The End of Medium Format’s Reign: My Journey With Phase One

The End of Medium Format’s Reign: My Journey With Phase One

For many years the real king of detail, sharpness, color, and DOF has been a 16-bit medium format system, such as Phase One. The larger the film (or sensor) the better the quality has been. Naturally, with my quest for maximum quality in every way, the path led me to medium format. Along with an obsession to be like Joey L for a longer period of time than I care to admit, it only seemed like the next step was to make the switch to medium format.

Image Quality

Yes, medium format technical image quality is very good with lots of detail and sharpness. Color rendition is excellent as well, and using Capture One really does make for technically sound images. However, there’s more to the story.

A great part of my reason for wanting medium format was the leaf shutter to be able to sync with my flash in daylight past the normal sync speeds and without using hacks like hypersync. Combine that with the larger sensor which at the same focal length of the lens will give you a perceived different look because the 80mm leaf shutter lens will have the DOF of an 80mm but a wider field of view than would be expected on a DSLR. All this sounds fantastic, right? Aside from the price of course.

Here are a few sample images I created with my Phase One system.

They have detail, sharpness etc. But is there anything about them that just screams medium format? Would you even know they were if I didn't say so?

Things Change

While medium format has been progressing in technology with the newer Phase One backs, the medium format world has not evolved anywhere near the meteoric rate that DSLR and mirrorless have. The features and usability of either one make the medium format feel very archaic.

Focusing

One of the biggest evolutions in DSLR and mirrorless both is the autofocus systems, my Phase One 645 body had one single AF point. A giant square right in the middle of the frame which makes it impossible to really know what specific part of the face is in focus, or on a half-length shot the square is as big as the whole body, hardly making nailing focus on a specific thing like face/eyes very consistent.

Compare that to the Sony a7R III with it's Fast Hybrid AF with 399-point focal-plane phase-detection AF and 425-point contrast-detection AF.

The speed and accuracy of DSLR and mirrorless cameras focusing is so far ahead. The Phase One focusing point made just getting a shot in focus much slower which in turn causes you to get fewer expressions, poses, etc.

Phase One has improved focusing with the XF body, however, it's still far far behind the usability of the other types of cameras. If you've had the opportunity to use both, you'll know what I mean. We feel like we are really holding something when you pick up a medium format system, we want it to be as awesome as the reputation suggests and certainly, it should be considering the easy five digit+ cost. But for a camera that costs more than my truck, I do have a certain set of expectations and nailing focus is obviously high on that priority list. Certainly, I am not stating that you cannot use the Phase to accomplish this, you can it's just significantly more difficult.

DOF and Lighting

With the changes in lighting over the past several years, and the HSS capability of the battery-powered monolights, Godox, etc. DSLR can now shoot at 1/8000th with ease… which actually outperforms the 1/1600th of the leaf shutter on the Phase, allowing you to shoot at 1.4 in bright conditions with your flash without needing to use an ND filter.

Dynamic Range

Dynamic range is important and the more of it the better, in the past the medium format systems have always had more than the DSLR equivalents. Until now. Unless you can afford a Phase IQ3 100 back, you're not getting the 15 stops dynamic range, you are likely using an older back like me which was in the 13 stop range. DSLR and mirrorless both also offer this, with the Nikon D810, D850, Sony A7R III and so forth medium format has no real advantage here either.

Sharpness and Detail

Medium format used to be known for being sharper and producing more detail than the DSLR as well, part of the reason being the lack of an optical low pass filter and/or anti alias filter. Most consumer or even pro DSLR’s have had those filters which aid in moire reduction etc., but at the cost of sharpness. This too has changed and some modern cameras such as the Nikon D810 also lack the anti alias and optical low pass filters, producing much sharper images than before.

Here are a few samples from my D810 various lenses and I see no sharpness difference from my Phase One shots, but I actually DO see a shallower DOF from the Nikon due to shooting at 1.4 which is more pleasing to me. So DSLR wins again. I know people like to sit and read data charts and split hairs, but at the end of the day can you really tell a difference from the Phase shot to the Nikon shot?

General Usability

With the Phase One, having to charge batteries for both the body and the digital back separately, the speed, the single AF point, terrible LCD screen which was almost impossible to really see anything on outside comparative to the newer cameras, and tie in the cost factor, this makes the system very difficult to actually use in daily production. I would absolutely put up with that if there was a discernable different in the outcome, I will suffer a lot if it means the end result are better images. But can you tell the difference? And if a photographer can't tell the difference, someone who is constantly looking and pixel peeping... do you think a customer will be able to tell the difference in a medium format shot vs DSLR or mirrorless? Certainly not with today's camera options being so good.

I see no reason for a regular portrait or fashion photographer to even consider this option. Not only is the DSLR or mirrorless much easier to use, the workflow is so much more efficient that you actually get more keepers and in a less amount of time.

The Phase One tied my hands and really caused me to miss a lot of great shots. Technology has come to a point where the film size advantage does not really mean a lot anymore. Granted there may be a few situations where the Phase would prove to be stronger, perhaps a commercial photographer shooting billboards. But even then, plenty of billboards made off DSLR’s that look excellent and how much of your work is billboards vs regular sized prints?

It saddens me to write this, because I wanted the Phase One to work so bad, the “on set baller factor” as people refer to is quite cool, and nobody wanted that more than me. But not at the expense of actual usability, as the saying goes "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" it really is true. 

There are differences between the systems, I'm not stating there isn't. But the gap is much smaller than it once was, and can you actually see the difference in your own "real world" images between the two systems? And is it worth the workflow plus cost? I believe it is not.

Bill Larkin's picture

Bill is an automotive and fashion inspired photographer in Reno, NV. Bill specializes in photography workflow and website optimization, with an extensive background in design and programming.

Log in or register to post comments
77 Comments

Digital Medium format hasn't really been a real medium format IMO. It's size is between that of films true medium format and full frame digital/35mm. So that makes the gap between potential performance of full frame and digital "medium format" all that much closer.

645 has always been medium format you pillock

Oh that's cute you clearly haven't looked into what you're talking about. Considering that PhaseOne's larger sensor size is still nearly 10% smaller than the 645 film exposure that it's based on.... So yeah 645 is medium format... but digital medium format is usually smaller than their respective film counterparts.

You must be really bored since you're trying to start an argument on a post that's 8 months old. Haha!

Just looked at your comment history.... Yeesh! You're an aggressive one.

"you clearly haven't looked into what you're talking about"

I know what I'm talking about — You should try it sometime.

645 nominal film size, i.e. the actual image size, film minus border, is the same as Phase One and has been that way for about a decade.

So you are clearly the one who has no idea what they are talking about.

...I did...

Effective Sensor size on a digital camera is still smaller than Film by about the same as I pointed out....

Phase One XF 100mp back effective size:53.7mm x 40.4mm = 2,169.48mm^2
645 Film effective size: 56mm x 42mm = 2,352mm^2

Phase One XF is 7.8% smaller....

Links:
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/phase-one-xf-100mp/phase-one-xf-1...
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/format.htm#120

So FA difference. If you actually use one of these cameras, rather than just talk about it - you will notice that it's almost 100% of a 645 cameras viewfinder even since the old P65+ it's not even worth using a viewfinder mask.

I think you've missed where I noted that this was only my opinion in the first post... It's smaller... that's objective fact. 645 is the smallest medium format size and since digital comes up smaller I feel like it's not quite the same thing since medium format only starts at 645. You can disagree with how I feel for any reason you'd like or continue to name call... I really don't care.

You would see a difference if you printed your work

Exactly...you really have to print LARGE in order to see the advantages. That said, I've printed my M 4/3 files at 5ft and they looked pretty good at normal viewing distances.

Me too. I have many large prints from M4/3's hanging in clients facilities and they all look great from a few feet away. This was a quick grab during construction, so take it for what it is.

You don't need much more than an average 20MP anything to print an image if you don't want to let the viewer look the details of the artwork, just the whole artwork itself (ie. the viewing distance is not less than 1.5 times the diagonal of the print).
But if you would like the viewer to immerse into your art, and even view it from nose length distance, then you will need much more detail than that.
(In some situation for me it is quite important to be able to dive in, and explore the small details of a huge vista, or the small textural details of human skin in a print.)

What is leading you to assume he doesn't print?

In the entire article there is no mention of print quality. Someone who prints regularly would know there is a significant difference between MF & 35mm Digital images and I would assume that they would mention this.

Significant?

No, not anymore. That gap has closed considerably. I have three of the mainstream format sizes in my gear bag and I print from them quite a lot. There is a difference but the quality of the print depends on much more...capture, post-processing and prepping for print.

@Leigh Miller is correct, and I do print. Yes a super large print would show a difference if you were using a $100,000 IQ3 100 setup.... but it's absolutely a classic example of diminishing returns. First, how many portrait photographers, or photographers in general print larger than a 30x40 routinely for their clients? Not many. But to lose the features and most importantly focusing... to gain a detail difference on a very tiny % of sessions at the cost of a really nice BMW... it just not worth it, especially when the customer won't be able to tell the difference and certainly not in regular sized prints. The gap USED to be huge, it isn't anymore.

Speaking as someone who works on the client side of things (though I take photos as a hobby), I can attest to what Bill is saying. The average client will not be able to tell the difference between medium format and 35mm; most just want photos that are high quality, tell the story they want told for their brand or product, and don't cost too much to produce.

Given that a lot of work is also being done for the Web and mobile (where folks won't spend enough time looking at the details), the extra punch that can come from MF isn't worth the cost. If you do a billboard, the low resolution printing essentially makes MF even less valuable.

If I were starting out on the commercial side of photography today, I would simply buy a full-frame camera and rent a Hasselblad or Phase One when the client asks for it. Which will be almost never.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume someone that's bought into medium format isn't a Craigslist turn and burn photographer.

At the lab I regularly print, there is a large 4x5 poster of a model. It was photographed on a black background, the model has full blown makeup and it looks amazing. It was shot with a 10 year old 6MP Nikon D70.

The lab has one of those monster 6 or 7 feet printer and the lab owner told me that he can print a full width poster (6'x10' or so) with any photo from my D750, not a problem. He said that if the photo looks good when I focus to 100% it will look amazing printed. I was tempted just so I see the result but it would cost me a bundle and I would have nowhere to hang it. But I take his word, he knows.

Digital medium format cameras have moved a very slow improvement pace compared to 35mm cameras. Once upon a time you chose medium format because of its dynamic range and resolution advantages, this is no longer the case. Its also really annoying that no manufacturer has created a lens like the Contax 80mm f2. f2.8 is meh and the fuji 110mm is not versatile enough.

The contax f/2 is meh af f/2. Soft. It is sort of usable at f/2.8 and is on par with the blue ring at around f/4..

Sony A7r3 are the best option for me. If I had the money for a Phase One kit I would by a nice car. Focusing alone kills of wanting to use a medium format for my part. Gear matters, the right tool for the job is half the job. That goes for a photographer, it goes for a builder. The future does not carry mirrors, and for now Sony is the better option.

The future does not carry mirrors for you. My future will continue to be well served as is, thank you.

I was more thinking the general direction then what you or others are using today. Maybe those who been shooting SLR cameras will hold on to it, but next generation will embrace mirrorless. But whatever gets the job done, and if it works for you then fine. Still many older photographers are getting into mirrorless to.

I understood your point. It just gets old, being told, in so many words, you're a relic. Whether it's true or not, it doesn't need to be said and so often.

If I understand you correctly you don't like my opinion?
Then you probably should correct me if I am wrong, better then spitting out some cryptic comment - I don't know what?

Or maybe I should feel sorry for old DSLR shooters who get offended when someone thinks it's old tech ready to die? And keep my peace?

I watched a live show with Edelman getting ballistic and mad like hell, someone asked him if a7r3 would be a good wedding camera. Then a few months after he changed to Olympus. Maybe you should try for yourself to.

No, no. I would never take offense at someone's opinion. But stating that the "future does not carry mirrors" isn't obviously an opinion.

Well lat us maybe agree it is not your opinion:)

Maybe we can agree that mirrorless cameras will continue to increase, proportionately, but mirrored won't go away completely.
Actually, we have a common enemy. As more people turn to their phones, fewer ILCs will be sold and development/maintenance may be affected to the point of making both types too expensive for some of us. Fortunately, I'll likely be dead by then! :-)

In looking at the work you posted the speed of AF doesn't really play into it as looks like the subjects are deliberately posed so you can focus on them manually with a 80mm 2.8 on an old 500 c/m or the Phase One with clunky AF with the same speed/results
I'd hope that a print 3 or 4 feet wide from a MF would look better than a small format camera but I don't know. I have rented MF cameras but the difference between DSLR was marginal. not worth the cost. I have made some very nice prints form the A7R2...
I don;t think the difference is as dramatic as 35mm vs 6x6 or 6x7 was in the film days.
Some folks like the baller factor, look at how many Escaldes and G wagons are sold...

Billboards are very low resolution, a shot from a consumer dslr will look no different than a Phase one shot from 100 yards away at 50mph. The real proof would be a large print that oyyou view from 1 foot away.

As a professional shooter who has owned and shot extensively with the Hasselblad H system and have used the Phase one, I have to agree with Mr. Larkin. The Sony A7RIII (a camera with which I absolutely loath shooting), the Nikon D810 (which I've also owned) and now the D850 make a compelling case for the obsolescence of medium format. Mr. Larking did not write about the plethora of very serious glass available for the Nikon and even the Sony. This factor alone may be reason to shoot full-frame cameras over MF. Zeiss, Sigma, and even the latest offerings from Nikon and Sony (who'd have thought?) are at least competitive with if not superior than the optics available for the Phase One and certainly the Hasselblad. Several of the Schneider optics are truly excellent, but so are the Zeiss Otus and Milvus lines, as well as the Sigma Arts. Better than most of all their MF equivalents.

Mr. Larkin wrote about the dynamic range and detail advantages of MF, but he did not touch one what I believe is the most salient advantage of medium format, and that is tonality. This quality is related to DR, but it not the same thing. The large pixel and sensor size of MF does indeed mean that that sensor gathers more light, and with it more nuance within that light. This is what is missing, or more accurately and less absolutely put, is to a degree less evident in his D810 shots when compared to the Phase One. However, even most working professionals don't need these the small incremental benefits of MF over great full-frames cameras, such as the D850. So all the advantages Mr. Larkin writes about trump the IQ improvements available in MF.

I was also very surprised that Larkin did not mention the Fuji GFX-50S. The Fuji outperforms—at the sensor level—both the Phase One and Hassy 50MP equivalents—a conclusion I've come to via controlled tests in my own studio. The Fuji is, of course, noticeably better than the Sony and Nikon, too. Furthermore, the quality of the individual GF System lenses generally outperforms the Schneiders and the (Fuji designed) Hasselblad offerings. In some cases by a large margin. No small thing, that. But most compellingly, the Fuji offers a feature and usability set that is much more like the D850 than it is like the Phase or the Hassy. In fact, the Fuji is so great, intuitive, and consistent to use that the small practical advantages in focus speed, etc., of a system like the Nikon is rendered largely academic. At least it is for me. The Fuji's hit rate is extremely high, both in terms of quantity of shots and the percentage of usable shots. In this regard, it is every bit as good as the Nikon or Sony—for the way I use cameras (I don't ever shoot action or sports).

John to your statement regarding tonality you are in my view right on with that, in fact so much so that tonality is with my 100mb a game changer. Gradation and light fall off is another not mentioned fact that medium format wins on in my eye.

My Leica glass when I nailed focus and for some unexplained reasons refraction of the light captured in just a certain way created some images were magical but unfortunately not repeatable on ones whim. To this I learned from many legendary photographers that you always take more than one set of images to be sure...and maybe you'll get that one magical one.

Nailing focus with a medium format camera is not the issue the issue it's ten frames a second that your Sony or Nikon is lending the most help. AF hit's the eyelashes it will never hit the pupil you have to compensate for that and to nail it with all things being equal that manual focus and a tripod.

Many extremely excellent photographs are available as examples of true genius from the 4x5 graphic days including spontaneous photos at a baseball game or weddings. They all have a magical quality with the subject, foreground and background. What a different view we get with a 120mm on a 4x5 40x54mm sensor vs 35mm. These 4x5 images also show incredible depth and critical focus leading me to believe what most people seek can be achieved with almost any camera system given the dedication.

Regarding your final paragraph, exactly!

Is that a fact. Well I've taken a mirrorless Sony and an old Phase one on a factory job a little while ago. This was the first and only time I've used any Sony on a job. It was also the only time a client ever complained about the quality of the file. Needless to say that Sony is sold and I will never try one again. It was a nightmare to operate as well. Many people don't understand what Phase One is good for. Then don't buy one. More for us. I can say that Canon 5Ds is not very far behind phase One, but it's still definitely behind. No reason for me to use Canon as long as I can afford P1. Many things P1 can do that Canon can't and never will. If you're shooting ladies outside, then P1 is not the best fit for that task anyway.

Just to clarify, you took a Sony a7rIII on a factory job and they complained about image quality? I'll take your word for it, but that sounds really really really hard to believe.

Unless I missed something, he didn't specify which model of Sony he took.

As someone who shoots MF film still, if only they put the same amount of effort into upscaling the 35mm sensor tech into MF, the story would probably be different. I have always lusted after the 645z but cannot justify the cost.

I'm going to disagree. I shoot the H system daily, with a Leaf Credo 60 (larger sensor) back. The files are always pleasing to look at, and I find the quality outperforms my Nikon (D4/5/850), both in skin tone, color and sharpness (which is probably a lens thing). The issues with the GFX that many mention in the comments are primarily that you're stuck using LR, which to me produces noticeably poorer results than C1, and isn't a stable tether platform.

I'm with Doug on this. Leaf backs are amazing. Also getting a P40+ for the faster shooting.

It´s funny that some a comparing the latest and greatest from Nikon, Canon and Sony against
a 4-year old back from Phase and then tell us, hey my new Sony is so much better bla bla.
Please compare it to the latest and greatest back that Phase One now has to offer and that is
the IQ3100 Trichromatic and then make your assumptions.
Ditto for the lenses, which means you should compare the latest from Zeiss, Sony or whatever to the newly released BlueRing lenses from Schneider which are the 35, 45 and 150mm ones, the other ones are just taken over from the Mamiya line and are just slightly better.
These lenses are as good, if not better, as every Otus, Leica or whatever out there.
And to put things in perspective the new Sony IMX 411 150MP BSI Sensor with 4k and 8k output
should be released by the end of the year in a new back from Phase One and the output from
this sensor is so fast (4 Pictures/sec) that we should see a ELV-viewfinder on the XF-body with
all the autofocus stuff that is missing right now. The only downside is it will be
expensive as hell, even for Phase One, so some will have to sell their wife and children in
slavery to afford it but hey, life was never easy.

At this point, all the first tier cameras are good enough (PhaseOne, Hasselbad, Leica, Pentax, Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Sony) that it's rarely a case of the hardware not being adequate but bioware. I've seen some first rate photography shot on Olympus MFT where it's difficult to discern the platform, unless at 100% or a very, very large print. Full frame seems to me enough, albeit with very good glass.

It's a pity that our gear no longer leaves any of us any excuses.

The blue rings are exactly the same lenses as the old ones, just in a new shell.

As so many romantic partners can testify, bigger is not necessarily better, it's how you use the equipment. Sorry to get down to basics, but in almost every aspect of human endeavor, intuition, talent and skill are far more important than equipment.

I really don't want to offend you or anyone else ... i am shooting Canon and PhaseOne side by side. Not often, but often enough. I think i know what you mean, with aspiring Joey L. - I just love him. But, it is, never was, and never will be solely about the camera, the lenses but to much degree: lightroom.
I just want to put it like that: You style of RAW-Conversion is not really a "MF-Style", mine neither!
Again, not blaming or offending. But most of the time, people complain about the limits of certain technical systems, these people are hardly the ones who really can judge this.
The biggest differences I see, is in capturing "textures of things" and the realistic look of raw-files. Also colors especially reds and oranges, magentas. A leather jacket, shot with Canon doesn't look as "leather" as shot with a P1. (But, do WE really need this. Are WE photographers who get paid, for such details or realism? But i am drifting.)

So, especially when comparing yourself to someone like Joey, do you do "fine art commercial photography"? Your images, shot with the middle format system, really don't like like shots from a mf. Too much contrasts, too much clarity/middle contrasts. It is not looking fine & realistic. A shallow DOF is nice, but it is not the only reason, going for MF. Still having enough blurred details in the unsharp areas is another thing. The MF-Look is a mixture of having a 80mm while seeing as much as a 40mm. You can't copy that with a FF.

To put in yet another perspective: MF has leaf shutter lenses. I "think" they are the only ones capable of 16 bit color depth (i may be mistaken). They not only blast more MP through the sensor, but their lenses actually are able to handle 40, 60 or even 120MP ... not like all FF lenses who are capped at around 24MP! (see dxmark0, or whatever its called)

to sum it up: if you or someone feels offended, that wasn't my intention. so i would feel sorry, if anyone would be. 2nd) I think people, who are working in the fields of commercial or fine art photography, who are doing this for like years, having big brands with a high standard of technical norm, are the ones who may really judge all this crap about Gear...

in the end: my images are wacky, because my motifs are, my images are bad, because my post processing is. my images are bad, because i am a bad photog, while still having the "best" camera in the world.

Well put Martin. At the end of the day, it's just a tool. All tools have limitations and there is no one perfect tool for everything. I've seen images that look medium format, only to find out they were shot with a FF DSLR. I've seen some MF images look bad and could have been shot with a point and shoot. I've always been from the school of thought that it's the photographer not that camera.

Pretty much. The body is only three percent of the quality. The lens accounts for seven percent. The photographer's skill, talent, and creativity accounts for the rest. I've known great photographers who can do wonders with an iPhone camera -- and awful photographers who make mockeries of their Canons.

Finally, someone who knows the difference - Thanks! How does someone post the crap out of their pictures, removing all the subtlety and nuance and then complain the camera looks like everything else? It's your crappy post making all your images look look the same as everything else! Stop it!

Firstly - your work is outstanding. Secondly, if you are posting images on social media then no one sees the difference. Print however? Magazine quality? Billboard quality? I have tortured myself repeatedly in the last year. I bought the Fujifilm GFX 50s just before the Nikon D850 came out. So... I then also bought the D850. And then I bought another one - to stick behind a 600mm lens. There lies the difference I think.

Same old assumption that the authors needs are everyone's needs.

If you are making editorial work, fashion etc, then no, don't use MF digital. Your output is 99% the printed page, and that's fine with FF. Done.

For other photographers, like landscape, product, art, billboard advertising, car, etc ultimate print quality, often *very* large, is where it's at, and nothing, repeat: NOTHING, gets close to a Phase One IQ100 file from Capture One.

I own and use 3 systems (Phase, Sony, Canon) for their respective best traits. To slam one for not doing what the others do better, is just silly. They complement, not compete.

interesting

Hello
Well I don't think it's one system over the other, it's different uses, different needs and also different outputs.
In the last 23 years I shot with almost everything, in film days I used Hasselblad, Mamiya, Canon, and Nikon.
When I moved to digital I've always worked with 2 main systems MF and 35FF.

Nowadays I use Sony, Phase One and Leica M. I think that it's a bit misleading to compare the Sony A7RIII with my iQ3 100 Trichromatic in term's of AF performance or quickness in shooting (Sony beats the crap out of Phase One in that respect and it's supposed to I think) , actually what I like on the Phase is that the quality of the file is unsurpassed , in my opinion when I need quality the Phase One it's just on another league, and to be honest for what it's made it's just perfect, the colours of the new iQ3 are like nothing I've ever seen.
That being said does't mean that the Sony is bad by no means it's a great system and for many situations way better than the Phase.
My Leica MM 246 what can I say it's my personal toy :) yes it's manual focus rangefinder but man when you nail it, when everything comes together it's magic. It's just a joy to shoot with a Leica M.
To be honest I like slow system's, everything is fast forward nowadays so being forced to slow down just feels good.
But this idea that one as to be better than the other makes no sense for me, the most polyvalence system is the 35FF for sure but that does't give it number 1 spot over the others. At least not for me.

More comments