Another "Is medium format worth it " article

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

In a way, I have been there, several times...

Back in 2013, I felt that when a digital back would be available used for 10kUS it would be worth a try. So, i bought a P45+ for 9900 $US when I found one at that price. I have been told it is a very good sample by a friend who has been trough a few ones, he says that my sample is better than the ones he had.

Naturally, I compared it to my existing stuff, and I didn't see a great benefit to MFD. The MFD kit was sharper for sure, but it didn't matter at my normal print size A2 (16"x23"). Larger prints, sure, but none of my MFD prints made it to the wall.

Shooting two systems in parallell did not make a lot of sense and it was not really good for my photography. It is proably better to concentrate on one set of gear. Anyway, for three years I was shooting with the P45+ and my Sonys in parallell, with the P45 standing for something like 40% of my shooting.

After three years i have noticed that none of those images made it to the wall. Those images that hang on my wall have some extraordinary and that cannot be measured in megapixels.

Late 2006 I got my Sony A7rII. It is no camera I love, but it fits my needs almost perfectly. I seldom use it with Sony lenses, though. But, it delivers a great image quality with a lot of great options. It gives me access to shift lenses for architecture and tilt options for "Scheimpflug", things i wanted to do for 30 years or so.

The medium format adventure cost me a lot of money. It is not just the camera, but I also bought something like 10 lenses and a Flexbody, so total cost is more like 20k$US and it mostly collects dust. But it was a great learning experience.

On the other hand, for the money spent on MFD I could make like 4-5 trips to the US or Iceland. That would be money better spent.

On the other hand, it is nice to have some classic gear and the option to actually use it. I like to shoot with the Hasselblad. I even will hang an image shot with the blad at the next exhibition I will take part in. There will be two other images, both shot on the A7rII.

What I have found out was a bit is that the Hasselblad system did not check my check boxes while the A7rII does do that. But, when I bought into MFD, the A7xx was not around.

Best regards
Erik

There are a couple of other things I don't know why he did. Like testing shadow recovery by overexposing in post and then doing the shadow recovery. If he had overexposed/underexposed in camera rather than in post, and then done shadow/highlight recovery in post, the results may have been different. My critique of his methodology I feel is irrelevant though because he used whatever methodology he felt he needed to in order to answer the "is it worth it" question for him. I also think with purchases of that magnitude, there's little value in questioning whether your purchase was worth it...just put the camera to work.

I'm tired of the "is X worth it" articles in general because it's a subjective question that only one can decide for themselves. The criteria one uses to evaluate the value of a system may be entirely different between two people and that's why so many people here give the advice to try before you buy. I think people who are new to MF expect it to work miracles given the price delta, when the reality is 35mm systems these days really are very very good. I just shot for a week with both an A7RII and a 645z side by side. Was the 645z worth it over the A7RII? Could I have done things with the 645z that I couldn't do with the A7RII? How does shadow recovery compare on the 645z compare to the A7RII? I personally don't care. I know why I bought both systems and know the strengths and weaknesses of each for my own shooting style. I just shot with both side by side for a week in Iceland. I made great images with both systems and enjoyed shooting with both....and took home the images I envisioned before I left for my trip. I also used to shoot a D800E side by side with an H4D-40...was the H4D-40 worth the money at the time over a D800E? For me it was, someone else would reach a different conclusion. My X1D arrives tomorrow. Will that purchase be worth it? Who knows, but that question for myself isn't going to be answered by shooting test scenes and doing comparisons with the A7RII and 645z that I currently have....I have enough reasons to justify the purchase, but I better get out, shoot more, and add more shots to my gallery to make it worth it.

 

[fotografz]

Hi,

In a way, I have been there, several times...


What I have found out was a bit is that the Hasselblad system did not check my check boxes while the A7rII does do that. But, when I bought into MFD, the A7xx was not around.

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for the anecdotal personal history Erik, because it reminded me to place all this in the context of history and the context of use.

When publications and the printing industry underwent a very rapid transformation to digital it created the opportunity and pressure for direct commercial digital capture. At the time, if you shot film commercially, you had roll film costs, Polaroid film costs, processing costs, and scanning cost (which were considerable line items) ... plus the resulting lag in time from shoot to finish ... and occasionally re-shoots. For certain commercial ventures even the early digital backs solved all of it and offered a competitive edge.

We have to remember that almost every commercial studio already had some form of Medium Format Camera system with an interchangeable back, like a Hasselblad V or Mamiya RB/RZ. T/S work was done with view cameras that also could take those film backs. So, it was a natural path of least resistance to offer a digital back for those existing kits. Leaf, Imacon, Phase One, and Sinar were our choices ... plus some other scanning backs.

Most of those early DB were studio bound, or used in controlled locations situations like architecture, and things like car shoots with assistants and crews. Initially they needed too be tethered to a computer, and when it advanced to portability ... like my first Kodak ProBack ... it shot to a very fragile 1 gig $500 IBM Micro-drive! One of my first portable backs was powered by a Quantum battery the size and weight of two bricks:bugeyes:

Cameras like your motorized Hasselblad and Phase back were common studio work horses mostly used with strobe lighting at base ISO, and were optimized for that ... in that context they are still mighty performers ... which I would still prefer over my A7R-II ... which is a tedious little squinty camera to use in studio for day-in-day-out production work, or a 10 hour commercial location shoot.

On the other hand, there were commercial and consumer drivers behind offering something smaller/mobile ... like wedding photography, real estate, forensics, insurance estimators, location scouts, etc ... and artist, landscape shooters, and consumers in general ... anyone who made photos remotely. This larger audience fueled rapid development of digital P&S and transformation of the 35mm camera.

Every step forward in 35mm lead to the question "Is Medium Format Digital Worth It?"

Obviously, some folks believe it is, because the same question is still being asked decades later.

- Marc

P/S: Where few MFD images make your wall ... almost all of mine are MFD (the "wall" being defined as images for commercial clients and featured on my site, or that I made prints of) ... for my wedding photography, the opposite was true ... for obvious reasons most of that was 35mm Digital. However, I rarely do weddings anymore as it has been devalued by the consumer at large. Meanwhile, my MFD commercial work still brings home the bacon.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Marc,

I think the game changed a bit with the X1D and the GFX. Both those cameras are selling well, I think. Both are affordable. The X1D has leaf shutter but no FP-shutter, thus limiting lens choices. The GFX has FP shutter but no leaf shutter. It can use HC lenses, though, and leaf shutter should work, but it may be some issues with that.

What I would miss with the GFX would be tilts. It seems that T&S adapter like my HCam Master TSII cannot be made, because the flange distance is to long.

It seems that they will get 100 MP in 2018-2019. Seems that the lenses are pretty good, too. Fuji says they are designed for 100 MP.

I won't buy, in part for financial reasons, but it is an interesting development.

It may be that the X1D and the GFX address many of the issues discussed in the video:

• Both offer multiple focus points
• Lenses are affordable
• Both are nicely built

AF seems not so great, I guess that next generation will have phase detecting AF support on the sensor.

So, I think that future is bright. Brighter than ever… It is also nice to have Fuji around keeping Hasselblad honest!

Best regards
Erik

Thanks for the anecdotal personal history Erik, because it reminded me to place all this in the context of history and the context of use.

When publications and the printing industry underwent a very rapid transformation to digital it created the opportunity and pressure for direct commercial digital capture. At the time, if you shot film commercially, you had roll film costs, Polaroid film costs, processing costs, and scanning cost (which were considerable line items) ... plus the resulting lag in time from shoot to finish ... and occasionally re-shoots. For certain commercial ventures even the early digital backs solved all of it and offered a competitive edge.

We have to remember that almost every commercial studio already had some form of Medium Format Camera system with an interchangeable back, like a Hasselblad V or Mamiya RB/RZ. T/S work was done with view cameras that also could take those film backs. So, it was a natural path of least resistance to offer a digital back for those existing kits. Leaf, Imacon, Phase One, and Sinar were our choices ... plus some other scanning backs.

Most of those early DB were studio bound, or used in controlled locations situations like architecture, and things like car shoots with assistants and crews. Initially they needed too be tethered to a computer, and when it advanced to portability ... like my first Kodak ProBack ... it shot to a very fragile 1 gig $500 IBM Micro-drive! One of my first portable backs was powered by a Quantum battery the size and weight of two bricks:bugeyes:

Cameras like your motorized Hasselblad and Phase back were common studio work horses mostly used with strobe lighting at base ISO, and were optimized for that ... in that context they are still mighty performers ... which I would still prefer over my A7R-II ... which is a tedious little squinty camera to use in studio for day-in-day-out production work, or a 10 hour commercial location shoot.

On the other hand, there were commercial and consumer drivers behind offering something smaller/mobile ... like wedding photography, real estate, forensics, insurance estimators, location scouts, etc ... and artist, landscape shooters, and consumers in general ... anyone who made photos remotely. This larger audience fueled rapid development of digital P&S and transformation of the 35mm camera.

Every step forward in 35mm lead to the question "Is Medium Format Digital Worth It?"

Obviously, some folks believe it is, because the same question is still being asked decades later.

- Marc

P/S: Where few MFD images make your wall ... almost all of mine are MFD (the "wall" being defined as images for commercial clients and featured on my site, or that I made prints of) ... for my wedding photography, the opposite was true ... for obvious reasons most of that was 35mm Digital. However, I rarely do weddings anymore as it has been devalued by the consumer at large. Meanwhile, my MFD commercial work still brings home the bacon.

 

[aztwang]

Still fairly new to MFD as far as the curve goes in this forum, do you think that Phase One will have an answer to the new Fuji and new Hassy? Do you think they need to? Are they missing a important part of the MF market? I have NEVER been a fan of mirrorless...to me its kind of watching the original Japanese release of King Kong with english voice over or watching a video with a bad audio latency. IMHO...LOL

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Hard to know. As it is, Phase One systems are extremely expensive compared to the X1D and the GFX.

Regarding SLR vs. mirrorless, both solutions try to solve the same problem, to offer a what you see is what you get viewing in the viewfinder. SLR designs have been around for 80-100 years and EVF perhaps ten.

There are problems with the SLR solution. Magnification is limited. Also, you are not focusing on the sensor but a proxy of the sensor, called the ground glas.

There is no warranty that the mirror, sensor plane and the ground glass are in perfect alignment.

AF includes an additional secondary mirror, that casts the image on the AF-sensor. Both mirrors move.

With EVF you just take the signal off the sensor.

With a DSLR the mirror flips out of the optical path, causing vibrations. With EVF and first electronic shutter curtain (EFCS) realease can be very fast and vibration free.

EVF generally offers peaking. When using tilts, peaking is most helpful to find a near optimal focal plane.

Very clearly, SLR technology offers some benefits, but it seems that EVF users adopt quiet easily. Additionally, a good EVF works pretty well in available darkness. When you are shooting in a dark church, you can actually see what you are shooting.

So, there are advantages to both.

Best regards
Erik

Still fairly new to MFD as far as the curve goes in this forum, do you think that Phase One will have an answer to the new Fuji and new Hassy? Do you think they need to? Are they missing a important part of the MF market? I have NEVER been a fan of mirrorless...to me its kind of watching the original Japanese release of King Kong with english voice over or watching a video with a bad audio latency. IMHO...LOL

 

[BANKER1]

Still fairly new to MFD as far as the curve goes in this forum, do you think that Phase One will have an answer to the new Fuji and new Hassy? Do you think they need to? Are they missing a important part of the MF market? I have NEVER been a fan of mirrorless...to me its kind of watching the original Japanese release of King Kong with english voice over or watching a video with a bad audio latency. IMHO...LOL

Given Hasselblad's size, it is a minor miracle that they were able to offer a mirrorless MFD camera. The best scenario for them is that people who were hesitant to spend a fortune on an MFD camera are more likely to purchase the X1D. Theory may be, that once they find the benefits of MFD, they are more likely to go with their flagship camera. If Phase goes the same route that they did for their camera, it will be a long time before they offer a similar camera to the X1D.

If one waits for the next iteration of camera that has all the bells and whistles they "must" have for a mirrorless medium format camera, they will never buy one. For me, the X1D has everything I need/want, and it is a joy to use. No buyer's remorse here.

Greg

 

[SrMphoto]

Still fairly new to MFD as far as the curve goes in this forum, do you think that Phase One will have an answer to the new Fuji and new Hassy? Do you think they need to? Are they missing a important part of the MF market? I have NEVER been a fan of mirrorless...to me its kind of watching the original Japanese release of King Kong with english voice over or watching a video with a bad audio latency. IMHO...LOL

Just rambling ...

When Hasselblad announced a mirrorless medium-format camera, they were surprised by the demand. A company that ships products in small numbers cannot switch to 'mass' production without endangering its existence (increase investment, train and hire additional people while maintaining quality, long waits displease customers and can damage the brand, find additional manufacturing facilities, expand service,...). A fast grow can kill a company. Hasselblad may have avoided that fate with the help of additional investment by DJI. It would be much easier for large companies to deliver small-quantity products than vice-versa. Phase One has been warned of the risk and may decide it is not worth it. Companies that produce many units a year like Sony (1.3m), Canon (4.5m), and Nikon (2.4m) may decide that the market for mirrorless MF is not large enough. Unless Phase One creates a mirrorless MF that is very special, expensive and therefore demand is not too high, Olympus is probably the only other company that could join the fray, IMO.

 

[cerett]

Still fairly new to MFD as far as the curve goes in this forum, do you think that Phase One will have an answer to the new Fuji and new Hassy? Do you think they need to? Are they missing a important part of the MF market? I have NEVER been a fan of mirrorless...to me its kind of watching the original Japanese release of King Kong with english voice over or watching a video with a bad audio latency. IMHO...LOL

All of this is speculation, so let me speculate. I believe that P1 will go with what the market demands. The X1D was a major innovative move by Hasselblad that will only improve as there are firmware upgrades and new lens options. The X1D captured a group of photographers, professional and amateur, that wanted the advantages of MFD without the weight and enormous price tag. Also add the advantages of an EVF to that. If P1 sees a strong market for mirrorless among their users and potential users, they will go in that direction. That makes business sense to me. With regards to the King Kong comparison, sorry, but I don't see the connection. Mirrorless is here to stay and will only get better and better. The A7rII, despite a few short comings, is an excellent camera with multiple options in terms of lenses, including Canon, Nikon, Zeiss.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't think X1D buyers go flagship camera. It is a different market. I don't think Hasselblad sells a lot of full frame 645 cameras and I would guess that 44x33 mm buyers may be better served with the X1D.

One thing to consider is that there will be an X2D and when that camera is released X1D prices drop making MFD even more affordable. Another factor is that the Fuji GFX competes pretty head on with the X1D. Hasselblad needs to peek at the GFX. They are different cameras, of course. But having two affordable options is nice.

Phase One may be a bit different, I would guess they are more high end oriented.

Best regards
Erik

Given Hasselblad's size, it is a minor miracle that they were able to offer a mirrorless MFD camera. The best scenario for them is that people who were hesitant to spend a fortune on an MFD camera are more likely to purchase the X1D. Theory may be, that once they find the benefits of MFD, they are more likely to go with their flagship camera. If Phase goes the same route that they did for their camera, it will be a long time before they offer a similar camera to the X1D.

If one waits for the next iteration of camera that has all the bells and whistles they "must" have for a mirrorless medium format camera, they will never buy one. For me, the X1D has everything I need/want, and it is a joy to use. No buyer's remorse here.

Greg

 

[PeterA]

I am currently 'out' of MF everything - but am considering the XID because of ergonomic reasons. I will NEVER go back to traditional MF type large bodies or body/back combinations because I no longer care about the weight issues associated with such items. However, it will probably be X2D that gets me unless Leica bring out a 40+ megapixel version of the absolutely stunning SL - I woudl have said teh samne about the S syetm - but I left that long ago as soon as my second lens auotfocus failed - the S system is a total disgrace for Leica - much liek abondoning the R system for me anyway.

Ive tested the Fuji and the XID - extensively - both great cameras both a bit NQR for me for now.
Phase better be working on a mirrorless at the right price otherwise goodbye and good luck Irene.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Per Peter, I'm sitting this one out because soon enough there will be a better solution. I live with my IQ3100/XF boat anchor and Actus DB+ and tech lenses (love 'em ) but for travel kit where X1D should excel it's not quite there yet for me.

 

[SrMphoto]

I am currently 'out' of MF everything - but am considering the XID because of ergonomic reasons. I will NEVER go back to traditional MF type large bodies or body/back combinations because I no longer care about the weight issues associated with such items. However, it will probably be X2D that gets me unless Leica bring out a 40+ megapixel version of the absolutely stunning SL - I woudl have said teh samne about the S syetm - but I left that long ago as soon as my second lens auotfocus failed - the S system is a total disgrace for Leica - much liek abondoning the R system for me anyway.

Ive tested the Fuji and the XID - extensively - both great cameras both a bit NQR for me for now.
Phase better be working on a mirrorless at the right price otherwise goodbye and good luck Irene.

My impression is that MF is not that much about high mp count but about the sensor (size and quality) and lenses. E.g., I do not mind 24mp on my Leica SL and prefer its output (with native zooms and M lenses) to another brand's 42.4mp output.

I understand people waiting for the system to mature (better firmware, more lenses).

 

[hcubell]

Per Peter, I'm sitting this one out because soon enough there will be a better solution.

What are you anticipating?

 

[GrahamWelland]

What are you anticipating?

Maturity.

For Hasselblad this exhibits version 1 firmware and integration. I'm sure that they'll refine it soon and I have every confidence that the next version will be 'better'.

By comparison in the Leica world I bought the M8 digital and it was lacking features and had the IR issues. M9 was much better but limited by ISO support but overall I loved it. I sat out M240 (well other than monochrom) and just bought into the M10 where Leica seem to have fixed every issue I ever had with previous versions. Ditto for Phase One - I've been through the 645AF/AFD/DF/DF+ debacles and finally the XF is rock solid.

I'm just getting too old to be the beta tester ...

 

[shlomi]

Wow that is a stupid article. One of the worst MF-FF comparisons I've ever seen.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Let me sum up this thread once and for all:

Nikon D810/a - :thumbs:
Canon 5DSrII - :thumbs:
Pentax 645 II - :thumbs:

X1D - :thumbs:
fuji - :thumbs:

Hasselblad 50/100mp solutions - :thumbs::thumbs:
Phase one 50/100mp solutions - :thumbs::thumbs:

CCD 40/60/80 CCD mp backs - :thumbup: but different and beautiful :thumbup::thumbup: Just different, not necessarily better.

 

[MGrayson]

Sounds right. No mention of Leica S.

Matt

 

[Erik Lundqvist]

Q: Is medium format worth it?
A: To me it is. Your mileage might vary.

 

[dnercesian]

I feel like these articles are meant to stroke the fragile sensibilities of those whose self esteem is tied to their consumer or oven professional purchases. I can make a photo look bad or even just lack luster on my IQ3100, pretty easy to do. I can also make a photo look pretty great on any give Micro 4/3 camera. For me, medium format isn't for taking test shots of stuffed animals and then pixel peeping to compare the detail at 100% to another format. It is more about the entire image.

To be honest, I have not shot with any modern digital camera of any format that I don't think I can get great image quality with, and I tend to like all the manufacturers and all the formats in their own ways with very few exceptions. Currently I use Leica M and SL, Nikon D810, and IQ3100, and I love them all for different uses. But there really is no comparison in my opinion when I am looking to shoot no holds barred and the workflow is one that makes sense for the way I use the IQ3100 (view camera). Mated to the Rodenstock lenses that I use, the look of the whole image and the flexibility of being on the view camera is second to none.

Don't get me wrong, I can see the comparisons being lack luster if I was shooting kids toys in my living room, but that is just not what I do. This entire argument, in my opinion, is just meant to passively hem and haw on the price of such gear. I get it, it's expensive.

Funny thing is that I am by no means a wealthy individual, but I own this stuff because I work with it day in and day out (with the exception of my M cameras which are my personal cameras that see paid work more infrequently), and even though it is my work that causes me to justify such purchases, I have been accused, online of course, of not being a "real" photographer because I have such expensive equipment and am more about the gear than the photography. Rather nonsensical as photography supports my wife and kids, our parents to an extent, a Los Angeles mortgage, you see what I am getting at.

Anyhow, just venting. The more people spread stupid information like this article, the more of this type of rhetoric we see from the more easily led. Of course, when it comes down to it, its all just a laugh because I'm sitting pretty.

 

[GrahamWelland]

This entire argument, in my opinion, is just meant to passively hem and haw on the price of such gear. I get it, it's expensive.

Nailed it. Take the cost out of the equation and I'm sure that we might get at least ONE objective discussion, at least until it plummets down into brand wars.