Newbie Question?Comment. My Canon 5D4 vs Medium Format setup

[Judge]

Going to try to reply to everyone who answered.

 

[Judge]

Please allow me to offer a different perspective to this often asked question.

First, I challenge the premiss of comparison between modern 35mm digital and MFD. Fact is, your current 35mm Digital can do just about anything you want done as you have defined it. What I urge is to set aside preconceived notions and remove yourself from any box you've created for yourself.

Consider this ... it requires some investment in time spent with any system. You are obviously familiar with your Canon kit. Over the years I became very familiar with Canon, then Nikon and now Sony systems ... each were used for many years so I could do most anything with them. Medium Format is no different. I've used MF from film days until now. First a Hasselblad V system and a Contax 645 kit with a Kodak back, then onto a H digital system ... I used the H cameras for over a decade until switching to my current Leica S kit. As a result, I came to know the H camera until it was basic muscle memory.

Over many decades I worked with 3 basic types of cameras, film and digital ... the 35mm DSLR(now mirror-less), a 35mm rangefinder, and a MF/MFD system. All three have been a consistent set of tools in some form or another. What this did was build a familiarity that builds expertise and competence in applying them to various creative challenges. It is easy to dismiss MF if you do not use it very often ... or not long enough to gain that familiarity and expertise.

IMO, automation has atrophied skill sets that were once critical to creative success ... and without a doubt, 35mm DSLRs are the most automated tools available to us. Nothing wrong with that unless it leads to complacency and the laziness of convenience.

When you commit to a system, it means ... commit ... not give up when it doesn't work out initially. Acquired skill is still a key component to creative diversity and new perspectives for solving different creative challenges.

MF is slow mostly because the user is slow or has forgotten key skill sets that automation has erased. For example, your notion that MFD isn't suited to wedding work is nonsense. I've used a MFD kit at almost every wedding that I shot for a decade. I would agree that it isn't suited for ALL wedding work, but it brings a fresh approach to many wedding scenarios. The skill of "anticipation" that I use with a MFD, (or a manual focus rangefinder), has consistently netted keeper images that many would say couldn't be done. Many of these shots were either hand-held or on a mono-pod I set-up for working fast and mobile. Plus, I do not bring the entire MFD kit to a wedding ... just the body and one or two lenses to use at key times where it brings something to the over-all wedding shoot. Usually one semi-wide lens for group shots, interior venue shots and environmental portraits ... and a traditional portrait focal length. These MFD images were always the biggest sellers of the whole wedding shoot.

I shoot most ALL of my portrait work (weddings, portrait commissions, model head shots, and corporate portraits) with MFD. I've done some with 35mm DSLR/Mirror-less but mostly when testing a portrait lens in case I only have a 35mm with me. I do all my wedding group shots with MFD if possible. 95% of my commercial work is with MFD, (the exceptions being where I need something extremely wide or extremely long). Basically, 35mm digital is a back-up to MFD on critical shoots ... an option that I seriously hope I'll not have to rely on, and rarely do.

One other misstep many make when getting into MFD is too much concentration on the camera itself and not enough detective work about lenses that'll fit your approach to certain subjects. I worked with a Hasselblad 203FE in order to get at the FE-110/2 portrait lens that had the character that I wanted in my images. When I used the Contax 645 it was for the Zeiss lenses like the 120/4 Macro and fast 80/2. Same with the H kit ... if they did not have the 100/2.2 I may never have moved to H. The Leica S has all sorts of killer optics including the fab S-100/2 portrait lens.

In fact, I'd advise you to start with a lens or small set of lenses you may be interested in for specific type of work. Perhaps just get a body and that one lens to use until you build that skill set then branch out. My initial criteria has always been portrait optics, so I always started there. It is VERY exciting to start with MFD this way. A clear set of objectives and the kit limited to that specific creative objective ... at first.

I won't get into differences like CMOS verses CCD, tonal gradations difference between 35mm and MFD or color ... those have been debated to death. Either you see it of you don't. You mentioned that you've admired MFD images here so I assume you DO see it. IMO, part of that is because MFD shots are often in good light because MFD is often ISO limited to better light ... to which I say ... DUH! ... isn't that the objective, good light? Just because one can capture shitty light with high ISO cameras doesn't make it good light.

While a majority of my images are 35mm DSLR/Mirroless (mostly because of weddings)... of the 29 quite diverse images on my SmugMug landing page, 19 of them were done with MFD.

https://fotografz.smugmug.com/

- Marc

Thats great and all but are you shooting with an $8k setup as per my original post, DOUBTFUL based on what you wrote? I'm not discussing what you can do with the latest body.

 

[Judge]

​

Is the under 8K coincidental or is that the working budget? There is nothing against working with multiple systems, if I read you message I don' see you giving up the Canon system.

Yes,not getting rid of the 5D4. $8k is the most for the entire setup and not something ancient from the last ice age.

 

[Judge]

First, addressing your question of red skin tones, that is more of a characteristic of Canon's image processing than DSLRs in general. However, at some level you can address it with camera profiling. It's pretty easy in C1, and I imagine the same in Lightroom, but it is always there.

The short answer, and I really hope someone will prove me wrong here, is medium format doesn't compare to DSLR at all in any way. Yes, there are differences in file quality which may or may not matter in your final image depending on what your final images look like (e.g. part of a photo composite/illustration, heavily worked in post, mostly straight out of raw), but it is the act of taking a photo where you see the difference. If I am shooting tethered with strobes, I just feel more comfortable with MFD. If you are shooting people and want a blurred out background, the larger the imaging size, the more real estate you have to go from sharp to out of focus. 35 mm at f2 does not look like full frame MFD at f5.6. If you are shooting anything that moves, I have yet to see any MFD that's worth much.

I have been working on editing a portfolio with a friend who is a travel photographer and I can tell you that not a single one of the images in it would have been possible with MFD -- not one. The way he shoots -- generally with two or three cameras hanging off his body with lenses from fisheye to 200 or 400 -- isn't possible with MFD. That isn't to say that YOU can't take great travel shots with MFD, but I can promise you it wouldn't work for him. Being completely honest, after looking at his most recent work, I am strongly considering a Nikon D810 or whatever the current version is. It is perfect for that kind of work. As an aside, he killed two or three bodies on that trip, which would have been very expensive with MFD. Were it me on the same trip, I may have preferred shooting MFD but I move much slower than he does and am much less prolific.

So yeah, it's the archer, not the arrow, but archers have different preferences in arrows, to absolutely torture a metaphor. I have always wanted a tech cam for some of my architecture work, but after an assistant pointed out one of my lighting techniques would be very difficult with a tech cam, I had to put that dream aside. The other issue is budget. $8,000 doesn't buy you anything in Phase, Hassy or Leica. It will buy you a Fuji and a lens. Remember you are buying a system, and $4,000 lenses and $1,100 batteries don't play well with an $8,000 budget. That said, the actual monthly cost on a financed, current system may be more reasonable than you think. A $30,000 financed system that generates revenue for you will be better than an $8,000 specialized/low use tool.

If you decided that really what you need is a studio tool, I guess it depends what you plan to do in a studio. If it is portraits that you are after, $8,000 will buy you a CCD Hassy with a 100/2.2 and you will never pickup the Canon again. If you are shooting products, being able to suspend a camera somewhere, adjust focus and lighting, as well as trigger the shutter remotely, and capture greater highlight detail has a lot of value. Will it do anything you can't do with your Canon, no, it won't; but I can tell you I will pick up a H3D or newer Hassy over a DSLR in a studio every time. Also, if the goal is a studio portrait tool, I personally would rather spend my money on an older tech but larger chip. If you need this to be an all purpose camera, shoot both and decide.

The last thing I will say is that you will pay a significant premium working with a dealer over going the eBay route, but the premium service you get from a good dealer like Capture Integration (I assume DT as well) is well worth it.

I do not think the 5D4 compares to any of the current contemporary bodies. We are talking obviously apples and oranges. The whole idea is to get something that is not JUNK for $8k that will work good and produce something useful. The gripe is that there is nothing good out there for under $8k.

 

[Judge]

I have used MFD for "travel" photography. Cameras for the most part are not limited by subject.

Both handheld.

But then again, I used 6x6 and 6x12 medium-format camera for documentary photography before MFD. It isn't the camera, it is the photographer.

Nice pics, those 2 were from how many that were OOF and not usable from shooting handheld ? Are you shooting on a setup under $8k ?

 

[Judge]

Trump it decisively in measurable technical specifications? Probably not.

I know it's not something you asked, but for the skin tones issue, have you tried Nikon or Sony cameras? Sony sensors would be interesting as the newest MF cameras are all using Sony sensors.

Last year I put my 5DmkIV budget into an old P30 and mamiya body. I'm not making money from my photography, so I am allowed whimsy in how I spend my camera budget. (Thanks IT!) Is it the P30 a better camera? Not on most (any?) metrics. However, I like it, it is an entry to the system, and for me it's fun to use.



The questions I would be asking are: What does MF gain you? What could you get with the budget for your Canon system? Do any of these questions really matter because you just want a MF camera?! The last is a perfectly good reason to get a MF camera so long as you are aware that is your reason, assuming you can afford it. As suggested above, talk to the dealers. They can probably set you up with demo sessions to see how you like the cameras.

Specifically was looking to use it for studio needs based on an $8k setup, it would probably be a dinosaur to use for anything else outside of being tethered in the studio.
Thanks for the reply Robbie

 

[Judge]

You can get into the GFX for under 8K. If you purchase the body and the 63mm. The Fuji is also weather sealed and I would trust it as Fuji has been making weather sealed bodies for a while now.

The Pentax 645z used should easily be under 6K.

These are all CMOS designs based on the 50mp Sony sensor which has proven to be an excellent sensor. Older CCD backs will have some limitations bout can also create a unique look.

Best solution would be to try and demo something against the Canon.

Paul Caldwell

I have looked at the GFX 50s with the 32-64 f4 lens but that exceeds the $8k budget. So far that has been the only one on the radar that is definitely not out of the question.Thanks Paul.

 

[Shashin]

Nice pics, those 2 were from how many that were OOF and not usable from shooting handheld ? Are you shooting on a setup under $8k ?

Not many, no more than a 35mm camera. Those were taken with a Pentax 645D and a Pentax 35mm A-series manual-focus lens. You could get that now for less than $4,000.

 

[Judge]

Excellent responses to the OP.

My 2 cents worth is just this - no tool is good for every job. While I prefer using the slow, more contemplative approach required by MFDB (I make large prints), I would never see myself without a 35 mm kit as well - even though I use it more as backup. If I didn't make large prints I probably would give up the weight of MF gear! (Maybe not - there's still tonality and gradation and DR to consider...)

But I have the luxury of not having to make my living through photography, though I do make nice income from my books and prints.

Truth is, I drank Dante's potion some time ago and don't regret it.

Bill

Bill I'm not that cool and not on the "in" just yet. What is "Dante's potion" ?
Absolutely agree that Medium Format is not the go to for all types of photography.

 

[Judge]

I've come across this great video that really answers your question to a tee:

Vid was nice, everyone is a Casey fan.
Tools are just tools to help with what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[2WK]

For an $8000 setup I would recommend the 645z. Ive been using mine for about a year now and I love it. You can find good deals on them now that the GFX and X1D's are all the rage. There are several good legacy lenses available as well as the more expensive modern versions. I have had great luck buying used lenses from japanese ebay sellers.

Check this crazy deal. Possibly too good to be true..
https://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/ele/d/pentax-645z-medium-format/6221428600.html

I'm not sure where you are located but that might be worth investigating.

Anyway, back to the Z. It is hand holdable, has excellent high iso and dynamic range. You can tether it with lightroom...I use this regularly with no complaints. It has the same 51.4 mp sony sensor as the Hassy X1d, Fuji GFX, Phase iq250 etc.

The files themselves do take and require a lot of post processing. You definitely have to learn the lightroom workflow...but that is the same with most cameras. It is also a big beast. Although not so much larger or heavier than a full sized dslr with battery pack and large lens. I recently took mine on a full european summer tour in a small backpack with two lenses. The 55mm 2.8 and the 150mm 2.8. Keeping things in the ricoh family I also brought the tiny GRII for a more portable wide angle.

 

[Judge]

Well this is a loaded question and there's no right or wrong answer, and it's more complicated than a simple "yes" or "no", but here are my thoughts



Are you currently making your living off of photography? Is the red tint anything that clients have complained about?



It honestly sounds like you've made up your mind and the Canon fits your needs. To play devil's advocate though, but how many of these features do you actually need? You said your focus is "portraits, some landscape, possibly some product photography and studio work". For this type of work, how often do you rely on 61 focus points? Weather Sealing? Dual memory slots? 5 stops of exposure comp? 7 fps? video? High ISO? Studio work, portraits, and landscapes generally don't need any of these, although weather sealing and dynamic range are more important for landscape...but this isn't your focus. Yes all of these bells and whistles on Nikon/Canon/Sony/Fuji etc make shooting easier but I find many of the features of modern dSLRS are unnecessary. That being said, if you actually need all these features and your work relies on it, skip MF and stick with Canon.




You don't list weddings or sports as something you are interested in using the system for, so why does speed matter in this context? As previously mentioned, ruling out MF for weddings is an unfounded assumption. Plenty of ppl have used MF digital for weddings in some capacity. Is having to think thoroughly through a shot a bad thing? I found when I started using a CCD-based MF camera, yes I had to be more deliberate with my shooting, but that in turn led to better shots.



Here you've got your facts/assumptions a little mixed up. The Fuji GFX and Pentax 645z are very much weather sealed, although for the type of work you do, how often are you in harsh weather conditions, especially in the studio? Have you seen the Youtube videos from Phase One showing the P series backs being frozen and stepped on by elephants? MF systems are more robust than you give them credit for.

The GFX and a lens can be had for under $8k (B&H also has had used GFX bodies for as low as $5k), as can a used 645z. The 645z especially, since there are a bunch of legacy film lenses, some excellent performers, can be found for well under $8k with a set of lenses used. The 645z especially is weather sealed like a tank and has dual memory cards (as does the GFX). The boot up speed of the 645z is only about 2-3 seconds max and operates more like a dSLR than a traditional digital MF camera. Both the GFX and 645z are CMOS based and have very nice high-ISO performance and shooting handheld is easy. Screen clarity on both of these is fine. Also, out of curiousity, for the type of work you do, why is FPS such a concern? Regarding service, Fuji has a pro service program that you should look into. You can also adapt your existing Canon glass to it. Why do you say youre SOL if you need anything fixed? Hasselblad USA generally has a 7-10 day turnaround if it can be fixed stateside. For Phase, I think service is one of the dealers strengths, depending on your geographical location. If generally you're of the impression that MF is only good for a couple things and bragging rights, I'd recommend just sticking with the Canon as it doesn't sound like you'd be happy working within the confines of a MF system. Not sure about the Fuji pro service as I haven't heard anything about it, and also not sure about Pentax service. Will you be keeping your Canon system if you buy a MF camera? If so, sending the camera/lens/whatever off for service isn't such a big deal as you have another system to shoot with.





I prefer the color and malleability of medium format over 35mm. Others wouldn't waste their time and would come to the conclusion that it's not worth the $$ compared to a 5dIV or D810. It's subjective and only you can judge for yourself. I'd recommend (as others have) getting in touch with dealers and try to do a demo. For portraits/studio work/product photography/etc, the higher sync speeds you get with leaf shutters of Phase/Hasselblad may be an advantage.

For your budget, I'd look into the Fuji GFX, Pentax 645z, Leaf Credo 40, Phase IQ140 (kits with a DF+ body and 80mm LS lens have been on ebay for as low as $4500 USD lately), and Hasselblad H4D-40 (there's one on ebay now with a buy it now of ~$3600). Any of those you could get within your budget and a lens or two (or more). They each have their strengths and weaknesses, but that's another discussion.

As mentioned, if you do buy a MF system, it will depreciate by a larger dollar amount than a 35mm system. How much does this matter to you?



It does sound like you have made up your mind but that doesn't have anything to do with being a "canon fanboy". It's well known that 35mm systems have advantages over current MF offerings, and you are aware of some of these. The topic of 35mm vs MF has been beaten to death, here and elsewhere, but I don't think anyone will tell you to go to hell here. At the end of the day it's a subjective decision that only you can make for yourself.

Further, many of us here shoot MF simply because we enjoy it. Would you enjoy shooting with a MF system? It doesn't sound like you would based on your post, by virtue of the fact that many MF systems lack "basic" features of the Canon or any other 35mm system alone.

Red tint doesn't bother me where its a deal breaker or end of the world. None of the clients have ever noticed that, because I take care of it before it going out to the client, its a more personal thing which I have come across. I currently am generating a secondary income from photography.Events mostly,real estate,some product photography and portraiture work, on occasion some weddings.For personal work its landscape, sometimes video,but don't really care for video much can even do video with a camera phone for personal things.
I did say that "If I'm ever going to be using such a camera for it would be for portraits, some landscape, possibly some product photography and studio work (real studio, not a patio at home)."
The Medium Format setup under $8k would be an addition to the 5D not substitute it. I'm a manual shooter I don't hit auto and do what many 35mm shooters do; spray and pray,that is just idiotic in nature. However I would want to be able to use the Medium Format for some work but so far from what I've seen nothing good thats even worth looking at unless you dish out north of $12 and then every dealer wants to be your friend and set you up with a "GOOD DEAL".

 

[Judge]

For an $8000 setup I would recommend the 645z. Ive been using mine for about a year now and I love it. You can find good deals on them now that the GFX and X1D's are all the rage. There are several good legacy lenses available as well as the more expensive modern versions. I have had great luck buying used lenses from japanese ebay sellers.

Check this crazy deal. Possibly too good to be true..
https://losangeles.craigslist.org/lac/ele/d/pentax-645z-medium-format/6221428600.html

I'm not sure where you are located but that might be worth investigating.

Anyway, back to the Z. It is hand holdable, has excellent high iso and dynamic range. You can tether it with lightroom...I use this regularly with no complaints. It has the same 51.4 mp sony sensor as the Hassy X1d, Fuji GFX, Phase iq250 etc.

The files themselves do take and require a lot of post processing. You definitely have to learn the lightroom workflow...but that is the same with most cameras. It is also a big beast. Although not so much larger or heavier than a full sized dslr with battery pack and large lens. I recently took mine on a full european summer tour in a small backpack with two lenses. The 55mm 2.8 and the 150mm 2.8. Keeping things in the ricoh family I also brought the tiny GRII for a more portable wide angle.

Thanks for sharing your experience, I will take your thoughts in consideration.

 

[Judge]

Life is too short.

Go with your heart and make amazing images. The "pros and cons" mean nothing when you are dead, but the images will remain. Who knows what impact a single image will have in someone's life?

Enjoy your own life! Your work will reflect your inner self as so many have shown in their beautiful work displayed in this forum,:thumbup:

After reading this, I felt a really Zen moment, all bubbly and warm on the inside. Makes me want to cuddle with my long pillow and drink almond milk till I fall asleep.
Thanks for the positivity Dave, I want to change the world with the same type of positivity.

 

[Judge]

This is one of those typical situations where an individuals needs, experience and bias dictate what benefits are important from each system, as Graham says, it's a decision only you can make by using the kit for what you want to shoot and then making a decision based solely on that.

I have shot a little with the 5D4 but not an expert, the reason I only shot a little is that I personally felt it was vastly over priced for what it is and I had no need for anything it offered above what I was using for what I shoot. I chose the D810 over the Canon as it is better for me in every regard, based solely on shooting what I want to shoot with it and looking at the results.

Your cons list for MF is a very long way from my experience, but we obviously shoot different things. In the studio, under strobes, I would rather shoot an old P25+ than either the Canon or the Nikon, on an older Mamiya or Hasselblad body or even a Contax, it has very little to do with pixel count for me, it's about file quality first and foremost and having shot with P25+, IQ260, Leica S 006 and cmos 007 and now a GFX, at base ISO under strobes, they all give me a far nicer file, and in these conditions, live view, high resolution screen, tracking af, super high ISO etc. etc. all mean nothing, a large bright viewfinder and developing skills trump all of those things.

I have shot CCD MF sensors in Iraq, Afghanistan, Mali, Sudan and the Arctic, untethered, mainly handheld and had zero issues, that's just my personal experience. A digital back on a tech camera, even an old one gives superb landscapes, is it as easy as swinging out a dslr, upping ISO and shooting handheld, not at all but sometimes that's not what makes the experience of shooting worthwhile for me.

If it was my money, shooting in the studio and landscapes I'd have a Leica S 006 in a second, the files are so much nicer than anything I could coax out of a canon, don't get caught up in more megapixels being better or the constant upgrade cycle, if you shoot mainly base ISO then ccd sensors are hard to beat in my experience.

Mat

Megapixels is not the end of the world for me. The Medium Format setup under $8k would be an addition not a substitute.
If talking about Mamiyas or Contax, I have seen some used P25+'s, P30+, P45's backs for an okay amount (only 9 megapixel more from the p45 than 5D4 not worth acquiring) but the technology is way older and have limits as to what speed you can shoot with strobes in studio or outside.Again you'd have to exceed the $8k budget to work with something thats useful with Phase bodies and backs from what I've looked into.

 

[Judge]

Your Canon is a pretty amazing camera. Without going into too much detail, seriously consider the depreciation as it will drive you nuts. The Leica S system has in many instances been a crapshoot for reliability with lenses. My Hasselblad digital needed to be replaced several times. Continuous upgrade paths and obsolescence will always have you looking for greener grass as opposed to using your current camera as an extension of your creativity. After using most MFD cameras i've been really impressed with the Sony A7rII's 42mp and fantastic lens selection. 16x24 prints will show little difference in quality from MFD. Go to DXOMark for a look at hundreds of sensor scores. https://www.dxomark.com

High flash sync with leaf shutters is actually not as big a factor because LED continuous lights can be used to mitigate focal plane shutters. MFD was something I thought I needed, but its limitations and lack of weather sealing made me switch. I would recommend the Fuji GFX if that sensor size intrigues you. Fuji's OOC camera Jpg's are legendary and with the new GF 110mm f/2 lens, you're getting an 87mm f1.6 (35mm) equivalent at a fraction of the cost of traditional MFD. The depreciation will not be as dramatic either.

Thanks for sharing JD. What Hasselblad are you shooting with ?

 

[mjr]

Megapixels is not the end of the world for me....

I have seen some used P25+'s, P30+, P45's backs for an okay amount (only 9 megapixel more from the p45 than 5D4 not worth acquiring)

I don't think you should bother, save your money, I don't think you are understanding the advice people are giving, there have been a number of suggestions, all under 8k. Leica S, Pentax 645D and Z, an older back with a body etc. etc. If you want to shoot in the studio portraits then you will get more from a big bright optical viewfinder than from your Canon viewfinder, you don't need 10 frames a second or high ISO, or eye Af and all that stuff, if you do then you may be better building up some skills.

Maybe spend it on lights and some post training or something, remember that nobody here has to persuade you of anything, what you shoot with is of no importance to anyone but you, nobody here is obliged to change your opinion of old, crap technology that doesn't give you anything over a 5d, they will just carry on producing amazing images regardless. There are guys posting on here images that are stunning, some of them even with film!!

Good luck!

Mat

 

[jdphoto]

Thanks for sharing JD. What Hasselblad are you shooting with ?

Hi,
I had the Hasselblad H3D 31 and the H4D 40. When they worked they were amazing, but I lost confidence after the 3rd model. Perhaps this was just an anomaly, but I understand your point about dealer's being your new best friend. Mine wouldn't even contact Hasselblad on my behalf, even though the camera(s) were purchased new and under warranty. KEH has an H3D 31 with 80mm 2.8 lens for $3000. Thats about 1/4 of the original price! I really liked the 80mm 2.8 as it's made by Fuji. Plus, you get 14 days to try it. If you want a more mechanical camera you could get a Hasselblad 503CW and get a digital back for it. This way you have options for film too. Personally, I'm leaning towards the Fuji GFX and with the 63mm 2.8 lens it puts it just around your budget. I've been reading some great reviews too. Good comparison of important specs.

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/12/fuji-gfx-50s-review-medium-format-landscape-travel-photography/

 

[Judge]

I don't think you should bother, save your money, I don't think you are understanding the advice people are giving, there have been a number of suggestions, all under 8k. Leica S, Pentax 645D and Z, an older back with a body etc. etc. If you want to shoot in the studio portraits then you will get more from a big bright optical viewfinder than from your Canon viewfinder, you don't need 10 frames a second or high ISO, or eye Af and all that stuff, if you do then you may be better building up some skills.

Maybe spend it on lights and some post training or something, remember that nobody here has to persuade you of anything, what you shoot with is of no importance to anyone but you, nobody here is obliged to change your opinion of old, crap technology that doesn't give you anything over a 5d, they will just carry on producing amazing images regardless. There are guys posting on here images that are stunning, some of them even with film!!

Good luck!

Mat

Mat peoples advice is not falling on deaf ears and I'm taking things into consideration, as well as what you have stated as well. The feedback from working professionals is definitely useful. I cannot say with 100% but I reckon many of the people on this forum that are shooting with Medium Format, are not shooting something older than 7-8 years. Anything beyond that doesn't yield as pleasing results, I could be wrong but this is why I came here to get some opinions and thoughts.

 

[Judge]

Hi,
I had the Hasselblad H3D 31 and the H4D 40. When they worked they were amazing, but I lost confidence after the 3rd model. Perhaps this was just an anomaly, but I understand your point about dealer's being your new best friend. Mine wouldn't even contact Hasselblad on my behalf, even though the camera(s) were purchased new and under warranty. KEH has an H3D 31 with 80mm 2.8 lens for $3000. Thats about 1/4 of the original price! I really liked the 80mm 2.8 as it's made by Fuji. Plus, you get 14 days to try it. If you want a more mechanical camera you could get a Hasselblad 503CW and get a digital back for it. This way you have options for film too. Personally, I'm leaning towards the Fuji GFX and with the 63mm 2.8 lens it puts it just around your budget. I've been reading some great reviews too. Good comparison of important specs.

https://petapixel.com/2017/04/12/fuji-gfx-50s-review-medium-format-landscape-travel-photography/

Thank you for sharing JD,checking out the link now.