The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Why did you go back to full frame DSLR?

johnnygoesdigital

New member
In regards to doing research on MFD, this is a great place to start. You would expect to find many experiences here considering the heading of this particular section (MFS & DB's). Yes, many have left MFD for the Nikon D800, and some experiences are varied. For me, I wanted the best money could buy, I wanted a camera system I could expand on to enhance my productivity...a camera I could rely on and have access to the best lenses, one that wouldn't be shadowed by planned obsolescence. I thought, it must be medium format digital.

What became extremely frustrating for me, was the initial investment of MFD, and its reliability.
The D800 has been a fantastic camera so far and i'm sure Canon will match that too. Consider this purchase carefully because if your doing studio portraits, then the D800/e will be perfect! According to DXO's own evaluation the Nikon D800/e sensor outperforms all medium format DB's, including Phase One's IQ 180!

My experience with MFD left me with no confidence in the cameras, but I do still shoot medium format film, with the option of a DB, in my Hasselblad H2. That's a fantastic, reliable camera system, by the way. It just seems the fully digital ones had glitches. If you decide to shoot MFD, most, if not all of the cameras can be purchased for considerably less of their original cost. Also consider the Pentax 645D, it's the same sensor as the H4D/40, but I don't think i've read anything negative about that camera, and new lenses are being added too.

While i've become sorta of an outcast here at GetDpi because of my comments about MFD, these are my experiences. When you can concentrate on the art, as opposed to the tools, you evolve.
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
To the OP, Ed said it pretty well: If you want to find reasons to stay with MFDB or both MF and FFDSLR, then your question posed here makes sense. If you want to hear reasons to not bother with MFDB, post this same question in the Nikon forum.

End of day it really is simple: Assuming one of the say last 3 generation of DMF systems, nothing beats the quality of a properly captured and properly processed MF file, regardless of MF cam/back used to capture it. Compared to the current gen D800, you'll be living with a bit slower and less accurate AF, fewer auto features, slower capture rates, larger physical camera size, more limited lens selection and a few operational idiosyncrasies dependent on which system you use to get those superior files.
 

Swissblad

Well-known member
What became extremely frustrating for me, was the initial investment of MFD, and its reliability.
The D800 has been a fantastic camera so far .....
It's a pity about your experience with the reliability of MFD systems.

It's odd, but the reason we've stayed off buying a D800E has been the question of reliability - with too many postings on the web concerning the infamous "Left AF focus" issue, but also the experience of colleagues, who've had numerous repair issues.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I guess these issues happen with all makes and models, but unfortunately I would lose more on the depreciation and downtime, as opposed to just abandoning the system. Oddly, my H2 and RZ, that both can take film or DB's work perfectly. I didn't want to abandon the format completely:)

The D800 has been flawless so far, really sharp images with an insane amount of dynamic range. Go figure...
 

David Schneider

New member
In a fairly short time I will be selling my wonder Hasselblad H3D2-38 and four lenses. Not because I don't love them because I really do. But I'm getting closer to retirement from my studio at the same time my high school senior business is growing. It's just overkill using the MFD on seniors. Plus I need a new roof on my building.

When I compare my H3D2-38 files to my Canon, I just smile. The Hassie files are just so much nicer to view, nicer to work with, faster to retouch and they just plan make me grin to see all that detail. But the bottom line is my gear is a tool of the businessl and it's not getting the use it should so it will be sold. That's why I'll be moving back to dslr and Fuji XE1.
 

John Perkins

New member
Actually, I'm kind of amazed that there is so much emotion provoked by asking a simple question about reviewing decisions made about gear in retrospect.

I am grateful for the people who are giving their insights without insinuating I have some malicious intent. I don't.

Before I posted I did look around quite a bit. There was a lot of arguing about comparing the two systems in terms of raw performance, but there wasn't much direct discussion I could find of "I did it, but it wasn't really worth it to me, and he's why." Also I did not feel that posting in the Nikon forum -- where probably 99.9% of the people never WENT to MFD -- was any more appropriate than asking the question here.

I'm fine to let the thread die or be closed at this point.
 

Nutcracker

New member
I'm just amazed how civil this thread has been ...
Well, I imagine that the mindset that is necessary for the slowed down, contemplative nature of Medium Format has a civilizing influence, or uncovers the underlying benign and tolerant nature of those individuals who develop interest or addiction in the area....
Pity it is not a universal attribute...
 

Shashin

Well-known member
John, you might be surprised at the contentious debates we have every time a 35mm camera is released with more pixels, the D800 being the latest. Since your title implies why you should even bother with MFD, it really seems like another ones of those threads that get rehashed again and again. We are getting tired of the noise. So please forgive us if we seem a little ratty about this. But welcome.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Considering new members join all the time, you'd think John would get a little respect. How is he to know that this has been discussed?

John, your question is valid, but when you start to peel away the layers here, some answers might not be as objective as you'd think.
Think about it, this is a photography forum where questions and answers should mingle freely without repercussions for offending a brand or format. At the core of these disgruntled replies, might be the initial investment to MFD or why would it matter?
 

alajuela

Active member
Considering new members join all the time, you'd think John would get a little respect. How is he to know that this has been discussed?

John, your question is valid, but when you start to peel away the layers here, some answers might not be as objective as you'd think.
Think about it, this is a photography forum where questions and answers should mingle freely without repercussions for offending a brand or format. At the core of these disgruntled replies, might be the initial investment to MFD or why would it matter?
I think John has received respect, look how many people gave their truly honest answers. As I am sure John and all of us see, there are as many answers as there are people. Unfortunately it is not a simple Math problem, there are "Horses for Courses" but also it is subjective and based on perceived need and other influences.
John should as mentioned - get to a reputable dealer, look at Phase, Leaf, Pentax, Leica SLRs, maybe techs or view cameras.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I think it is totally fine if such questions come up again and again.
Being someone having used both MF and DSLR and mirrorless for many years I am debating with myself every couple of month about this question.
It is very hard to answer though and everybody has to find out himself.
I have found 2 cameras which are the right compromise for me:
The Leica S system because for a (near)MF system it is very flexible and easy to use, it is also weather proof and it is relativly good to carry.
The 5dIII because if I use a DSLR I want it to do the things my Leica S can not do so good: fast AF tracking, fast shooting, good high ISO, nice zooms (I use the 24-70II 80%) and all this not being too big.
The IQ from the 5dIII seems very good to me, still the IQ from the S is clearly ahead in my "view"/opinion/taste.
I am now more debating with myself if I really still need a Leica M (which is a system I have used and liked for many years)
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
.
I am now more debating with myself if I really still need a Leica M (which is a system I have used and liked for many years)
If you still like it then it seems logical to keep it.

As regards the DSLR vs MF system questions, it's really a case of deciding what matters to you and decide appropriately. They are just intrinsically different and it's a personal decision.
 

torger

Active member
There are so many motives, and rarely it's about image quality alone.

I use my tech camera to shoot landscapes because I enjoy the workflow and movements is important for my style. I like the sharp and simple Schneider Digitar lenses more than the retrofocus monsters available on the DSLRs, but I'd love to have Canon-like liveview and D800-like dynamic range in my digital back if I could.

I also have a Canon DSLR which I use for all types of hand-held photography or other fast-paced action. I would personally probably have a very hard time convincing me that I would need a MF-DSLR as they for me just feel like a old sluggish 135 DSLR with a nice viewfinder, but if I would work in a studio or more with lighting perhaps I would.

I think I'll stay with MF for at least a few years to come (it's very hard to predict the future, just look back just 5-6 years and how the DSLRs where back then!) for my landscape photography, and I hope that MF manages to stay competitive so they can be a nice alternative also in the future as I like diversity.

Tech cameras and the "large format spirit" is the reason to stay in MFD for me. The worst scenario from my perspective would be if Schneider/Rodenstock would decide that "large format digital" is not profitable enough and discontinue them, and future tech cameras would be focal plane shutter pancake cameras (like Alpa FPS) with DSLR tilt-shift lenses (like Canon TS-E), then I'm out. Then I'd prefer to shoot with a high res DSLR. I don't like the slide towards more similarity with the DSLRs in terms of lens and camera design.

The best scenario would be if MFDB prices go down a bit and high DR CMOS with low color cast appears, and the to-be-discontinued copal shutter gets a nice economic replacement.

In any case, I don't see my MF ownership as something solid long-term, I take it one year at a time.
 

Swissblad

Well-known member
I think most MFD users also have a 35mm system.

That said, when I'm viewing images on this or others forums, I spend more time viewing the MF images than others....
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Sorry Johnny, but group objectivity is an elusive trait when each and every person has a unique take on such a subject.

To imply that anyone that disagrees with your take or hasn't shared your experiences has some hidden, non-objective agenda does a disservice to many who have a genuine, well thought out interest in one format or another.

Personally, my interest in the modular MFD system has wained not out of any negative experience, or thinking it isn't different enough any more. I simply retired from doing the type of work that MFD does best.

Gone are the days of shooting for GM, Unilever Foods, Johnston Outdoors, American Axel, Watch and Jewlery makers, various Bank corporations and other major clients. Some of the assignments I did for them even pushed the limits of MFD ... so I know exactly why I used such gear.

What little of it I still do can now be handled with my S2 because Leica made an H to S adapter that allows me to use the HTS/1.5 unit for tilt-shift applications. Innovations can alter how one structures their gear bag ... including replacing something with a D800 if it does the job ... or adding a modular MFD if it doesn't.

I've always gravitated to the Hasselblad V and then the H because they are leaf-shutter based systems. It is as simple as that. As my needs changed, that is one that did NOT change. So when it became possible to shift to the S2 with either HC leaf-shutter lenses, or now the recent Leica CS lenses I now have, the Hasselblad H4D was no longer a required choice.


Our lives, needs and interests drive our decisions ... and for the most part I think that is clear from the well reasoned responses here.

- Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My main decision from MF to going back to a Nikon was not based on any technical reason. Mine was purely a financial reason and was forced to sell for medical reasons to take care of my wife. But it was at the same time the D800 hit the streets, so it was a little easier on me as a shooter to at least have a high MPX camera to go to. Now would I prefer to have stayed MF, you bet and the D800e is very nice and I use the best glass I can get my hands on it but it still is not MF. I would prefer still to be shooting MF. The good news is if I need MF I can get whatever I need in a 24 hour period. I also stay out of most of these debates as well. Bottom line as a Pro I will use whatever I need to get the job done regardless of format or brand which neither one puts money directly in my bank account. You have to shoot what gear will get the job done and one that you can master to get the results you need. Only way to do that is test everything you can get your hands on and see what works best for you.
 
Top