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

[Judge]

Hi All,

Longtime lurker but new to forum. Go easy on me.

So I've been a Canon shooter dating back over a decade. Happy and the system just works for me for my needs. Over the past few years I've always noticed my SOOC skin tones in RAW always have a bit of red to them, not a lot,just a tiny little hint of red. From my conversations with other Photogs and reading up online all over,seems like thats a Canon thing. I don't so much understand the technical aspect behind it,but I roll with it and edit it out.
No,its not my monitor (I have a calibrator and calibrate my monitor regularly) or editing, and I'm not color blind.
This has been ongoing through a few Canon bodies and a few monitors.
So what does that have to do with the title ?
I've always been an admirer of the imagery that I see coming from Medium Format cameras;such as Pentax,Hassies, Mamiyas, the Leicas to name a few (there are quite more).
The sharpness, the color tones (especially), the details, I always find interesting to me. In the past I was able to get my hands on Mamiya 645 body with a digital back to use in the studio environment and I found it to be both filled with Pros and Cons. Recently I've been looking into some camera bodies entertaining the thought that I might get myself one.
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).
I'm interested in getting some feedback.
Here is the Question ? ----->How does any Medium Format setup under 8 grand perform better than my Canon 5D4, aside from those tones. You can chime in regardless on what your system as long as its digital not film.

Pros of Canon 5D4 (and why I should just forget even thinking about looking at Medium Format as some may say its not for me) : 30 megapixel sensor, 61 focus point, iso 102k (can shoot at night at decent shutter speeds and not worry about a tripod) FAST, weather sealed, 5 stops of exposure comp,dual memory slots, amazing clarity on the LCD screen, 7 fps, has video (but don't really care about video). Tons of dealers nationwide and worldwide, fast turnaround service on anything that needs to be fixed and you can get a loaner body sometimes on the house or for a really low rate. There are Cons of course, cant think of any in comparison to a Medium Format setup within the range of $8k setup i.e. at this moment.

Cons of Medium Format setups: SLOW, SLOW, SLOW! Only good for studio work and shooting tethered, goooood luck trying to shoot a wedding with it, or any sports, or anything of non commercial or advertisement purposes. Advertising or Commercial shoot ? You will have to be mostly sitting on a tripod and every little shot has to be thought out thoroughly through (tongue twister). ISO beyond 800 ? not happening (besides the Fuji GFX,Leica S,Pentax 645Z, the H5D-50C, IQ250, IQ150....on CMOS not CCD but I did say bodies UNDER $8 grand not over so these don't count). Not weather sealed, good luck in harsh weather conditions. One memory slot (like you'd need more with those slow writing speeds). Screen clarity pure garbage (unless you're on something modern 2013-2017 again exceeding the budget of $8k). Focus points ? What focus points ? You're either in focus or not. Shooting at night or handheld ? Yeah right, thats not happening,pull out that tripod sonny. How many fps ? Not even worth discussing. You can only use it for specific things. Like bragging rights you're shooting on a Medium Format setup (that was total pun). When you need something fixed guess what you are SOL. You've only got a handful of dealers and they know there is only a few of them, so you will have to pucker up a large chunk of Ben Franklins and be at the mercy of them giving you a good deal to fix whatever the issue could be. Aside from that, none of these dealers have to give you deals on the bodies or digital backs because once again it's not a big competition (Under 100 of these dealers worldwide probably)

I already mentioned the pros of the medium format before,but the cons are big. So am I only kidding myself for the desire of a Medium Format system or I could possibly get it together and make it work. Could a Medium Format system under $8k trump my Canon 5D4 in anything ? Is there anything thats pretty damn good as a whole kit. Thats including glass and digital back as part of the setup.

Someone reading this would probably say Canon fanboy already made up their mind, wasting valuable reading space on the forum. That is not so, I'm 100% have not made up mind in fact just looking to learn more than can beneficial to finding what will work for me.

Shine some light if I'm wrong or see things wrong. I'm curious to get some peoples take on things. Saying something like "Go to hell" is not a helpful answer. So try to be a little more elaborative by maybe " Go to hell, but this is why Medium Format under $8k could work for you, reason 1, 2, 3"

Thanks for reading and hope I can get some people to chime in.

 

[Jan]

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.

 

[voidshatter]

Actually you have summarized pretty well. With medium format digital you gain the extra number of pixels and sharpness, as well as the pride of ownership and pleasure of handling exotic equipment, at the cost of convenience and price. If you just have extra cash to burn, and wants a ticket for a one-off enjoyment, then just go ahead to pull the trigger and you wouldn't be disappointed! However, if you care to plan for a system in the long run, then it's probably best to plan ahead.

Regarding the typical life-cycle of each camera (i.e. since announcement until succeeded by a later model), it's about 4 years for Canon, 2 years for Nikon, 1-2 years for Sony, 2 years for Phase One, etc. In the long run, Canon depreciates at the slowest speed. With something like Phase One, the best digital backs depreciate at the highest speed, while the more affordable digital backs depreciate more slowly, but still faster than Canon does.

Realistically it would be a good idea to calculate the depreciation speed first and see if it makes up for the gain in the long run. Spending a fortune for a 50MP 44x33 CMOS digital back, or a 60MP 54x40 CCD digital back this year, only to find it unjustified by a newer 70MP sensor in 35mm format next year would only lead to frustrations and buyer's remorse if you cannot afford to upgrade to a better digital back again next year. Higher pixel count in 35mm format always leads to depreciation of older medium format gear with less pixel count. You would have to make sure your income can sustain the pace of whatever upgrade path you pick, be it medium format digital or 35mm format. Very few people would drive a Ferrari for too many years - most wealthy ones would still keep buying into the latest models, because that's the process of enjoying bragging rights.

Secondly, makes sure you really gain advantage with medium format. Since you have mentioned skin tones, it's probably safe to assume that you shoot portrait mainly. Medium format digital will enable you to print larger for better details, and if you go with leaf shutter you get better flash sync speeds. However, medium format digital cannot provide strong bokeh (i.e. degree of background blur / separate of main subject from the background), not as strong as Canon's f/1.2 lenses. Medium format digital will also focus more slowly, and does less well under low-light situations. CCD sensors may also be prone to tiling issues as well as limited dynamic range (e.g. location shootout of portrait during sunset).

If it was me, then I would probably try to play with the Canon RAW files in Capture One and adjust the red tone and see if I can live with the workflow. The Canon system used to make much more sense to me in the long run, provided that DSLRs would not be replaced by mirrorless in the immediate future. However, we all knew that rangefinders got replaced by SLRs, film got replaced by digital. What would be the future of DSLRs? Will Canon abandon EF-mount when their fullframe mirrorless is out? (Talking about adapters, that's a bad idea... See how Sony's A-mount lenses work on FE-mount? Not even some old native FE lenses can do 20fps on the A9).

 

[GrahamWelland]

Talk to one of the dealers who advertise here and arrange for a test side by side. Only that can answer your questions as to whether medium format is worth it or not.

We can all talk theoretically about the benefits of things like Leaf back skin tone rendering but only YOU can decide whether the work to use an older generation back and body (to fit your budget) is worth it vs extra Canon post processing work.

We don't recommend people go to hell, although we may introduce you to Dante's description of the levels and journey though there. :ROTFL:

 

[RobbieAB]

I already mentioned the pros of the medium format before,but the cons are big. So am I only kidding myself for the desire of a Medium Format system or I could possibly get it together and make it work. Could a Medium Format system under $8k trump my Canon 5D4 in anything ? Is there anything thats pretty damn good as a whole kit. Thats including glass and digital back as part of the setup.

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.

I've always been an admirer of the imagery that I see coming from Medium Format cameras;such as Pentax,Hassies, Mamiyas, the Leicas to name a few (there are quite more).

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.

 

[mjr]

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

 

[dave.gt]

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:

 

[Paul2660]

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

 

[fotografz]

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

 

[dougpeterson]

Cons of Medium Format setups: SLOW, SLOW, SLOW! Only good for studio work and shooting tethered, goooood luck trying to shoot a wedding with it, or any sports, or anything of non commercial or advertisement purposes. Advertising or Commercial shoot ? You will have to be mostly sitting on a tripod and every little shot has to be thought out thoroughly through (tongue twister). ISO beyond 800 ?... Shooting at night or handheld ?

I shot many weddings with a P65+. The LCD was pretty mediocre, but ISO1600 in sensor+ was great for color shots, and I was very happy with ISO3200 for black and white images. The big sensor, and highly tuned processing in Capture One, along with great lenses and fast flash sync (for adding a hint of fill in bright environments without carrying large lights) were all great for that kind of work. Many (most?) of our customers shoot primarily or very frequently handheld.

For sure your budget is quite limiting for medium format. But only a few k higher gets you into some very modern large-sensor systems. I'd strongly suggest working with a dealer (whether us or someone else) to test a few options before investing in any of them. I don't think you've mentioned where you're located, but if in the US we have physical locations in NYC and LA with any Phase body or Hassy body based solution you'd like to try; we don't carry Fuji or Pentax.

 

[Shashin]

I am not sure a Pentax 645Z or Fuji GFX is any slower than any other DSRL or mirrorless. The high ISO is also comparable. Yes, an older medium-format system might be, but that is kind of true with old 35mm DSLRs.

I would try to rent some of these cameras and see for yourself. Photographers judge photographs in so many different ways that it is really hard to articulate why one system is preferred over another. I know when I was shooting a Nikon D800 next to my Pentax 645D, I preferred the images from the 645D. Yet, I know of others that preferred the Nikon, or rather did not see what I was seeing.

 

[tcdeveau]

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

Hi All,

Longtime lurker but new to forum. Go easy on me.

So I've been a Canon shooter dating back over a decade. Happy and the system just works for me for my needs. Over the past few years I've always noticed my SOOC skin tones in RAW always have a bit of red to them, not a lot,just a tiny little hint of red. From my conversations with other Photogs and reading up online all over,seems like thats a Canon thing. I don't so much understand the technical aspect behind it,but I roll with it and edit it out.
No,its not my monitor (I have a calibrator and calibrate my monitor regularly) or editing, and I'm not color blind.
This has been ongoing through a few Canon bodies and a few monitors.
So what does that have to do with the title ?
I've always been an admirer of the imagery that I see coming from Medium Format cameras;such as Pentax,Hassies, Mamiyas, the Leicas to name a few (there are quite more).
The sharpness, the color tones (especially), the details, I always find interesting to me. In the past I was able to get my hands on Mamiya 645 body with a digital back to use in the studio environment and I found it to be both filled with Pros and Cons. Recently I've been looking into some camera bodies entertaining the thought that I might get myself one.
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).
I'm interested in getting some feedback.
Here is the Question ? ----->How does any Medium Format setup under 8 grand perform better than my Canon 5D4, aside from those tones. You can chime in regardless on what your system as long as its digital not film.

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

Pros of Canon 5D4 (and why I should just forget even thinking about looking at Medium Format as some may say its not for me) : 30 megapixel sensor, 61 focus point, iso 102k (can shoot at night at decent shutter speeds and not worry about a tripod) FAST, weather sealed, 5 stops of exposure comp,dual memory slots, amazing clarity on the LCD screen, 7 fps, has video (but don't really care about video). Tons of dealers nationwide and worldwide, fast turnaround service on anything that needs to be fixed and you can get a loaner body sometimes on the house or for a really low rate. There are Cons of course, cant think of any in comparison to a Medium Format setup within the range of $8k setup i.e. at this moment.

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.

Cons of Medium Format setups: SLOW, SLOW, SLOW! Only good for studio work and shooting tethered, goooood luck trying to shoot a wedding with it, or any sports, or anything of non commercial or advertisement purposes. Advertising or Commercial shoot ? You will have to be mostly sitting on a tripod and every little shot has to be thought out thoroughly through (tongue twister).

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.

ISO beyond 800 ? not happening (besides the Fuji GFX,Leica S,Pentax 645Z, the H5D-50C, IQ250, IQ150....on CMOS not CCD but I did say bodies UNDER $8 grand not over so these don't count). Not weather sealed, good luck in harsh weather conditions. One memory slot (like you'd need more with those slow writing speeds). Screen clarity pure garbage (unless you're on something modern 2013-2017 again exceeding the budget of $8k). Focus points ? What focus points ? You're either in focus or not. Shooting at night or handheld ? Yeah right, thats not happening,pull out that tripod sonny. How many fps ? Not even worth discussing. You can only use it for specific things. Like bragging rights you're shooting on a Medium Format setup (that was total pun). When you need something fixed guess what you are SOL. You've only got a handful of dealers and they know there is only a few of them, so you will have to pucker up a large chunk of Ben Franklins and be at the mercy of them giving you a good deal to fix whatever the issue could be. Aside from that, none of these dealers have to give you deals on the bodies or digital backs because once again it's not a big competition (Under 100 of these dealers worldwide probably)

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 already mentioned the pros of the medium format before,but the cons are big. So am I only kidding myself for the desire of a Medium Format system or I could possibly get it together and make it work. Could a Medium Format system under $8k trump my Canon 5D4 in anything ? Is there anything thats pretty damn good as a whole kit. Thats including glass and digital back as part of the setup.

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?

Someone reading this would probably say Canon fanboy already made up their mind, wasting valuable reading space on the forum. That is not so, I'm 100% have not made up mind in fact just looking to learn more than can beneficial to finding what will work for me.

Shine some light if I'm wrong or see things wrong. I'm curious to get some peoples take on things. Saying something like "Go to hell" is not a helpful answer. So try to be a little more elaborative by maybe " Go to hell, but this is why Medium Format under $8k could work for you, reason 1, 2, 3"

Thanks for reading and hope I can get some people to chime in.

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.

 

[kdphotography]

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:

Dante? ------is that you?

:ROTFL:

Think "inclusive" and not "exclusive." It is not unusual to have two or more camera systems (well, not in this forum). Select and build the systems that give you the most joy---and allow you to pick the best tool for a particular job.

 

[Bill_Green]

Here is the Question ? ----->How does any Medium Format setup under 8 grand perform better than my Canon 5D4, aside from those tones. You can chime in regardless on what your system as long as its digital not film.

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.

 

[Abstraction]

Hi All,

Longtime lurker but new to forum. Go easy on me.

So I've been a Canon shooter dating back over a decade. Happy and the system just works for me for my needs. Over the past few years I've always noticed my SOOC skin tones in RAW always have a bit of red to them, not a lot,just a tiny little hint of red. From my conversations with other Photogs and reading up online all over,seems like thats a Canon thing. I don't so much understand the technical aspect behind it,but I roll with it and edit it out.
No,its not my monitor (I have a calibrator and calibrate my monitor regularly) or editing, and I'm not color blind.
This has been ongoing through a few Canon bodies and a few monitors.
So what does that have to do with the title ?
I've always been an admirer of the imagery that I see coming from Medium Format cameras;such as Pentax,Hassies, Mamiyas, the Leicas to name a few (there are quite more).
The sharpness, the color tones (especially), the details, I always find interesting to me. In the past I was able to get my hands on Mamiya 645 body with a digital back to use in the studio environment and I found it to be both filled with Pros and Cons. Recently I've been looking into some camera bodies entertaining the thought that I might get myself one.

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

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

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

 

[jdphoto]

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.

 

[Shashin]

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.

 

[2WK]

Hi Judge,

I just wanted to add that the reddness you are seeing in you skin tones is still here in MFD. I believe this is a CMOS thing. I have it with my Pentax 645z and it is difficult to edit out. For me, the pleasing skin tones are CCD...especially the kodak sensors in the 645D, and earlier Leica S etc. It is the same thing I noticed going from a Leica M9 (ccd) to the M240 (cmos).
This is a debatable subject and many people disagree with me, but I see what I see! Out of camera, I much prefer skin tones from CCD.

(pardon the retelling of this story but i find it applicable) I have also worked as a digital tech on a huge shoot with a famous photographer. We set up the lighting with a Phase p40+ while we were waiting for the rental agency to deliver an iQ250. Once the new back arrived, the photographer was perplexed as to why the model was suddenly looking so red. I tried my best to match the colors in C1, but everyone was in favor of the P40+. So we switched back and carried on with the shoot.

So, you really have to pick what you want. Do you want excellent colors out of camera? You are restricted to the slow beasts with low ISO. Do you favor pure resolution? You get to choose from a plethora of quicker cameras that can shoot in lower light, handheld.

I'm currently editing through hundreds of Phase One iq3 80mp (CCD) files and I find the colors quite nice! But not with the $8000 budget

 

[dougpeterson]

Hi Judge,

I just wanted to add that the reddness you are seeing in you skin tones is still here in MFD. I believe this is a CMOS thing. I have it with my Pentax 645z and it is difficult to edit out. For me, the pleasing skin tones are CCD...especially the kodak sensors in the 645D, and earlier Leica S etc. It is the same thing I noticed going from a Leica M9 (ccd) to the M240 (cmos).
This is a debatable subject and many people disagree with me, but I see what I see! Out of camera, I much prefer skin tones from CCD.

(pardon the retelling of this story but i find it applicable) I have also worked as a digital tech on a huge shoot with a famous photographer. We set up the lighting with a Phase p40+ while we were waiting for the rental agency to deliver an iQ250. Once the new back arrived, the photographer was perplexed as to why the model was suddenly looking so red. I tried my best to match the colors in C1, but everyone was in favor of the P40+. So we switched back and carried on with the shoot.

So, you really have to pick what you want. Do you want excellent colors out of camera? You are restricted to the slow beasts with low ISO. Do you favor pure resolution? You get to choose from a plethora of quicker cameras that can shoot in lower light, handheld.

I'm currently editing through hundreds of Phase One iq3 80mp (CCD) files and I find the colors quite nice! But not with the $8000 budget

If you decide to try an IQ250 again, or one of the other P1 CMOS backs, I really hope you'll reach out to us. We've translated the color knowledge we gained providing solutions to institutions like the Library of Congress, Getty, Smithsonian, etc into the commercial world. We've helped a variety of clients make emulation profiles to craft their images to a specific point of reference. We've helped Aptus users move to IQ backs and maintain their look. We've helped wedding shooters move from Fuji 400H to IQ250 and maintain that look. That latter project took us around 40 hours of R+D, so I wouldn't understate the effort involved.

As an out-of-the-box solution, if you're working with another dealer, are the Leaf Look profiles. We hosted a Leaf Color event in our NYC office and a shoddy vertical-video recording is available. Since that webinar those looks have been added for the 50mp models.