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!

Someone want to condiser the points in this article?

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Yes, it is an "opinion." None the less, the article is considerate and makes some solid arguments for their position. Someone want to pick it apart? I am interested in your thoughts. TYIA.

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first
sorry. took a look but after reading the title "Opinion: Thinking about buying medium format? Read this first", I'm not really interested in wading through it. After all, the reason I hang out in this forum is I'm a MFDB shooter, and have been since around 2003, and pretty much those that hang out here are like me.
 
I'm a GFX fan, in fact I can really see a place for this camera in my bag, and hope to buy one used one day.

However, I'll defend the DPReview conclusions as being mostly technically sound. Frankly, a D810 or A7RII with it's fast lenses really is delivering the goods. I saw this play out when I was simultaneously shooting with an RX1RII and a 645z. That BSI sensor is incredible and Sony deserves recognition for it. A 1.4 lens is is a 1.4 lens, and Fuji maybe should have considered designing an F2 normal for the GFX. Frankly, for the vast majority of even advanced users, if you can't get it done with an A7RII or a D810, the camera is not the problem. Even the difference between 36mp and 50mp simply sounds bigger than it will play out in most practical applications.

Of course that's just one side of the coin. I would return to the old, but IMO true argument that simply shooting medium format cameras is a differentiating factor. The GFX will produce a better file, and it might not do so well in a blind test of moderate print sizes...but people who love the GFX will see the difference. To them, the price tag will be worth it. Hopefully they won't put themselves in debt to get it. But of course it's MUCH cheaper than any offering from Phase or Hasselblad considering it's capabilities. Medium format tends to be a confidence booster too.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Mostly infotainment and a venue for selling products. DPR doesn't do much in medium format...
I already know why I'd be interested in medium format and specifically in either the X1D or GFX cameras, thank you.

G
 

algrove

Well-known member
No matter what system one uses, it is you and not the camera that captures that moment in time with the tool at hand.
 

D&A

Well-known member
In my opinion it often comes down to what can be considered superior by technical measurements and/or by technical arguments vs. what can be seen or felt viscerally. We've seen this discussion and sometimes argument in a number of disciplinary fields of interest where often times some prefer a particular technology or given product over one that clearly is superior if we assess it's superiority by the numbers via technical measurements or the so called physics involved. Such arguments often are endless such as solid state vs. tube amplification where one measures superior, but some prefer the aural experience of what often measures to be inferior or simply not the equal. Same can be applied to the superiorty of CD's vs. LP records.

Same holds true with those who prefers the output of the CCD based Leica S, S2 and 006 bodies or Leica M9 vs. their CMOS counterparts. By virtue of measurements, the CMOS bodies almost always win but there are legions who rely on their senses, see and think otherwise. The same can be applied to high end 35mm vs. medium format digital. In all these cases (above), the handling of the so called inferior equipment often requires a more careful and deliberate approach in order to compensate its recognized shortcomings, which can result in compensating for recognized weaknesses not to mention a satisfaction in doing so.

What is perplexing to me is some have expressed their preference for audio equipment that places the emphasis on perceived tonality and aural enjoyment (ie; Tube amps and/or use of LP's) yet at the same time will vehemently defend their choice of the superior CMOS performing digital camera body over it's earlier CCD counterpart (or visa versa). Maybe it simply comes down to ones' ears vs. eyes and the differences and/or emphasis we place or perceive with each respectfully. That's why I believe we should respect the choices of others in these arguments, for maybe they may not hear or see the differences other do or simply feel one path is simply easier to deal with or achieves what the other simply is not capable of. Guess that's where the saying "to each their own" comes from. :)

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Paul2660

Well-known member
I tried the A7RII, and used both Nikon and Sony lenses on it. Really felt from reading the reviews that it should have a significant DR improvement due to the BSI.

I found the opposite, no real gains at base ISO over the D810 and at higher ISO's more noise. The camera also had a heat problem with longer exposures, not just on video work. Noise on exposures longer than 1 minute was very harsh. You either were forced to only use C1 with it's single pixel noise reduction or in camera LEN, which creates gapping with time lapse work. I also expected better high ISO performance with the Sony A7rII but even ISO 800 showed considerable noise. I only had the first version of camera firmware and Sony may have improved things since. I also only used LR/ACR for the raw conversions and it may be that Capture One has a better conversion as it does on the 50MP Sony files.

The flip side is the 50MP Sony chip, has shown amazing DR since it's first release. If you can find them go back to the first tests that Digital Transitions did in the NY Library, shadow recovery was amazing. Pentax then took the chip to even better performance, still more than likely the best so far from the chip and scored the only DxO score over 100, 101 as I recall, but for some reason DxO pulled the results.

Fuji and Hasselblad both have given photographers a new set of tools that cost less or equal to the price of a Canon 1DS MKII in 2004. The range of both cameras is amazing and you get there without the mass/weight of current MF technology. Dpreview's article also showed that they had very little familiarity with MF cameras, especially their statements on DOF. Being able to hand hold either camera with a 120mm lens, is a great asset. I have given up trying to hand hold the MF gear I have with medium to long telephoto lenses.

I can't speak to Hasselblad, but Fuji has been able to do a very good rollout, as now there are several companies with stock of the GFX and several of the lenses. I wish however that Fuji and Phase One had been able to workout some type of agreement as the C1 conversion of the 50MP chip is superior to LR/Adobe especially at the higher ISO's and dpreivew's comments on high ISO conversion reflect this as I am sure they used LR/ACR and their results were less than stellar.

Paul Caldwell
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
I'm a GFX fan, in fact I can really see a place for this camera in my bag, and hope to buy one used one day.

However, I'll defend the DPReview conclusions as being mostly technically sound. Frankly, a D810 or A7RII with it's fast lenses really is delivering the goods. I saw this play out when I was simultaneously shooting with an RX1RII and a 645z. That BSI sensor is incredible and Sony deserves recognition for it. A 1.4 lens is is a 1.4 lens, and Fuji maybe should have considered designing an F2 normal for the GFX. Frankly, for the vast majority of even advanced users, if you can't get it done with an A7RII or a D810, the camera is not the problem. Even the difference between 36mp and 50mp simply sounds bigger than it will play out in most practical applications.

Of course that's just one side of the coin. I would return to the old, but IMO true argument that simply shooting medium format cameras is a differentiating factor. The GFX will produce a better file, and it might not do so well in a blind test of moderate print sizes...but people who love the GFX will see the difference. To them, the price tag will be worth it. Hopefully they won't put themselves in debt to get it. But of course it's MUCH cheaper than any offering from Phase or Hasselblad considering it's capabilities. Medium format tends to be a confidence booster too.
Good points.
My Sony A7r2 produced some of the best files ever. It's form factor smoked MFD. (X1D is close) True MF would be my Mamiya RZ ProII 6x7 film camera with stellar lenses that can be had for $150, and when scanned can produce 500mp photos. If anything, I might buy a cheap, fat back for it. Some say the Sony's color rendition is "meh". Well I say, just work it till you like it. I'm sure if we saw Ansel Adams prints before he worked them in editing they would look boring too. The depreciation of MFD is another reason I'll never go back. As a side note, I did a job for a major resort who printed a pano of my image on a retail clothing line. The image was shot with a a Fuji Xt1! It's really about the lenses and Sony has refined the FE line nicely that even competes with the Otus line.When the X1D comes down in price and all the beta issues are worked out. I might be interested because I just like the design, leaf shutter and form factor. For me the UI is a key factor towards my inspiration and Sony A7's and (Leica's ) just do that for me. I wanted MFD early in my career, I thought it would set me apart from my competition, it did not... Film actually did.
MFD is useful and for some it's the only solution justified or not. Pixel peeping and chasing tech is just what manufactures want. Stop the planned obsolescence and go take photos. The best camera is always the one your holding in your hand.
 
Good points.
My Sony A7r2 produced some of the best files ever. It's form factor smoked MFD. (X1D is close) True MF would be my Mamiya RZ ProII 6x7 film camera with stellar lenses that can be had for $150, and when scanned can produce 500mp photos. If anything, I might buy a cheap, fat back for it. Some say the Sony's color rendition is "meh". Well I say, just work it till you like it. I'm sure if we saw Ansel Adams prints before he worked them in editing they would look boring too. The depreciation of MFD is another reason I'll never go back. As a side note, I did a job for a major resort who printed a pano of my image on a retail clothing line. The image was shot with a a Fuji Xt1! It's really about the lenses and Sony has refined the FE line nicely that even competes with the Otus line.When the X1D comes down in price and all the beta issues are worked out. I might be interested because I just like the design, leaf shutter and form factor. For me the UI is a key factor towards my inspiration and Sony A7's and (Leica's ) just do that for me. I wanted MFD early in my career, I thought it would set me apart from my competition, it did not... Film actually did.
MFD is useful and for some it's the only solution justified or not. Pixel peeping and chasing tech is just what manufactures want. Stop the planned obsolescence and go take photos. The best camera is always the one your holding in your hand.
On your Mamiya point, yes, I shoot all my personal and much of my professional work that doesn't not have time constraints on film. The obsession with pixel level sharpness improvements is nauseating. The fact is my Rolleiflex 2.8E with it's old rudimentary Planar lens creates visually arresting images, same with my Pentax lenses for my 6x7. When you make a successful image in the vast majority of photographic fields, the charts don't matter...at all. And yeah my film scans only get better as I get access to better and better scanners. The grain doesn't bother me. My Nikon digital and film system uses modern Nikkor and Sigma Art lenses and they're great! On 35mm I do appreciate the increase in quality. But my favorite lens is my 58mm and that's the softest of the bunch! I fully understand that there are fields where the technical bits matter a whole lot, but I do wish the conversations would tend more towards "hey look at what I can do with this" rather than "hey look at this chart I made".
 

TsurTriger

New member
I feel, every time that this subject is discuss, " DSLR vs MF", is more like trying to compare oranges vs apples. It is much more than ISO.

There are a lot of questions that need to be ask for each time someone need to decide regarding to choosing his system.

Purpose of use?
If someone looking to get the best of IQ, richest colors, higher DR and more flexible RAW file, he need more information as start point. Most of the MF back files that I have been test they have more information in the RAW as a start point (less saturated color, less noise in lower ISO and less digital "ironed" image).

Then, what is your budget for the whole system (included optics)?
Someone that has limited budget, might be better to have Sony A7r2 rather than a very old back or poor optics.

.
.
.
(and more)

Finally, he need to be able to conclude all the advantages and all the disadvantages of each system and go for the one that gives him the best suited for his use. Someone will go on MF system that included 1/2 optics and it will be enough for his use. Someone else need more optics and prefer the lighter and portable system because he is a journalist photographer.

Today I have both system, DSLR + MF and I think that neither one is absolute better than the second one. Sometime I use the DSLR for most of the ordinary work (web files) due to its benefits and the lower cost (both equipment and time to effort), and sometime I do use the MF due to its benefits (large prints, better IQ, finer RAW output and etc).
 

jerome_m

Member
Yes, it is an "opinion." None the less, the article is considerate and makes some solid arguments for their position. Someone want to pick it apart? I am interested in your thoughts. TYIA.

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first
IMO, the only good thing in the article is that it reminds naive prospective users that the thinner depth of field and best low-light capabilities will be attained with 24x36 cameras, because of the availability of very fast lenses. Many prospective users to not realise that.

It also reminds the reader that DSLRs have better AF and more lens choices. Indeed they do.

But the rest is the usual pixel peeping exercise. Guess what: any two cameras with the same amount of pixels will give roughly the same results on resolution tests when one designs the test to equalise lenses and light. But that is not a feature of the cameras, that is a feature of the test design.
 
Top