MFD 2025 – state of the industry and outlook

[Steve Hendrix]

That made me smile! What a line. It's perfect.

I try to minimize the number of lenses that are gathering dust instead of light, but there are a few...



It's interesting how people ascribe "soul" to inanimate things. If I'm reading you correctly, I think you're measuring "pleasure in use" -- something I do understand well. I don't go out often without my F-Universalis outfit, but when I feel like just using a body and a lens, I'll take my Mamiya N lenses all the time instead of the only GF lens I have. I get great pleasure in use from the Mamiya lenses, but not from the GF lenses.

As for digital cameras, they are just machines to me. Some are more functional (for me) than others, but they're all just electronic boxes. Full disclosure: I haven't had the pleasure of holding a Hasselblad X camera. Maybe I'll go over to the soul side if that ever happens (although I expect I will not enjoy missing all the functionality I have on my GFX bodies that isn't available on the CFV 100C).

Yeah ... "ascribing soul to inanimate things". Indeed. I think we just don't know how else to put it. But it seems to refer to how at home we feel with an object. For many objects this is reflected in how you interface with said object. Hence, with an automobile (today more than ever), with a computer, etc.. I once felt guilty about my Mac bias, so to be fair, I bought a PC and gave it a full chance. I used it about 4-5 months and then sold it. Why? It wasn't so much the boring hardware, it was the OS. I felt like I was trying to communicate with an alien who had just stepped off a ship from some other galaxy. And that never got better, or ... I never became comfortable with that. With the Mac, it felt like a family member, who knew that I always threw my dirty clothes in a heap in the closet, and that's where I'd find them

And so of course, the same with cameras. Many express frustration with camera interfaces, the Hasselblad is one of the exceptions where their GUI is actually seen as a strength rather than something to tolerate. So the feeling of being at home with a device, that it understands you, when in reality, you understand it, is prevalent. Whether this is indeed soulless and soulful is just in how we perceive the relationship.

Many downplay the interface/communication struggles that they encounter with Fuji, because they adjust, get used to it, and they value the features and performance of the system so greatly, it doesn't matter whether they perceive the camera as soulless or not. They just want to create great photographs. As someone who sells all these systems, I see both sides and everyone is different. Some things can certainly be objectively stated, but how that manifests in a purchase preference is of course up to the individual.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[rdeloe]

Yeah ... "ascribing soul to inanimate things". Indeed. I think we just don't know how else to put it. But it seems to refer to how at home we feel with an object. For many objects this is reflected in how you interface with said object.

Not going to lie here... when I walk past my F-Universalis on the way to something else, the number of times I stop to touch it and just move things around is not small... I have never stopped at my GFX 100S to pick it up and handle it! I used to have some old Asahi Takumar lenses that I kept on my desk during the day so that they were close to hand and I could pick them up. The Takumar 35 is a little mechanical jewel.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Well one thing is for sure, it's looking up for MFD!

 

[ThdeDude]

...have 3 Alpa's and a full line of lenses from 23mm - 210mm and it's gathering mainly dust instead of light after the arrival of the Fuji t/s lenses, those combined with the latest Canon t/s gives me a very desirable quality - the Fuji 30mm and 110mm is performing better than the Rodenstocks on my Alpa's.
...
/adam

Not really surprised here. The Fuji TS 30mm and 110mm are of newer design and of more recent manufacture, thereby taking advantage of any improvements in the design and manufacturing process, and probably are also designed such that optical aberrations will be corrected during image processing. I assume the Digarons are also slightly compromised in being of retrofocus design - this was deemed necessary at the time of design in order to minimize lens cast corrections.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Not really surprised here. The Fuji TS 30mm and 110mm are of newer design and of more recent manufacture, thereby taking advantage of any improvements in the design and manufacturing process, and probably are also designed such that optical aberrations will be corrected during image processing. I assume the Digarons are also slightly compromised in being of retrofocus design - this was deemed necessary at the time of design in order to minimize lens cast corrections.

The HR Digarons are uncompromising and APO glass, meaning you will barely see any aberrations. The best of the best.

The new Fuji lenses are a lot heavier, large and unwieldy, locked to the Fuji ecosystem - a soulless system in terms of look and feel and UI - and doing multirow stitching is awkward.

Rodenstock lenses are more compact, open system - meaning you can use any back, including CCD and Hassy with HNCS as well as mirrorless cams and in general offer more shift.

For a working pro the Fuji may be a cheaper and more efficient system + EVF is helpful in certain shooting approaches; but these lenses are humongous and closed system. With Rodie glass you can even shoot film and they are a more or less good value retentive investment, to this day still, meaning they held up extremely well over the last 10-15y.

It really depends on your shooting style as there's clear beenfits to having a quick and dirty Fuji system vs. a slow, but great tech cam approach. Everyone likes sth else.

 

[vieri]

This is from an architectural photographers personal view - but the longevity, is really under pressure here in 2025, - 7 years ago, the gap between a PO solution and the others where significant, when talking images quality, today not so much...

For my professional use I have 3 Alpa's and a full line of lenses from 23mm - 210mm and it's gathering mainly dust instead of light after the arrival of the Fuji t/s lenses, those combined with the latest Canon t/s gives me a very desirable quality - the Fuji 30mm and 110mm is performing better than the Rodenstocks on my Alpa's.

But most important, the movements and composition on the Fuji 100II is also so much, much easier to control with the movable EVF than the screen on the IQ back, especially from a lower viewpoint that I tend to use about the hight when using the waist level finder on a HB V.

So, as Paul is saying all the time, a tiltable EVF for the an upcoming IQ is very importen in 2025, in my opinion as well.

Besides the general ease of use, the fuji EVF and the 30mm t/s is the only reason why I'm using the Fuji today, since the camera itself is absolutely soulless in my view - but the camera is just working more or less flawless and the files it produces are extremely robust in post-processing.

So more mega-pixels will far from be enough for me to consider an upgrade - it's 2025 and the playing field is different than 7 years ago.

On a side note - for compensating using a soulless camera, I have been out this afternoon and enjoying some 4x5's on a Technikardan together with a "new" 300mm Apo-Symmar among others - it's a treatment that I can wholehearted recommend

/adam

Hey Adam,

Indeed, technology progresses, no surprise there - but, just about longevity:

- P1 IQ4 released October 2018, the first GFX 100 released June 2019;

almost the same number of years later, both lines still use what basically is the same sensor they did at release, the GFX had a few model iterations to fix and add features, the IQ4 a few FW updates to fix bugs and add features. The GFX had, crucially, some lenses added while the P1 did not - except for the P1 150mm recently released and for Tilt versions of the XT lenses (same glass though). The original GFX 100 had a tilting EVF option already at launch.

If I understand your post correctly, the reason for you to now use the GFX100 for your professional work instead of the Alpa all boils down to Fuji finally releasing T/S lenses, which makes a lot of sense for your kind of work since you now get enough image quality from the GFX (or better, according to your analysis of the 30mm's quality) in a much more user friendly package than the Alpas, so much so that it put your Alpas on the dust-gathering path to oblivion...

For my own work, as a B&W landscape professional photographer using a lot of long exposures, the acutance of the IQ4 Achro and Frame Averaging are the two features which locked me into Phase One. Regarding the speculations in this thread, a 150mp B&W sensor effectively makes the idea of upgrading to a 247mp colour sensor fairly meaningless, short of other changes in the supposed new IQ5.

The truly crucial point of your post, and the one camera manufacturer should pay more attention to, is how important are - for any given kind of serious, professional photography - single features which may look "the same" to the general photographers' public. For instance, I would never use the GFX series unless they come to their senses with the implementation of long exposures, which I use pretty much for every single shot and which make little sense to me in the Fuji. If Phase One disappeared suddenly and my IQ4 Achro back vaporised, I would go to the X2D rather than to the Fuji just for the long exposure implementation. Or, filter size / ease of use filters: I would never choose a system which ultra-wide option couldn't easily use a 100mm square filter system (ruling out pretty much all fixed-hood, bulbous 12-24, 14-24 kinda zooms from Canon / Nikon / Sony). And so on...

E.g., it might sound trivial to most, but one of the things I truly dislike of the IQ4 is the battery and chargers it uses. Ab absurdum, If the new IQ5 were just a IQ4 with a new battery system belonging to the 21st century, thus eliminating the need to carry a ton of spares and a charger that takes as much room in my bag as two lenses, it would almost be reason enough to upgrade - on the other hand, if the currently vapourware new IQ5 will use the same 900 series battery, then I am not sure I'd be interested in upgrading regardless of the rest of the features... I'd just get a second IQ4 Achro (likely on the second hand market) to make sure that between the two they would last me until I die and be happy with what I got.

All that said, I have been doing some real soul-mending of my own in the last few months, using an Arca-Swiss custom-made F-line 4x5" camera non-stop every day between early September and early December for my work, and I just loved it. Loved it. There is just nothing like it. I am now developing and scanning those huge, beautiful negatives and it's pure joy.

I love digital and technology, I have been using P1 since 2010 (with a hiatus), used pretty much all digital cameras there are (except for Canon) and everything from APS-C to tech cameras (now Alpa STC, previously Arca-Swiss Rm3di, Linhof Techno, Silvestri Bicam), I used Leica (SL, S typ 007=6 and 007, and all digital Ms, plus film M and R), Pentax MF, Hasselbald film (500 series) and X series, Nikon film and digital up to the D3, Sony Nex, Fuji X100, but the temptation of saying "f..k it all" and go back to film full time, getting out of the rat race of updates, speculation, features and frustration thereof (there will never be a camera that does what each of us need exactly and even if there will be, we would still be looking for the next one!), is really strong.

Of course, I completely appreciate that going back to 4x5" or to film in general is something that not every professional photographer could do, and something that wouldn't be feasible for professional photography today for many kinds of photography. But, since I am in the lucky position of being able to do so for my work, I am seriously tempted.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[cunim]

@vieri, thanks for giving such a clear description of "soul" and the 4x5.

I feel the same pull to LF but, for me, it isn't film that matters. If I never do another reciprocity correction or clean another fix tank I'm good. I see film as just another sensor that can be digitally modelled - with instant feedback about the success of the model. So, I miss LF but not film.

Working with larger sensors is just better. Movements are easier to dial in, focusing screens are big, and so forth. Just the fact that we are using a big sensor makes us stand out from the herd. That last feature is devilishly attractive (speaking of soul) and, in fact, is a major factor in why some of us are with MF. I guess it's all about image.

So, what does all this mean for an IQ5? It means that the current MF cameras are too small and pedestrian to attract the LF photographers and too big to avoid losing share to the cropped format. P1 appear to be chasing density but that's marketing. Sadly, doing a serious game changer like format size is just too hard and expensive.

Given that we are cursed with tiny tools (hmm) there are ways to use them better and the primary weakness of high res MF lies in focusing. The answer is better hardware and I am actually quite depressed to hear @Steve Hendrix comment that a P1 EVF is unlikely. What's so hard? Buy it from Fuji and contract the interface. A movable EVF on the IQ5 back (NOT on whatever replaces the XF) is the only feature that would ensure that I trade in the IQ4. Other things are nice to have, sure. but better focusing is essential. The lovely EVF is the primary reason I have a GF camera and lenses, and until P1 have something equivalent they will lose market share to the crop formats. Rant off.

@rdeloe, I am trying to get the image of you touching your Universalis out of my head. Actually, I do the same with my monolith and I downright fondle the 138 HR. Can't say I ever do that with the GF.

.

 

[rdeloe]

@vieri, thanks for giving such a clear description of "soul" and the 4x5.

I feel the same pull to LF but, for me, it isn't film that matters. If I never do another reciprocity correction or clean another fix tank I'm good. I see film as just another sensor that can be digitally modelled - with instant feedback about the success of the model. So, I miss LF but not film.

Working with larger sensors is just better. Movements are easier to dial in, focusing screens are big, and so forth. Just the fact that we are using a big sensor makes us stand out from the herd. That last feature is devilishly attractive (speaking of soul) and, in fact, is a major factor in why some of us are with MF. I guess it's all about image.

So, what does all this mean for an IQ5? It means that the current MF cameras are too small and pedestrian to attract the LF photographers and too big to avoid losing share to the cropped format. P1 appear to be chasing density but that's marketing. Sadly, doing a serious game changer like format size is just too hard and expensive.

Given that we are cursed with tiny tools (hmm) there are ways to use them better and the primary weakness of high res MF lies in focusing. The answer is better hardware and I am actually quite depressed to hear @Steve Hendrix comment that a P1 EVF is unlikely. What's so hard? Buy it from Fuji and contract the interface. A movable EVF on the IQ5 back (NOT on whatever replaces the XF) is the only feature that would ensure that I trade in the IQ4. Other things are nice to have, sure. but better focusing is essential. The lovely EVF is the primary reason I have a GF camera and lenses, and until P1 have something equivalent they will lose market share to the crop formats. Rant off.

Regarding tiny tools, we need to keep in mind that it's not the size or shape of your ship, but how you sail it.

@rdeloe, I am trying to get the image of you touching your Universalis out of my head. Actually, I do the same with my monolith and I downright fondle the 138 HR. Can't say I ever do that with the GF.

I checked with Human Resources and camera fondling is allowed by policy. We're good!

On a more serious and professional note, harrumph, I use Windows and I drive a Honda Civic, which probably explains why I'm happy with a Fuji GFX camera as the "back" on my F-Universalis. I don't need a romantic relationship with my back/camera; I just need it to be a reliable tool that I can operate by muscle memory, and which I can replace easily if I drop it into a bog or off a cliff. I forgive my GFX 100S its non-fondleability and its klunky menu system because it checks those boxes very thoroughly.

Stepping back a bit, one thing that is obvious from the other recent posts in this thread is that we all have our very specific needs that may not seem like needs to other people. In my case, a major barrier to switching over to any other system is the fact that I can record voice memos linked to image files with GFX cameras, but I can't do that with alternatives (to the best of my knowledge). Similarly, not being able to automatically write focal length into EXIF at the time of image capture (easy with Fuji) would be a huge annoyance. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody else cared about these two functions, but they're central in my workflow and I would not be happy using a camera that couldn't provide them.

 

[Paratom]

Personally I am a little tired that we don't get roadmaps from those manufactures. If there comes an S4-how long do we have to wait for a complete lense lineup? Old S-lenses on mirrorless, at least on SL bodies focus loud and slow, no fun. SO I am not sure how good older lenses will work on an S4.
In my case I keep the old S stuff, but I also just have rebought a x2d with a 20-35,45, and 75 should arrive soon. I wanted IBIS, I wanted a camera now and not one announced In 9 months, available in when??? and sorted out in...
Also for me the 20-35 is very attractive MF lens. I think the S lenses are better than many of the xcd lenses, but how long do we have to wait for progress in bodies? And when and how many new lenses will appear for an S4, and how long will Leica support the system?
What I am trying to say is...interesting to see what might be coming, but for me much more important what is available and proved to work.

 

[ThdeDude]

The HR Digarons are uncompromising ...

An argument can be made that everything in life is subject to compromises.

If Digarons wouldn't be subject to compromises, for example, we wouldn't have (or need!) to different lines: Digaron-S and Digaron-(S)W.

 

[ThdeDude]

... With Rodie glass you can even shoot film ...

Yes, very good point in favor. All Digaron-Ws easily cover 6x7.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Personally I am a little tired that we don't get roadmaps from those manufactures. If there comes an S4-how long do we have to wait for a complete lense lineup? Old S-lenses on mirrorless, at least on SL bodies focus loud and slow, no fun. SO I am not sure how good older lenses will work on an S4.
In my case I keep the old S stuff, but I also just have rebought a x2d with a 20-35,45, and 75 should arrive soon. I wanted IBIS, I wanted a camera now and not one announced In 9 months, available in when??? and sorted out in...
Also for me the 20-35 is very attractive MF lens. I think the S lenses are better than many of the xcd lenses, but how long do we have to wait for progress in bodies? And when and how many new lenses will appear for an S4, and how long will Leica support the system?
What I am trying to say is...interesting to see what might be coming, but for me much more important what is available and proved to work.

Leica takes its time, they just had the most successful year in their history. And they do all on their own in their HQ, including production. It'll be worth the wait.

A new system is a gift, you can only expect a new mount every few decades, to be honest ...

 

[ThdeDude]

I love digital and technology, I have been using P1 since 2010 (with a hiatus), used pretty much all digital cameras there are (except for Canon) and everything from APS-C to tech cameras (now Alpa STC, previously Arca-Swiss Rm3di, Linhof Techno, Silvestri Bicam), I used Leica (SL, S typ 007=6 and 007, and all digital Ms, plus film M and R), Pentax MF, Hasselbald film (500 series) and X series, Nikon film and digital up to the D3, Sony Nex, Fuji X100, but the temptation of saying "f..k it all" and go back to film full time, ...

No smartphone as camera?

I would say, boils down to expectations that one associates with the newest and latest offerings. If the expectations are unjustified and unreasonable then there will be always disappointment. In the end, a camera is a mere tool, nothing less but nothing more. If one google hammer, one get thousands of different hammer. Apparently none does it all.

 

[AlexeyDanilchenko]

The explanation I got... using the Sony sensor, that means removing the CFA, thus nullifying the PDAF auto-focus. So, a monochrome Q3 would need a unique auto-focus set-up. There are much more technically minded people who say whether or not that narrative flies, but that was the story I got.

PDAF pixels are not covered by CFA pigments or more precisely they are separate although masking is done during fabrication similar to CFA. So if sensor is fabricated as monochrome without CFA I don't see why it would prevent PDAF pixels to exist? Surely the process of masking pixels for PDAF is separate from layering CFA pigments and can be done standalone?

 

[ThdeDude]

... S4
What I am trying to say is...interesting to see what might be coming, but for me much more important what is available and proved to work.

We could have a S4 announcement this afternoon so convincing that most of us just knew we must have it. Or there will never be a S4 because Leica decided that with the existing offerings from HB, Fuji, and P1 there is just no business case in restarting the S line.

I wonder what made Sony to decide to go with a 3:2 aspect ratio. An aspect ratio that is traditionally/historically closely associated with Leica. Could a MF with such an aspect ratio a good differentiator from the current offerings of P1, HB, and Fuji?

 

[vjbelle]

Regarding tiny tools, we need to keep in mind that it's not the size or shape of your ship, but how you sail it.



I checked with Human Resources and camera fondling is allowed by policy. We're good!

On a more serious and professional note, harrumph, I use Windows and I drive a Honda Civic, which probably explains why I'm happy with a Fuji GFX camera as the "back" on my F-Universalis. I don't need a romantic relationship with my back/camera; I just need it to be a reliable tool that I can operate by muscle memory, and which I can replace easily if I drop it into a bog or off a cliff. I forgive my GFX 100S its non-fondleability and its klunky menu system because it checks those boxes very thoroughly.

Stepping back a bit, one thing that is obvious from the other recent posts in this thread is that we all have our very specific needs that may not seem like needs to other people. In my case, a major barrier to switching over to any other system is the fact that I can record voice memos linked to image files with GFX cameras, but I can't do that with alternatives (to the best of my knowledge). Similarly, not being able to automatically write focal length into EXIF at the time of image capture (easy with Fuji) would be a huge annoyance. I wouldn't be surprised if nobody else cared about these two functions, but they're central in my workflow and I would not be happy using a camera that couldn't provide them.

Although I have never used it I always have felt that the ability to use voice memos with the Fuji was/is a really big deal. All sorts of information could be quickly captured for later use. The ability to imbed focal length into the EXIF is a huge plus even though many times I forget to change it.. Of course the unbelievable EVF brings the 100 II into a world of it's own. Once owned it cannot be given up.

So, I too am very happy with my Fuji and also very happy that I have a CFV 100C to take advantage of my wider lenses on the Pico. I have yet to purchase the mirrorless adapter and bellows for the Fuji on the Pico but have used it extensively on my M-Two which does have the capability to use either my Fuji or CFV-100C.

Victor B.

 

[algrove]

Paul
I see you cannot wait either. My ONLY issue with 100C Hasselblad images is processing in Phocus (minimally) and then export to C1 ASAP so I can do something in PP familiar to me. Understand the why, it's just the doing that frustrates at times. The colors are good.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I wonder what made Sony to decide to go with a 3:2 aspect ratio. An aspect ratio that is traditionally/historically closely associated with Leica. Could a MF with such an aspect ratio a good differentiator from the current offerings of P1, HB, and Fuji?

Silicon wafers are circular, and its my understanding that 3:2 rectangles can be packed more efficiently on a circular wafer than 4:5 rectangles. This means more sensors per wafer, which directly impacts manufacturing costs. The 3:2 ratio allows for better utilization of the circular wafer space with less waste around the edges ... I think the reason is that the shorter side allows for a more dense stacking per row if you want to always hit the edge and go row by row alongside the edge of the wafer.

And the 3:2 ratio provides a good compromise for both landscape and portrait orientations. It's wide enough for landscapes but not so wide that it becomes awkward when rotated for portraits, unlike more square ratios like 5:4, to some people, so for a lot of 35mm traditionalists this is an ideal format.

LF people prefer 5:4 and do not find it awkward for portraits. I've grown accustomed to 5:4.

 

[Vivseries1]

John Black, I'm curious about your statement about the Pentax Monochrome - "it's a SLR, so no AF if using filters. Its metering will be disaster." I have only used green and yellow filters with my Pentax Monochrome but have not had any AF or metering problems. Have you had this problem using a red filter?

 

[John Black]

A yellow filter is very mild and won't shift the AF focus much. As the filters get redder, the focus shift be increasingly problematic. Maybe the Pentax will handling the AE better, but generally with the Leica Mono with a red / dark red filter & polarizer, I need +2 to +3 EC. On the XF with an Achromatic, the EC adjustment is +3 to +5 EC. On the XF it's just easier to shooting manual exposure.

Supposedly perfect APO won't have the focus shift issues. My experience with that has been questionable. Or maybe my lenses weren't as APO as advertised.