Medium format has seen a bit of a renaissance in the last few years, with bodies gaining advanced features typically reserved for cameras with smaller sensors and coming down in price significantly — to the point that they are viable alternatives to full frame cameras. So, do you need a medium format camera? This great video compares some of the best cameras out there to help you decide.
Coming to you from Benj Haisch, this great video compares the Fujifilm GFX 50S II, Sony a1, and Leica SL2 cameras. It has been really incredible what Fujifilm has done with medium format in the last few years. Traditionally, medium format was on a completely different echelon than full frame when it came to price, keeping it reserved for mostly rental houses and just a few lucky studio shooters. However, Fujifilm's cameras have brought top-level image quality and resolution to impressively affordable prices (relatively speaking), even offering bodies in the middle of the full frame price range, making medium format a true alternative option. And beyond that, they come with a variety of modern features, like advanced autofocus and faster burst speeds. Check out the video for Haisch's full thoughts on all the cameras.
If all your looking for is resolution then medium format is over rated. You can get tons of pixels from full frame sensors these days. IMO modern medium format is for those people that need the ultimate in editing latitude. 16 bit raw files are just BONKERS to edit with. Even if you take a REALLY poorly exposed photo at reasonable ISO's you can really bring those files back from the grave. They are absolutely mahoosive though. I had go buy enterprise HDD's to store all these behemoths. D:
why would you plan for poor exposures?
with the speed of a modern full-frame mirrorless camera, you can get off 3 bracketed exposures as easily as a single exposure on a full frame.
and the dynamic range of quality cameras make it pretty hard to consistently need more range
You can plan for good exposures all you want but that doesn't always mean those plans are going to pan out. Bracketing isn't an option for all shooting situations. I talked smack about MF before I actually owned one and now that I've edited the raw files I know that MF has It's place. The majority of work people shoot can be easily done on modern APSC cameras and even micro 4/3rds. The majority of people do not need a MF camera or even a FF camera but MF and FF capabilities are undeniable especially with color on MF and can really make ones life a lot easier if one can afford it.
one more iteration of intelligent processing, and there will be no benefit whatsoever from "medium format"
after all, the only thing that each pixel does is to record a finite piece of information;; and the use of this information properly allows any camera to expand the same size file to the same degree of qualities that make a great photograph
For 99% of the time. Maybe even 100% of the time. You don't need a medium format camera. At one time in photography history, medium format might have been the workhorse go to camera to capture the best of the best shots. But, not so much in today's term with camera technology.
Video production note: that flashing background celluloid thing makes the video unwatchable.
Other than that, I can't really say I learned anything new, honestly.
Couldn’t the same apply to
“Do you need a Full Frame camera?”
Look forward to all the boring equivalence zealots telling me how important they are and how they can’t live without them.
Do you need medium format? Probably not. But when I wanted to step up in megapixels I chose the Fuji 50sII and it's the first time I've ever made a camera choice based on sensor size.
I've been using APS-C Fujis for the last 8 years, and that's after using both Canon and Nikon FF and APS-C. 90% of my shooting is in manual mode and on a tripod (landscape, tabletop) so camera speed and video specs weren't part of the equation. The Canon R5 was in the running, and I rented one, but I just kept thinking that I would be paying for a ton of features I wouldn't need.
So, at the end of the day I stepped up from 26MP to 50MP with the 50sII and got an even larger sensor than the R5. Is there a difference between the Fuji MF and the R5? There is some difference, mostly in shadow and highlight clipping. But I was going to need a whole new lens system either way, so for the GFX 50sII to edge out the R5 was enough to tip the scales.
This was my reasoning. I'll eventually get an R5 for my run and gun work, but as of now, I can use my 50sII for my portraiture and still work with my Mark IV for the time being for r & g.
More like trendy format!
For me the “Medium Format Look” shows most in wide angle portraits.
You can get a less distorted and or more normal “look” to the people especially at closer distances .
With modern lens technologies and designs making our lenses less distorted and a flatter image across the board things are getting closer . On my Fujifilm 6x9 film camera the 90mm lens is close to 40mm . It hasn’t been many years back the a 35mm lens at close portrait distance created a pretty odd looking portrait. As a matter of fact we’ve been even taught to not get too close with a 50mm lens in 35mm format. Apsc is even worse of course so the bigger formats I believe got a reputation for a “look” of normalcy that felt pleasing to the eye and more professional.