Digital Medium Format Question

[VTech]

Hi all,

since I kind of have to get a new camera body somewhere the next couple of months,
I'm debating if I should change system. Currently I use Fuji XT3. I'm a product photographer.
Since lot's of product photographers use medium format, I was tinkering if I should go for a used digital MF package.

But that got me thinking some more.
Why do product photographers often use medium format?

Most of the time we want deep focus. A smaller sensor would make this easier...
Is it for cropping? Or printing?
Focal length feel, which should not be a problem if you have enough space.

What are your thoughts?

 

[med]

A lot to unpack in there, and I will let others chime in on some of the "why" questions, as I am not really a product photographer. What I can say is that indeed deep focus is often desirable, and modern MF bodies such as the Phase One XF make focus stacking a breeze, which is really the best way to get it IMHO; increased depth of field at an equivalent AOV on a smaller format only gets you so far, but focus stacking gives you a lot more control. Additionally, MF DBs afford the use of technical cameras, which gives you another level of control.

Honestly, with the advent of small format view cameras (Actus, Universalis, etc) and the closing of the resolution and DR gap, there aren't as many advantages in going MF as there were ~10 years ago for many types of photography in terms of the actual results. That being said, I love working with the big MF bodies (Phase One XF, Hasselblad H) for subjects that don't move quickly, and with backs on technical cameras for tripod work, and the files can be astounding. If you will be working in a studio at base/low ISO then 40-80MP CCD backs will give you a nice IQ bump over the XT3 and give you a taste of the MF experience. Of course the Hasselblad X and Fuji GFX will give you a huge IQ bump but will be a similar mirrorless experience to the XT3.

 

[Pieter 12]

Product photographers traditionally used LF cameras in the studio for the movements. Something you still can't get with a FF digital camera. The advantage of a medium (and large) format film camera was the negative size compared to 35mm. However, with higher resolution available in smaller format digital cameras, that seems to be lessening. You still have higher resolution with MF digital, as well as a larger viewfinder for easier viewing and composition. Tethering a smaller format camera helps, but it is not quite the same as positioning and viewing through the camera for initial set-up. And many clients still expect state-of-the art equipment to be used.

 

[VTech]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
It's a mix of studio and on (chosen) locations I do. There is indeed a H2 Set with 3 lenses and a P45+ back (around 2000 euro) near me that I've been keeping tabs on.

There is also the new XH2 and XH2S that are coming out. I'm closely watching the rumors about the XH2/XH2S.

Tethering a smaller format camera helps, but it is not quite the same as positioning and viewing through the camera for initial set-up. And many clients still expect state-of-the art equipment to be used.

Well, as you might suspect, I'm not at the top level yet.
But that's something that keeps me a bit busy in my head. That when I get some higher level clients, they will be off put if I'm not using a MF camera and back.

 

[RobbieAB]

Why go MF at the 2k price point? Why not go with mid ranged, new, FF?

I know it doesn’t give the same GAS dopamine hit, but realistically I would expect any of the current big three Canikony cameras to be better on almost every technical metric than a 10+ year old digital back.

When I asked myself the same question a few years ago, my answer was, quite simply, “because I want to and I like how it feels”. But it is a hobby for me, not something where I really need any justification beyond “I want to” once budget constraints are followed.

 

[PabloR]

i am product photographer. For me it was a evolution, always looking for quality images

I have tried canon and Nikon, Leica, phase one, Hasselblad, Sinar, Schneider technical lenses...

That evolution brings me to Hasselblad, for me the best in terms of quality and price in second hand market.

Once I started with apse or FF, the quality compared to a Hasseblald ( times of canon 5D vs H3D 39 II ) was ridiculous.

today I will not step back to FF, apse, neither Sinar technical cameras. In studio I find Hasselbald the best tool, or the tool can gives me the best results in terms of quality-time-price.

With a medium digital format camera you can get beautiful portraits, sharp fashion images, incredible beauty shots, and power product images.

About depth of field. I shot jewelry, always stacking. Its true today the look to achieve is stacked images for products. Some times I think about it, but always comes back to Hasselblad and shot. If f22 is not enough, then I will stack. If there is not enough time , I will use a short focal length and shot and crop, so high resolution is useful on medium format, 50 Megan is enough for me, 100 is powerful.

16 bit color will be better in all aspects.

Transitions will be better in all aspects.

Sharpenss also.

clarity also.

Lenses are awesome.

Quality is better in medium format systems.

kind regards

 

[RobbieAB]

@PabloR So you can answer the question for yourself.

I notice the two cameras you name check are the H3Dii-39 (2007) vs a Canon 5D (2005). If I was choosing between those, I would completely agree. However… that isn’t the comparison I was comparing.

I was comparing the 2007 (P45+) camera to a 2020 camera, and suggesting that the advances in,well, everything camera, over the more than a decade gap might change the ranking.

 

[anwarp]

If you really need MF for a client, you could always rent the equipment.