The GetDPI Photography Forum

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

Opinion on mf or Nikon z6 system

rollsman44

Well-known member
I have used med format and dslr and now z6. Systems. I know the pros and cons on all of these but just wanted someone else’s opinion on which 1 system to have
I shoot mainly portraits and some social functions but not much any more as I am retired. I do want af. And I really do t need any huge files anymore
I guess I am looking to get the best iq for the least investment and to get the colors correct right out of the camera with minimal post processing.
Maybe I am looking for something to please me. I guess I feel that med format will always come out a winner. I used Hasselblad h30. H40. The camera and lens got to be too heavy and I had to rely on tripod. My next thought was Pentax 645 Z. Just speculating and looking for others that might be like me Nutty.

I use flash and ttl and ocf The Z is not as heavy as the hassy. I feel awkward posting this. Look forward to opinions and possible experience.
 
I have used med format and dslr and now z6. Systems. I know the pros and cons on all of these but just wanted someone else’s opinion on which 1 system to have
I shoot mainly portraits and some social functions but not much any more as I am retired. I do want af. And I really do t need any huge files anymore
I guess I am looking to get the best iq for the least investment and to get the colors correct right out of the camera with minimal post processing.
Maybe I am looking for something to please me. I guess I feel that med format will always come out a winner. I used Hasselblad h30. H40. The camera and lens got to be too heavy and I had to rely on tripod. My next thought was Pentax 645 Z. Just speculating and looking for others that might be like me Nutty.
I use flash and ttl and ocf The Z is not as heavy as the hassy. I feel awkward posting this. Look forward to opinions and possible experience.
Only you can make a decision between sensor size and system size.
 

JoelM

Well-known member
What's your definition of huge files? The Pentax is pretty big so with your description, I would highly recommend the Z6. Seems like a no-brainer to me per your description.

Joel
 

mristuccia

Well-known member
I would consider a Fujifilm GFX-50r or the Hasselblad X1D-50C as well. They are lighter than the classic MF systems and hold most of the MF quality.
Otherwise the Z6 seems the right one to me.
 

Jamgolf

Member
In my opinion the biggest reason to shoot medium format is to be able to make very large prints. Since you said "I shoot mainly portraits and some social functions but not much any more", I would think there is really no reason to carry around heavier gear with auto focus capabilities that are not as convenient. A Z6, or might I suggest the Fuji XT series is a really capable and enjoyable system. Beautiful files right out of the camera and just the freedom to compose the shots and enjoy photography.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
In my opinion the biggest reason to shoot medium format is to be able to make very large prints.
Interesting. I'm not sure I'd put that reason my top five.

For the XF:
Color.
Lenses.
Tonality.
Depth/tactility/dimensionality/"3Dness".
Tools/Features.

For a Tech Cam:
Color.
Lenses.
Tonality.
Depth/tactility/dimensionality/"3Dness".
Built in movement.

Somewhere after all those would come "pixel count, microcontrast/detail, and large prints".
 

David Schneider

New member
Life is too short to use cameras you aren't happy with. If you enjoy the Wow factor of looking at medium format files, go with the Fuji GFX50r. It is roughly the size of a dslr and the soon to be released GF 100-200 f5.6 weighs less than a FF 70-200 f2.8 from Canon or Nikon. The GF32-64 weighs less than 2 lbs. GFX50R (or S) have features you didn't have on your Hasselblads.

But if you don't need those exceptional files, want lighter weight and still have a great file you can stay with your Z6 or go Fuji XT3 or Sony A7iii or whatever. There is just no right answer. Unlike a wife, you can have more than one camera, try them out when you want, switch back and forth.
 

Jamgolf

Member
Interesting. I'm not sure I'd put that reason my top five.

For the XF:
Color.
Lenses.
Tonality.
Depth/tactility/dimensionality/"3Dness".
Tools/Features.

For a Tech Cam:
Color.
Lenses.
Tonality.
Depth/tactility/dimensionality/"3Dness".
Built in movement.

Somewhere after all those would come "pixel count, microcontrast/detail, and large prints".
As I said, "In my opinion" ... I dont want to derail this thread into an argument.
For what OP is trying to do, smaller formats are much more suitable , in my opinion.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I have used med format and dslr and now z6. Systems. I know the pros and cons on all of these but just wanted someone else’s opinion on which 1 system to have
I shoot mainly portraits and some social functions but not much any more as I am retired. I do want af. And I really do t need any huge files anymore
I guess I am looking to get the best iq for the least investment and to get the colors correct right out of the camera with minimal post processing.
Maybe I am looking for something to please me. I guess I feel that med format will always come out a winner. I used Hasselblad h30. H40. The camera and lens got to be too heavy and I had to rely on tripod. My next thought was Pentax 645 Z. Just speculating and looking for others that might be like me Nutty.

I use flash and ttl and ocf The Z is not as heavy as the hassy. I feel awkward posting this. Look forward to opinions and possible experience.

It looks to me in the Z6 you already got the camera you need. I used to shoot Nikon for a number of years, but moved on some time ago.

My favorite two cameras right now are,

for action photography the Sony A9 with stellar AF in general and stunning Eye-AF in particular, and that’s even before the announced firmware updates 5.0 and 6.0 for this spring and summer, with major enhancements, and

for non-action photography the Fujifilm GGX 50S. For portraits you can’t go wrong with the GF 110/2.0.

So keep the Z6 and add the 50R and GF110.

Good luck to your decision making!
 

rollsman44

Well-known member
Thank you all who responded. I know I should keep the Z6 and I will. I dont need 2 systems as I am 90% Retired. I appreciate all the comments
 

Hausen

Active member
Life is too short to use cameras you aren't happy with. If you enjoy the Wow factor of looking at medium format files, go with the Fuji GFX50r. It is roughly the size of a dslr and the soon to be released GF 100-200 f5.6 weighs less than a FF 70-200 f2.8 from Canon or Nikon. The GF32-64 weighs less than 2 lbs. GFX50R (or S) have features you didn't have on your Hasselblads.

But if you don't need those exceptional files, want lighter weight and still have a great file you can stay with your Z6 or go Fuji XT3 or Sony A7iii or whatever. There is just no right answer. Unlike a wife, you can have more than one camera, try them out when you want, switch back and forth.
That makes me laugh, I use the one wife but many cameras line with my wife all the time.:grin:
 

Satrycon

Well-known member
keep the Z6 or if you wanna change

try the fuji XH1

great colors, lightweight, good IBIS, loads of options for lenses, and with adapters even more lenses.

and there has been a price reduction recently


I have used med format and dslr and now z6. Systems. I know the pros and cons on all of these but just wanted someone else’s opinion on which 1 system to have
I shoot mainly portraits and some social functions but not much any more as I am retired. I do want af. And I really do t need any huge files anymore
I guess I am looking to get the best iq for the least investment and to get the colors correct right out of the camera with minimal post processing.
Maybe I am looking for something to please me. I guess I feel that med format will always come out a winner. I used Hasselblad h30. H40. The camera and lens got to be too heavy and I had to rely on tripod. My next thought was Pentax 645 Z. Just speculating and looking for others that might be like me Nutty.

I use flash and ttl and ocf The Z is not as heavy as the hassy. I feel awkward posting this. Look forward to opinions and possible experience.
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Thank you all who responded. I know I should keep the Z6 and I will. I dont need 2 systems as I am 90% Retired. I appreciate all the comments
Great decision! :)

However this is the Medium Format forum and:

Dante is watching...., shhhhhh!... :ROTFL:
 

dave.gt

Well-known member
Thank you all who responded. I know I should keep the Z6 and I will. I dont need 2 systems as I am 90% Retired. I appreciate all the comments
It is interesting that you have brought up this discussion. As we grow older, things change. Health, interests, and passions. Everyone is unique and that is the good thing. Personally, I like symmetry in life, I don't know why, but I decided to embrace that enlightenment long ago.

I know there will come a time that MF film and MFD will most likely be a special occasion shooting experience. And I can see my simplifying life greatly. I started out with a Nikon FE as my first serious camera decades ago. Life was fun, and the camera was around when I wanted those Kodak moments. I can see down the road just using a simple camera again... another Leica, an M10 or MP Black Paint (film), just to recapture that simplicity and elegance of shooting the camera I love to use. One camera, one lens... oh my, sounds like the Ed Harris movie, "Kodachrome" on Netflix!:shocked:
 

drunkenspyder

Well-known member
I haven’t been on the forum since early yesterday, so this was a very enjoyable thread to read in its entirety (so far). I am retired, and still with more camera systems than any non-professional should require. But I own each for the enjoyment it brings in trying to make images. And I have often asked myself the future version of OP’s question: what will stay when the luxury of many systems actually becomes a burden on the pleasure of making images? My wife and I travel a fair bit, and then on top of that I travel more, including 2-3 photo workshops per year. They keep me moving forward and learning from others. At some point, some or all these systems will become surplussage to weigh against the other joys of what is left for life.

Along the way, I have learned certain things about this activity (profession for some, avocation for many, and both for quite a few here), and what it means to me. Alain Briot has taught me this is my “art,” or at least as close to art as I am going to get. My wife is very artistic; she can pick up almost any medium, from iPhone to mud on a cattail brush, and render something beautiful. When we travel together, my images are better from her compositional input. And when I shoot XF or tech, my images are better, because the simple process of using these devices slows me down and makes me think more about the image I am making (that slow process being well documented here in the forum). Even the size of the files in MF is part of slowing us down. Slowing down helps me be more artistic. Using a tool like a Cambo with T/S lenses (at which I am a very unskilled novice) expands and elongates the process further. And increases the pleasure of it—even if I don’t capture the image that was in my mind; and moreso if I do. I have realized that what makes it my art is what went into it more than the end product (a scene in The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel was a real gobsmack moment on this point).

As a kid, I loved science fiction—Heinlein, Asimov, Bradbury, and a host of others—and I still enjoy them. One writer in particular really fired my imagination: Jack Chalker and his Well of Souls. I have believed for a long time that the world is actually digital, and that analog is the crude approximation, not the other way around. I have pursued that belief in audio, the only other place I have spent more money than photography (over at Head-Fi, they have a slogan similar to this forum’s Dante: “Welcome to Head-Fi; sorry for your wallet.”). Here, we know where our passion is headed: more and (hopefully) better pixels, Human Dynamic Range, supercomputer post processing, etc. it’s like revealing new layers of reality. Over the past few weeks, another photog and I have worked hard to try to make the most of a HiRes 80mpx file out of Lumix G9. Not a bad pic, but the limitations of m4/3 are painfully apparent. It’s like looking at the world on a dust speck level, while working with files from my Nikons is more molecular, and the Trichromatic and now IQ4 feel like we are getting to atomic and subatomic fineness. Can’t wait to see what’s next. In the meantime, I am giving my m4/3 system to my budding videographer stepson. Panny-Leica & Oly make really nice glass for it, but in use, it is no more gratifying than my Sony RX10iv, though moderately more impressive in appearance. ;-) Even if I never printed them large, the IQ is insufficient to justify the lesser pleasure in capturing and making the image.

OP’s question is a wonderful one for reflection. If I could only pick one camera to have (perhaps along with the “iPhone of the day”), it would actually be one I do not own (the implications of which are patent): the Hassy X1D. I won’t get many pictures of running cheetahs with it, but it’s compact enough to have with me all the time, produces beautiful images, feels like a fine tool, and speaks back to that little bit of my soul trying to come out in the image.

P.S. Sorry for the long-winded op-ed. This thread just really spoke to me.
 
Last edited:
Don’t apologize for making the question more interesting!

IMO the OP didn’t have much of a problem. If he’d decided that in retirement he’d shoot only a few portraits and events, his choice was pretty clear.

But DrunkenSpyder is raising a more interesting question - how to continue with a satisfying quality of fine art photography when schlepping the gear gets harder.

It’s been a pressing question for me. I don’t think it requires choosing one camera, but I do think it’s a problem for everyone who shares DS’s hopes and interests but happens to be getting older.

My current answers are to shoot more in my own locale, and to explore the new ‘small medium’ format sensors for excellent image quality. I replaced my old wide format printer with 17” and will limit print size to 17x22” paper. This is my way of scaling subject matter, gear, and output down to decreasing capacities, but still hoping to accomplish what DS is working toward.

Kirk
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I have also been thinking about this problem. I guess it come down whether you want to maximize or optimize image quality with your gear choice. While I really like the quality of my MFD gear, I am tired of the weight and cost. I truly believe the photographer adds more quality to the image than any change in technology can. After putting together a book shot on a film medium-format rangefinder, two things became apparent, the medium-format film did not have the quality of my MFD and my film images were more spontaneous and interesting (mostly because how I used to shoot with rangefinders). I did a lot of research and thinking and finally went with an APS-C Fuji X Pro2. I was a little nervous as I do appreciate a certain degree of image quality (and I was buying this camera sight unseen). In my first week, I shot a bunch of images under different light and then made 40" prints--I figured if I could get pleasing 40" prints under challenging light, I could live with the camera. Well, the prints exceeded my expectations (even with the wacky X-Trans sensor). Did they have the absolute quality of my MFD? No. But simply judging them for their own merits, they were really good, certainly better than I was getting from my old medium-format film work (and I can get beautiful prints out of that). Naturally, the images have a different dynamic--I am getting used to the DoF and the quality of that and the sharpness and contrast of the format--but I also know I can adjust for that. I also have the rangefinder form, which has been great to be shooting with again.

From this experience, go for what gets you shooting. If that is MFD or the Nikon, it does not matter. Then simply enjoy the camera, learn how it sees, and figure out how to get the results you want.

The other great thing with this change is my FOMO levels have gone way down...
 

drunkenspyder

Well-known member
I have also been thinking about this problem. I guess it come down whether you want to maximize or optimize image quality with your gear choice. While I really like the quality of my MFD gear, I am tired of the weight and cost. I truly believe the photographer adds more quality to the image than any change in technology can. After putting together a book shot on a film medium-format rangefinder, two things became apparent, the medium-format film did not have the quality of my MFD and my film images were more spontaneous and interesting (mostly because how I used to shoot with rangefinders). I did a lot of research and thinking and finally went with an APS-C Fuji X Pro2. I was a little nervous as I do appreciate a certain degree of image quality (and I was buying this camera sight unseen). In my first week, I shot a bunch of images under different light and then made 40" prints--I figured if I could get pleasing 40" prints under challenging light, I could live with the camera. Well, the prints exceeded my expectations (even with the wacky X-Trans sensor). Did they have the absolute quality of my MFD? No. But simply judging them for their own merits, they were really good, certainly better than I was getting from my old medium-format film work (and I can get beautiful prints out of that). Naturally, the images have a different dynamic--I am getting used to the DoF and the quality of that and the sharpness and contrast of the format--but I also know I can adjust for that. I also have the rangefinder form, which has been great to be shooting with again.

From this experience, go for what gets you shooting. If that is MFD or the Nikon, it does not matter. Then simply enjoy the camera, learn how it sees, and figure out how to get the results you want.

The other great thing with this change is my FOMO levels have gone way down...
Delightful observations Will. Maximize or optimize: the choice is yours.™ I like that. But as always, as you so aptly note, it's what gets/keeps you shooting that matters. If the photographer is not shooting, the camera is irrelevant. And if the photographer is, the camera matters only if it impairs the photographer.
 

MartinN

Well-known member
In my first week, I shot a bunch of images under different light and then made 40" prints--I figured if I could get pleasing 40" prints under challenging light, I could live with the camera.
For me a 22 Megapixel digital MF back is adequate for what I print, and 40 Megapixels would be luxury and even a bit more than I need. I enjoy an old MFDB and can carry the weight and have no interest to invest in the new 50 MP CMOS cameras OR 35mm DSLR/s OR 35mm Mirrorless. This mainly because the 'new' lenses get expensive. Happiness for me is 22MP MFDB.
 
Top