicks, and it keeps chugging along.
Excellent article, Simon. One thing worth mentioning that the fact that many crop sensor and full frame cameras now have a high res shot mode. If you really need more resolution with your crop sensor camera, you can employ high res pixel shift and get a great deal more detail and pixels. All the usual caveats apply, of course. High res modes don't work with every genre of photography.
Thanks Andrew. Yes, you are correct, pixel shift technology is looking impressive. The new Lumix S1Rii creates an impressive 177PM. The thing is, who needs a file that big?!
"You Don't Need One!" Absolutely true. Nevertheless, I bought the Fujifilm GFX 100s in 2023 and I absolutely love it... It's sometimes a struggle to separate wants from needs. In this case, I rewarded myself with a retirement gift after spending the first 50 years of my life working. I really enjoy it and actually shoot and print more since I've had it.
Oh, I hear you! 🙂 I buy things I don't need, but want. If something makes you happy, why not! My little rants are usually around the fact that influencers (sales people, let's be honest here) try to convince us we need something when we don't.
True…..
Pro photographer for over 20 years. Owned apps-c , full frame and medium format cameras over the years. Loved the article and yes you have to question why some influencers are pushing what they push. So many times if bought some equipment only to be disappointed because it was not really a recommendation but a sales push. People need to remember that YouTube creators need constant content to stay relevant so they are always going to push something
Do most photographers need 100mega pixels. No. Do Landscape and Studio commercial photographers need them possibly. Currently shooting with 24mega pixels would love to go to 50 for more detail and the ability to crop and still have a decent sized image for stock libraries.
At the end of the day I look at equipment this way. Will it make my workflow quicker. Time is money if I purchase a 100 mega pixel camera what is going to be the rate of return on that investment will it pay for itself and will I get my investment back in time and sales.
Yep you have to get a return for your money. I invested in my two GFX cameras and I'm selling a lot of framed prints. I don't sell prints as in on paper. I sell framed pieces of art that go on walls and they retail from $600-$1100 and I'm currently selling about two a week in my local area so it's been profitable for me and I use the cameras for other things like portraits weddings and so on the GFX 100 SII has really good auto focus.
Great comment, thanks Stephen! I agree, something that improves workflow is important.
As an event pro and landscape enthusiast, the only reason I have a 61MP camera is so I can shoot primes in Crop Mode and still get 26MP. TBH, 18MP Crop Mode from my previous 42MP camera was the sweet spot, and I upgraded for better AF, not more pixels. My 24" prints of landscapes I shot on 16MP Micro Four Thirds cameras look great, even close-up.
And that's a fair point but I would challenge anyone if you've ever stood in front of a 2 m x 1 m print from a GFX camera. It will blow you away. You will feel like you are standing on the beach or standing on that mountain the level of detail is just crazy. Is it needed maybe not but I really enjoy my medium format cameras.
Hasselblad was giving out Hasselhandouts to several big photography YouTubers last year for this exact reason.
and I'll tell you why they did that because Fuji came out with two really good GFX cameras that focus way better than the Hasselblad and the two GFX 100 cameras released in the last year or so have really good auto focus and you can use them for weddings portraits and other things. I've even shot sports with mine so Hasselblad was suddenly left with big hulking slow focusing cameras so what did they do to give them to influencers......
I own two medium format cameras - GFX's (50s II and 100s II) and I certainly didn't buy them because I was influenced by YouTube far from it, but I can certainly see how people would be influenced by YouTube in general whether it be a Sony camera and Nikon or a Fuji essentially YouTube now is just one big selling platform. Do I love the image quality? YES!! They produce absolutely amazing images and I make money selling prints and doing other professional work and I've well and truly made my money back on my cameras. I don't do photography full-time and this probably helps me as I feel enthusiastic every time I grab my camera. I sometimes go a whole week without taking a photo and then I've got that renewed enthusiasm that it feels new and fresh again. Okay what do I love about my GFX? 100 megapixel camera? Well you can crop into absolutely absurd levels. The dynamic range is just about limitless. I don't have to bracket photos anymore. Can't remember the last time I bracketed a shot even though I shoot sunset sometimes and what you can recover in shadows is just absurd so there's lots of reasons why I love my Fuji GFX cameras. 16 Bit colour are absolutely beautiful and the files are just limitless what you can do with them. But should you buy one? No not at all if that makes sense. I've just said how good they are but only if you're going to use it and I would say only if you're going make some money out of it because they're expensive toys otherwise.. On the very final comment of sharpneess I often actually reduce the sharpness in some of my images because the GFX 100mp camera is so sharp it can look a little bit too digital. I'm using gradients to soften the image a little bit. My story getting into these cameras was quite simple. I really loved Fuji colours and let's face that they are renowned for that but I was missing the dynamic range of a full frame camera so medium format was it if I wanted to stay in Fuji and go for the higher dynamic range cameras because the X cameras while they are really good you are a little bit limited by them. And yes I do large prints as well. I have a good local market and I'm selling one to 2 large frame prints a week so they look fantastic.
If you bought a camera you look forward to using, that's an important factor Nev. I can see your need for a medium format camera as you produce large art prints. Makes sense. But for most uses, and things like street photography. No. I do wonder though, how a pixel shift image from a new full frame camera, with the ability to produce a 100MP file, would compare to a medium format 100MP file? Sure, there's dynamic range issues with very contrasty scenes, but you can alway bracket and exposure and blend them.
"I do wonder though, how a pixel shift image from a new full frame camera, with the ability to produce a 100MP file, would compare to a medium format 100MP file?"
I raised that question in another article promoting the features of the OM M4/3 system. About all I got in reply was the usual "it doesn't really matter because nobody looks close up at a large print anyway." In other words, its probably not near as good. I'd have to run tests myself though before I'd make that decision.
Yeah you can use pixel shift on mini cameras however the problem with pixel shift you can only use it for things that are static and I wouldn't imagine someone shooting 100 megapixel street photo and GFX cameras now are very affordable. The 100S is now cheaper than many full frame cameras?.... The issue I had is I really liked Fuji colours and ergonomics and even their menus. I actually like so I wanted to go for something more dynamic range and Fuji don't make a full frame camera so I didn't have a choice really as I didn't want to leave Fuji.
The Fuji GXF series is quite reasonably priced used on ebay.
Pound for pound the GFX 100s is such good value camera now secondhand? It just produces images which make your jaw drop and once you've seen the files you can't unsee what you've seen.
Influencers want to be seen as different, as trendsetters. But at the end of the day, they follow what gets engagement—likes, comments, and sponsorship deals. That’s what keeps the momentum going. I get the appeal, but I don’t think many would actually buy a medium format camera if they had to pay for it themselves. It’s about their image (no pun intended), not the need—especially when most of their content ends up on social media, where a 100 MP image file is kind of an overkill :-)
Paul Tocatlian
Kisau Photography
www.kisau.com
You make a good point. it's easy to use high-end expensive gear when it's given to you, and of course you have to say how great it is or you don't get more. But would these guys actually pay for it?
If most of my images were for the purpose of using them on social media, I'd throw my camera in the river and quit photography. Should an image made for the sole purpose of showing in such a small electronic space such as an iPhone or iPad even be permitted to be called a photograph? Obviously I'm partial to prints, where pixel quantity and quality matter greatly.
When I started my photography business, my photos would end up cross double-page spread in magazines and brochures, or as big posters. Now, the majority of my work is for websites and social media. Thant's just the way things are, sadly.
When I view photos digitally, for pleasure, I am looking at them on a hi-def 55 inch TV screen from a few feet away. Or at my computer workstation at 27 inches. So have things really changed in how we view, size-wise?
“So have things really changed in how we view, size-wise?”
Of course; no doubt about it. Time stands still for no one. Magazines are undoubtedly not as much in need for two-page photo spreads as a few decades ago, but there’s tremendous growth in wide format roll-to-sheet and flatbed printing. Retail large-format graphics are all over the place: windows, walls, even… floors. Banners, posters, vehicle wraps. Print is not dead; it’s simply evolving. Marketers don’t like missing an opportunity to stick their brand in your face. I doubt that 100 megapixels is that important for these print products, since their print resolution and quality is pretty low anyway. But to your point, yes, everything changes.
Yet we each have our own peculiar idiosyncrasies which shape our work and play. Sometimes we choose to embrace new ideas or products. For some of us, things will probably never change and we find greater comfort and meaning in our work from older established techniques. And from a sales and marketing perspective, we can’t really be good at selling something that we don’t have the heart for, can we?
Despite the availability of enlargers, Alfred Stieglitz's platinum prints in the early 1900s were almost exclusively contact printed at the size of the negative, typically no more than 8 x 10, which supposedly produced a print inherently closer in tonal values to the negative, and finer detail, than any enlargement. Sometimes newer and larger is not always better. While I make 40 x 60 prints for commercial buildings, my personal viewing pleasure is typically no larger than about a 12 x 18 image size on 17 x 22 paper. Not too large, not too small; just right… or so said Goldilocks.
Years ago, I was thinking of renting a medium format (probably a Fuji). But, when I downloaded sample raw files DPReview, I saw nothing special about the files. No different than fullframe, aps-c, m43. In a blind test, you can't tell them apart. The only exception is when you pixel peep. You definitely see more fine details. But, when you export to jpg and view normally on a 27" monitor, there's no perceptible difference. Even much less on smaller screens.
Needless to say, I never bothered renting one and won't be, especially, since their eye-af is nowhere near Sony, Canon, and Nikon. For me, fast reliable consistent Eye-AF > MP.
Four years ago, I invested in lighting modifiers (Broncolor Para 222, 133). I saw the largest increase in business as a result. Far exceeding my expectations. MF gear? Nice to have but not nearly a big enough difference from my Nikon D850 in studio. I have the budget for a complete MF set. So far, I am unmoved. I did shoot heavily Film MF for years. I’m not seeing a big enough difference to switch. I’ll be renting MF cameras for a month for a trial run.
before I went into Fuji I was a Nikon D850 user and looked the D8 50 still produces amazing files but the GFX 100 cameras are on another level
Wants and needs! Do we want the latest and greatest equipment? Absolutely! Is it necessary to upgrade your equipment every time a new camera drops? Absolutely not! For the record, I am still shooting with a full frame DSLR, (something I have previously written about on here) and it doesnt lose features every time a new camera body is released. It still does what I need it to :)
Agree, wants and needs! There's nothing wrong with wanting something shiny and new, I do myself from time to time. But the new features and functions that keep getting added to cameras, including more megapixels, I've found I never actually use. The only thing I find useful since my D700 in 2008, is in-camera stabilization from time to time. That's about it!
Whether someone buys a 100MP camera for whatever reason should be their legitimate right. In principle, I assume that people are adults and know what they are doing. That is why I am also of the opinion that the opinions of so-called influencers are nothing more than opinions. As a rational being, you don't run after some random YouTuber and make their opinion your own.
What bothers me more is the approach taken by companies. If companies simply hand over a US$15,000 camera system to an influencer and do so hundreds of times over, I'm not going to buy it too. As the buyer of this at least then definitely overpriced product, I am financing these unfortunate figures on YT and other social media platforms. Why should I do that? This approach is more likely to put me off buying than the unqualified opinions of relevant influencers.
Yes, an opinion of an influencer, in my opinion, is just an opinion. I agree with your think, if so many photographers get an expensive camera for free, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I should have to pay for it and contribute to someone who is basically a salesperson, to try and convince me I need one. And yes, many of these YT opinions are unqualified. Just because you've built a big following up online doesn't mean you're a great photographer or have any actual real-world experience.
You know what no one needs? Influencers.
What's the difference between an influencer and an educator? I learn a lot from photographers like Wes Perry, Taylor Jackson, Dustin Abbott, Gordon Laing and others online, not to mention our very own Fstoppers contributors.
Reason number 765 for GAS, I saw someone use it and I just had to have it :-) it’s similar to when camera company’s bring out new iterations if what is more or less the same camera yet it’s all over the web that this is the greatest ever and that decision has been made after very short use of the gear! Great article Simon
Cheers bud. Well, that's my ranty articles over for a while. I got it out of system, now for some more educational articles!, and... gear reviews, lol.
The old saying about "A fool and his money..." was coined long before "influencers".
It's interesting though like if you went to a car club on a Sunday which I regularly go to even though I don't need to... And you talk to some car enthusiast. None of them are saying wow spending money on that car was a waste of money or if you went to a four-wheel-drive club and they spent $10,000 on something new for their four-wheel-drive you won't get that. Oh that's a waste of money but in photography we have this attitude that if someone upgrades their gear oh they're wasting their money....... I also think there's a small amount of jealousy in some people that can afford some really nice gear and then other people say oh look at them and unfortunately has created a slight status clean which is not good if you can afford it and you want to buy that medium format camera we shouldn't then criticise that person and call them a fool.
I get your point. Firstly, a lot of YouTubers are being gifted a Hasselblad X2D so they've spent zero on the camera and lens. Secondly, yes a lot of people do talk (moan) about expensive gear - I think the constant complaints about the cost of Leica gear and the negative attitude to the people who buy and use them got boring many years ago for example. It's interesting (and annoying at the same time) how social media has allowed people to get so opinionated about the purchases and other aspects of any individuals photography. Whenever I've shared my photography approach or the fact I like manual lenses, I've been surprised at the number of comments thinking they know best and somehow I am a fool for not doing things their way. If people want to spend big money on medium format cameras, it's their choice and...mind blowing moment coming up😉...will have zero impact on me or my photography.
Yes, the influencers making a video after being gifted a Hasselblad X2D (which they likely may not end up using regularly) is a turn off. These cameras are just too expensive for us mere mortals and totally unnecessary for the vast majority of people anyway. I will need to purchase a second camera body at some point and cost vs what I actually need is always the driving factor. Spending £5K-7K (assuming I had that money) on a camera body, medium format or not just makes no sense when I consider all of the better ways to spend less than half of that on gear I actually need.
I follow Fuji pretty closely in Australia and in Asia Fuji - they don't need to give away cameras to promote their medium format. Their GFX series cameras are doing really well and their resale value is excellent and they're really good all round cameras now the latest two models they hold their own in auto focus against most full frame cameras. They're not a sharp but definitely they're very good in pretty much all conditions now the gap between focusing between medium format and full frame is closing. I can pretty much shoot anything with my GFX 100 S II and have ... and the camera is compact it weighs 883 g it's less than a Z8 and Z9 from Nikon which are heavier. I would not swap my Fuji camera for a Hasselblad because the Hasselblad is slow and you're very limited to what you can do with it. The GFX cameras especially the latest two are not like that at all.
Is there a difference between the 100 II and 100 S II with focusing
No, there isn't the only difference. Is that the 100 II ..... Has one more image in its framers per second. The 100s II shoots at seven frames a second and the buffer will run out after about three seconds but in that time you'll take 24 photos or more that's enough. You're not going to miss a shot. I did a wedding yesterday and it was great with the Fuji.
I could not agree with you more, Simon. But what I find interesting is how similar this medium-format argument is to the exact same issue I see with so-called full-frame cameras. I shot Nikon's full-frame cameras for 35 years. Then, back in 2008, I started using and "testing" one of the first Micro Four Thirds cameras from Lumix. By 2015, I had sold all my Nikon gear and had completely bought into MFT. Why? Because the market had changed so much, I could no longer justify, nor need, the ultimate quality a 35 mm-sized sensor gave me.
I earned my living selling stock photography for over four decades, and we all know what happened to stock photography. How can anyone today shooting stock justify a 600mm F/4 at $13,000US when publishers pay pennies for stock images? The only photographers doing that are the ones who have earned their money in a different business and are now doing photography for fun and glory.
Because of these changes, I was able to embrace my move into the world of MFT and never look back. MFT cameras are smaller, as are the lenses. Along with reduced size and weight, the entire system is much less expensive. Is the quality of the sensors as good as a full-frame camera? Not quite, but it's getting close. Many of the lenses are actually better. And with the right software I've never had any client complain that they weren't getting the quality they need. I no longer sell stock photography. Most of my income is now produced via assignments, sales of my Fine Art prints, and teaching.
My main publishing outlets are now Facebook and Instagram. It used to bother me that Social Media paid nothing. Then I realized that if nobody's going to pay for pictures anymore, I might as well be the publisher. At least I have complete control over what I want people to see. All of this with these tiny little cameras from OM System that most serious photographers swear can't be done. I find it quite amazing that many serious shooters I know will swear the smaller cameras can't do the job. Then, in the same breath, they pull out their iPhones and start gushing about the amazing photo they just shot with a sensor smaller than the nail on my pinky finger.
Instagram: @danieljcoxne
Facebook: @naturalexposures
Youtube: @danieljcox
Thanks for the comment Daniel. You are correct, it's hard to justify expensive gear from a business perspective because so much photography pays next to nothing now. I have a small APS-C Nikon Z50, and I often use it instead of a fuil-frame camera, because for the vast majority of uses, a smaller sensor is perfectly fine.
Long time, no see Simon Burn
For me, the overwhelming factor with these YouTubers is what are they actually doing with their work. The likelihood is that the vast majority are probably either just posting their work on social media or in their website.
We’ve had many discussions in the past. A lot of them are essentially educators and such. They aren’t professionals in the traditional sense but not a lot of people dare say it.
Hey Julian nice to hear from you, hope all is well!
I agree, posting work just to social media and websites, one does not require a 100MP camera. I find 12MP is fine.
I heard a pro photographer just yesterday talk about "YouTube Photographers" vs "Proper Photographers". Are you a proper pro photographer if all you do is talk about photography on a YouTube channel?
Many youngsters seem to think so. 🤷🏻♂️
I took a photo last week with my trusty 40mm lens which looked like the sort of photo anyone could easily take but experimenting with a drastic crop produced a much more interesting composition. I never like to crop my images though and the resulting crop was down to 5MP anyway. It made me realise, whilst this would be totally useless for printing, a 5MP image could easily upload to social media without any image degradation. It also made me realise I need a longer focal length lens to capture compositions my 40mm can't without having to resort to cropping which I dislike doing anyway.