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.
I thought I appreciated the slow-down from Phase as well, forcing to think about shots more and such.... and while it does, it also made things so painfully slow for working professional portrait/fashion shoots that it just wasn't feasible anymore, and there was no difference in perceived quality when I switched back. If anything, FF was looking better, because I had more options.
I understand your point and from your perspective, style of shooting and needs maybe MF just doesn't cut it for you (by the way the photos you showed are all amazing regardless of the system you used) . In my case the Phase iQ3 Tri is just a huge step forward, I upgraded from an old Hassel h4D-40 and yes that system didn't see much use in the last few years because it's iQ was surpassed by the Sony system in almost all the shooting situations, but the new backs are on another league, maybe in 90% of the works I do it doesn't show because the output will kill the diference, but when it's needed the difference is there and it's real.
Billboards keep getting mentioned. The minimum distance if usually 50-75ft away. No one is going to pixel peap a billboard and they arent usually printed to that high a st6andard anyway.
I was thinking the same thing. When you enlarge to that size, in my mind, it doesn't seem like having a file even double the resolution would matter especially with the viewing distance a long ways away. I'd think most viewing distance is even way outside 75 foot.
Rubbish. Modern billboards are printed very high resolution and are often viewed from close distances, in store etc.
Excellent points. I think people get GAS and think something new is always better. Being a master of what you have and finding interesting light and subjects is more important in the end. As for gear the lenses are always more important then the camera body a good lens will be around for years while you might change the camera body 3 or 4 times.
As a photographer currently using a PhaseOne IQ3 100 trichromatic i can attest to the sizeable quality difference. So much that i recently sold my Hasselblad X1D, and my Canon 5DMKiv has become nothing more than a backup camera. For me it’s the sense of realism the sensor brings. I started with film and MF is the closest thing you can get to the depth, color, and feel of film.
Most 35mm digital still feels digital. Like a 2 dimensional medium. MF has an almost lifelike, “seeing it in person” feel. I will say my Leica S is amazing and still gets very close to that feeling. Both are completely amazing compared to what Nikon, Canon, or Sony can create. I have owned all the latest systems from Canon, Nikon, Sony in search of the look and feel of large format film. And those two cameras are as close as it gets. My Leica M240 had it too, but I like the speed and efficiency of the Leica S which is closer to the big 3 in functionality.
You don’t need a Ferrari or a Bugatti, we all have to drive the speed limit (for the most part). However, only when you demand the best of your own work, can you truly appreciate the best gear. Are my shots nice enough on other systems for clients use. Sure, no question. But I always demand more of myself and that is where my value lies. In the personal satisfaction of knowing I’m delivering the best product to my clients and to myself.
I don’t need speed shooting architecture. And even if I did, I know that it should be my skill as a photographer combined with the gear that captures the best image. I shouldn’t have to focus in 300 spots and fire off 30 shots in 3 seconds to get one image I like. I want to frame it and get it right the first time. Bad shots look good. Good shots look amazing. And amazing shots can not be matched by any other system currently on the market. Your viewer gets truly immersed in the image.
I completely agree with you on the Phase One trichromatic.
It's the first time that a digital file just as all in it, and my clients notice that difference. Most importantly I know it's better, so unless I really need hi frame rate or so my primary system is the Phase.
Have any samples? Specifically this “seeing it in person” quality (I presume you’re referring to the fabled “3D pop.”)
Great discussion starter Bill.
As someone that has worked with MF and 35mmFF for more years than I want to admit I think one point should be included.
Applicability.
Just as I would never try to use my H6D-100 or PO IQ3 Tri to shoot a fast moving sports event, I would never think to use my D5 or D850 to shoot a fashion model or product. Why?. Its not that they cannot preform, it is that the look is not applicable.
When I shoot a model for a brand that will print 4000dpi to backlit media that will cover an entire wall in some high end retail environment the resolution, tonality, colour, dynamic range, and "look" HAVE to be MF 100mp or more.
When I shoot a child in some village for a client that will use the image on a pamphlet or website 35mm is the only way. Once again it comes down to the "look". The DSLR look is the look the client wants.
Just like racing a cement truck or hauling bricks in a Ferrari. Can be done but.... wrong use of a great tool.
Microscope vs telescope? Both let you look at stuff yet they truly are different tools. So too are the MF and 35mm platforms.
In this day where we want everything we buy to be cheap and a 'DoezAll' and when the new, latest, and greatest camera does not do-it-all perfectly we tend to condemn it or pronounce, with great authority, the death of it.
So I would suggest that the issue of MF vs 35mm is more nuanced and needs to expand to include applicability into the discussion.
And as to billboards.... Oh please! I've shot billboards with an old iPhone 6+ that look great.
The “look isn’t applicable”? What look? Have samples? So many are using words to describe a benefit which can’t be described but through images. Let’s see the images!
Medium Format will still always be my choice... even if its heavier, even if its more cumbersome.
Since I shoot mostly tabletop still life and food I find the fact that I can mount my Phase One back on my 4x5 view camera as well as my Hassy V system makes it invaluable. The ability to use swings and tilt with selective focus gives me control that I could never get with a 35mm body.
Great post to engage people (especially those shooting with MF) in yet another 35mm vs MF madness. "No one can tell the difference"? Well, in my opinion, nobody who never shot on MF camera can. For many (me including) the main advantages of MF is sensor size and colour. 35mm can never replicate the look of MF sensor (even Crop MF), just like MF can't replicate 4x5, 8x10 etc. Now about color: Phase One/Leaf has Capture One, Hasselblad has Focus. Being their native programs, you see exactly what you shoot. Colour correcting my Nikon D810, on the other hand, in LR or C1 can be quite frustrating, because neither C1 nor Adobe Camera Raw engine can still recognize Picture Control (and some other) settings of NEFs.
Great shots!! They all look amazing. I see the price of the Phase IQ3 100 (being 50.000$) will be a huge barrier for practically all but the best paid photographers. And you can ask yourself: it is price difference between the high-res FF camera and the Phase IQ3 100 justified by the improved quality.
I don't have the answer because I don't know your clientèle but I wonder if most people will be able to see the difference.
that's the other thing, I've seen excellent commercial images made with a 5D IV - and crappy medium format images... it's not reallllly that much about the camera... and no, 99.99999999% of all clientele would never know or care the difference. Which is why I chose to be much better off with a system that has much better workflow.
I bought a PhaseOne IQ3100MP with 4 blue ring lenses a year ago.
Worst camera EVER on planet earth.
Super slow (understatement), unreliable (under understatement).
Paid over 60k for it and am unable to find someone to buy it for more than 27k.
This system is idea for shooting 100k watches, but that's it.
I would pay 60k for my canon any day. I wouldn't pick up a phase for free.
understandable... the workflow is awful. it is CAPABLE of producing great images... but it's so difficult to actually practically use for most all workflows, that it's simply not worth it. And thats coming from someone who wanted to to work sooooo bad - the "on set baller factor" is high... but it just doesn't pan out.
While the d810 images are impressive and clearly enjoyable to take in, I shoot between a D4s and a P40+ quite often, and even on the older p40+ digital back, I can see clear differences in the tonal gradation and I do not believe the dynamic range rating of the D4s as I can pull shadows that are black, all the way to proper exposure on the p40, but can barely pull black on the d4s before it becomes a noisy mess. The p40 seems like a true ~14 stops. the d4s seems more like 5-6. my eye is better, to be honest. I even heard a Nikon ambassador say on youtube this year that the d5 really had about 5 stops of true dynamic range IE completely recoverable. ------------ you also missed one thing, image pincushion distortion. the MF lens/sensor combos look FAR more realistic in the corners and the image just looks true to life. yes, you definitely CAN see the difference between MF and 35mm FF. even this basic shot I made at a wedding looks more like what my eye sees than the pin cushion distortion of any of my FF sensors. yes you can correct it, but it still feels different after, its not just hub-bub either, a lot of the community can see the difference, spatially.
One great reason to stick with medium format is so that you can use cameras like the Mamiya RZ67. If you're skilled enough, you should be able to manually focus that thing easier, more precisely and faster than a Nikon. If you miss a shot, it means you're not in control of directing your model or setting up the right atmosphere to get the model to perform how you want. Another great reason is how a Dalsa chip will render colours and how it handles highlight rendering. It's almost film like. Another reason again is modularity and flexibility. The Nikon, while a very capable machine, it's like driving a Subaru WRX rather than a 60's Ferrari with modern mods. Generic and lacking soul.
Your comment is absolutely on the spot. I bought a used IQ280 recently and use it on an RZ67 ProIID. Absolutely love the view in the large viewfinder for composing my images - I'd say it helps me see things that I would miss in a regular-sized DSLR viewfinder. Somehow seeing the image as a large whole, from a distance, allows me better to evaluate what I am looking at. And the image quality from the IQ280 - at its base ISO of 35 - is on a significantly different level than D850 or even GFX (I have experience shooting with both), despite this being a 6-year old back (I use the latest versions of the best RZ lenses, including the APO250). Having said this, these MF cameras require a certain way of working. First of all, a CCD back with a low base ISO will need plenty of light, so typically will be more useful in a studio or when using adequately powered strobes on location. Shooting on a tripod is almost a necessity (even though Vincent Peters often shoots his RZ67 handheld...with film). As for focusing, in a darkened studio, I ask my assistant to shine a torchlight at the model momentarily, to help me focus. Learned this technique by watching an RGG Edu tutorial with Sandro Miller - this is how he uses his Hasselblad. And of course, the model has to hold the pose and stay still between focusing and the shot being taken. I always explain this to the model at the outset - she needs to adjust her rhythm and posing to our workflow. I have not shot with the XF body but fully expect that I might have to work in a similar way - the focus/recompose does not always work well with the XF, I understand. And yes, it is way easier to use Face Recognition and Eye-focus with the mirrorless cameras than shining a torchlight at the model and focusing manually. And they are faster to shoot overall and the image quality is more than adequate for a lot of disciplines. But in the end, it is the images that count and there are many ways to get to the result - I admire the great work that Sandro Miller can do with a 5-10 year old Hasselblad / P1 back combo, or what Vincent Peters does with his RZ67 on film. For me, I can get the images I want with my RZ67 and an old CCD Phase One back. There is a system for everyone's needs out there.
Autofocus is very frustrating on the XF. It's almost impossible to shoot in a dynamic setting (someone moving). Just doesn't work well.
Thank you, Bill Larking for such interesting article. Your images are masterpieces and prove one more time that its not a gear but photographers knowledge and skills create images. Mostly I agree with author, but I only shooting professionally for 3 years and recently got old p25+ digital back for my hasselblad h system. There is some qualities that you cant measure like medium format look or tonality. Same way with large format.
You talk a lot about medium format and phase one but not about Fuji that addresses a lot of your complaints
It’s so simple, you shoot 120 on film and forget all this digital non sense. I know this can seem scary and expensive for some but if you know what your doing it’s not. Plus, blow up those images real big and you’re definitely going to notice the difference.
All this bickering about shooting with these formats. Just shoot with what you want and leave everyone else alone. What the hell does it matter to anyone what the other guy (gal) is shooting with. Now go shoot and shut up.
People who wax poetic about medium format are likely speaking about film. I think film and digital MF attributes are generally conflated and that the real difference between DMF and FF are so negligible as to not be worth it. I’ve shot GFX 50S, Somy a7riv, a9ii, and Canon R5 and I’d put any of my FF work up against the Fuji any day of the week. What’s more, the FF stuff is more likely to be in focus.
99.9% of the time, the photographer and timing are what make a good image.