interesting read

[marco]

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/2341704755/thinking-about-buying-medium-format-read-this-first

[Jack Dahlgren]

The never-ending format debate. I find these discussions expose more ignorance and bias than they shed light on the subject.

Camera format is driven by multiple factors, but the forgotten one is always the relationship between technology and volume. High volume pays for technology. The speed of progress in low volume lens lines (large format, even true medium format) is very slow even to the point of being stopped. Most companies abandoned new LF designs decades ago despite the fact that more advanced technology could add improvements. This is because there is no sales volume to support the development.

Given the massive amount of technology that goes into flagship 35mm format (24x36mm) cameras and lenses, it is not clear that a larger format will ever reach the volume where it can easily keep up with that pace of development to the point where it replaces the dominant format. In fact I see a future where 35mm format is abandoned.

I'm also a bit opposed to the description of the Fuji and Hassy as "medium format". It is only marginally larger than 35mm format. But then again, I'm old.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

...
I'm also a bit opposed to the description of the Fuji and Hassy as "medium format". It is only marginally larger than 35mm format. But then again, I'm old.

The lineage of the Hasselblad and the Fuji is proper medium format. However, these new cameras relate more to the old medium format in the same manner as a micro4/3 to FX/24x36 mm format..

[Ilkka Nissilä]

There is no "dominant" format, and if one wanted to see one in interchangeable lens cameras, by numbers it would be APS-C/DX, not 35mm/FX. But even the APS-C sensors come in different sizes. So there is just a diversity of sensor sizes. As aps-c cameras are so commonplace, some use sensor size as a differentiator, to get a bit of an advantage in some way by using a different format.

The move smaller formats has been driven by improving image quality per sensor or film area. However as the image's tonal quality and colour quality is now close to theoretical limits, there is not much further improvement in a given sensor size expected in the future. A bit more resolution, yes, but then noise, camera shake, lens aberrations and diffraction can make it harder to realize the benefits of increased pixel count in practice. So if one wants to scale down sensor size then one can expect to be hit by these limitations.

Personally I enjoy FX and expect to do so for the foreseeable future. For me it is the ideal balance of quality, portability and lens availability. If the mini-MF goes to 100MP I might consider it but I want it with an optical viewfinder.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I use micro four thirds for photogrammetry; there is a need for good colour reproduction, reasonably good detail and a lot of depth of field in our application, and having small cameras is a distinct advantage. Many specialized applications for cameras have no need for a large sensor. Sensor size choice and camera choice is just something very dependent on the specific application; I see no "one size fits all" in the future any more than today.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I'm using a range of formats as well. UV video for example is done with the Panasonic GH-2,  whilst much of the other UV work is conducted by DX cameras and some time-lapse or focus stacking tasks are with FX. The CX format is handy for occasional use and underwater (AW1) if a bigger rig isn't required.

My run-of-the-mill ordinary photography relies on DX and FX models. I rarely require the enormous pixel resolution of the D8xx models but have it if deemed necessary.

Would I buy into the "[micro]medium" format in the future? Likely not unless I went into extreme photomacrography and could convince myself a bigger-than-FX sensor was mandatory., which at present it isn't.

[Akira]

Apparently the cinema/video world is converging more reasonable, theoretically and practically feasible formats, because the majority of the users are professionals who are much less influenced by the advertising phrases and specifications based on the consumers wishes.

The de-facto standard in the cinema/video world seems to be super35 and 16mm.  There are still needs for even smaller format.  The still formats that are closest to super35 and 16mm are APS-C and 1" respectively.  They could be the best compromise between DOF (both deep and shallow) and image quality (both resolution and high ISO performance).

There was 70mm film format for high quality cinema.  So, there could be reasons for the digital "MF".

Sadly Nikon is more into FX than DX, and CX format is on the line.  FX is great for the stills, but I think it is a bit less promising as the still-video hybrid format.

[richardHaw]

I don't know if anybody feels the same as me. as I see these medium format cameras rolling out at ridiculous prices (for me) and knowing that these will be obsolete in a couple of years, this just makes me more inclined to buy a 500cm or a rolleiflex.

35mm sensor technology is peaking right now and is close to approaching medium format territory in terms of detail and resolution so there isn't much initiative to buy into a digital medium format system as opposed to film where the differences are night and day specially when talking about grain.

this is just what I think and feel. hay fever can distort a person's mind so don't count on anything with much sense coming from me for the coming weeks

[Roland Vink]

There will always be those who think bigger is better (and some who really do need bigger), even if it is only slightly bigger than FX.

I'm not sure they will be obsolete in a few years, as you say, sensor technology is peaking so there isn't much room for improvement in the future, unless there is a radical new technology. Consider the D800, sensors have not moved on much since it was introduced in 2012 - yes there is the Sony 42MP BSI sensor which squeezed a bit more performance by reconfiguring and refining existing technology - but the D800 is hardly obsolete.

But I know what you mean, there is something about an old mechanical camera, and a well exposed piece of film...

[Les Olson]

The speed of progress in low volume lens lines (large format, even true medium format) is very slow even to the point of being stopped. Most companies abandoned new LF designs decades ago despite the fact that more advanced technology could add improvements.

I am not sure this is true.  When Oscar Barnack invented the 35mm roll-film camera one of his key innovations was lenses that produced image circles just big enough to cover the 36 x 24 negative.  That meant, of course, that the periphery of the image was of relatively low quality, but that was OK because no one at the time expected a 35mm camera to offer professional quality images, or images that would be printed larger than postcard size.  Later, people did expect professional quality from 35mm, so manufacturers had to jump through hoops to improve peripheral image quality.  Other drawbacks of the 35mm design are the need to have moving elements in order to "focus" the image, and to accommodate the short mount to film/sensor distance.  That means complex and highly asymmetrical designs, which introduces aberrations that have to be compensated by yet more elements.  35mm also needs very large relative apertures, which also stresses the optical design, especially when you have to control aberrations in the image periphery.   

A symmetrical lens with a central aperture and no moving elements is the crocodile of the optical world: it has not evolved because it does not need to evolve.  From an optical point of view, making the lens do jobs like focus and depth of field control is a really bad idea. A lot of the development and innovation in 35mm cameras and lenses, impressive as it is, is only progress in the sense that it compensates for the weaknesses inherent in the 35mm concept.  A modern 35mm tilt-shift lens, eg, is certainly a masterpiece of engineering innovation - but it only partially replaces the much better system the view camera uses to achieve the same result.   

[David H. Hartman]

Personally I enjoy FX and expect to do so for the foreseeable future. For me it is the ideal balance of quality, portability and lens availability.

My preferred format is FX and will be for the foreseeable future and for the same reasons. I would like a DX camera to compliment and share lenses with FX. I'd like rangefinder system of high quality but priced in reach of mortals. It might be APS-C or full format. It would be for candid photography.

I can't even dream of true 645 medium format. A format between FX and 645 doesn't interest me.

My current most critical need is time.

Dave Hartman

[David H. Hartman]

A symmetrical lens with a central aperture and no moving elements is the crocodile of the optical world: it has not evolved because it does not need to evolve.  From an optical point of view, making the lens do jobs like focus and depth of field control is a really bad idea. A lot of the development and innovation in 35mm cameras and lenses, impressive as it is, is only progress in the sense that it compensates for the weaknesses inherent in the 35mm concept.

-1

Sorry I'm too tired to comment but I do have my disagreements.

Dave Hartman

[Frank Fremerey]

The never-ending format debate. I find these discussions expose more ignorance and bias than they shed light on the subject.

Camera format is driven by multiple factors, but the forgotten one is always the relationship between technology and volume. High volume pays for technology. The speed of progress in low volume lens lines (large format, even true medium format) is very slow even to the point of being stopped. Most companies abandoned new LF designs decades ago despite the fact that more advanced technology could add improvements. This is because there is no sales volume to support the development.

Given the massive amount of technology that goes into flagship 35mm format (24x36mm) cameras and lenses, it is not clear that a larger format will ever reach the volume where it can easily keep up with that pace of development to the point where it replaces the dominant format. In fact I see a future where 35mm format is abandoned.

I'm also a bit opposed to the description of the Fuji and Hassy as "medium format". It is only marginally larger than 35mm format. But then again, I'm old.

Although I generally support what you say I want to emphasize something else:

My decision is for Viewfinders and glass not for chip formats.

I generally like to be able to use Manual Focus (MF) whenever I want and I like Auto Focus (AF) if it works.

My collection of AF-S G & AF-S E lenses is such that MF and AF are readyly available on all of my bodies DX or FX.

The View finder on the DX D500 is superb, especially for MF-work
The View finder on the D600 and D3 are OK for MF work.

The Nikkors I still own are all superb for what I want to do.

Currently there is no need to change that.

***

The other kind of work I do is tethered table top work in the Studio. Theoretically the chip holder could be completely finder less, because since 2009 I use a large computer display as the view finder for my mono rails which works just fine.

I tend to WANT the best chip I can get and afford as a back for my Large Format setup. For me it cannot be Sinar because it only works on Apples and I disregard Apple for their policy. I am a Microsoft fanboy and ever was.

The best chip lives up to its promise only if the best firmware and the best RAW converters support is well. Currently the last is not given for the 33x44-offerings by Hasselblad and Fuji. So I wait. I guess the 50MP-33x44-Chip is great but the RAW converters and firmware are not yet there.

Plus it could be that a BSI-Chip on a Nikon D8xx or D9xx will soon outperform it.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Internal focus is a really good idea for living and moving subjects. While high resolution may be easier to achieve on larger formats, it is generally the case that having an interesting subject is far more important, and to get to that interesting subject one may need to consider which lens is needed to frame it (angle of view, etc.), how heavy the equipment can be so that you will be able to take the equipment to the location where the interesting subject is, and whether the camera is responsive enough to catch the interesting subject at a moment when it is doing something interesting.

Even when the subject is relatively static, I find the portable and reasonably weather-resistant PC E Nikkors to be very practical for landscape and close-up photography. I often photograph ice which is flat and I want to do it in an angle so that I'm not limited to the perpendicular view. I don't think carrying a bellows view camera with 3-5 lenses would be such a great idea for -25 C. You can do it of course, and I know people who have done it, but I find pleasure in the lighter weight but still powerful FX equipment. For field use and travel they offer a good compromise between freedom of movements and portability. Also with a large format view camera, doing close ups of small objects would require a lot of extension.  I do use a tilt/shift bellows for macro at times, but it is heavy and has some limitations and probably doesn't take a snowstorm all that well. Although the limitations of movements in PC Nikkors are often criticized I find it satisfying to work around those limitations rather than move to a much less portable and less field use compatible setup. I find I get a little bit of extra "something" by using movements that few people bother with these days. It gives a tranquility and homogeneity of a sort, when the typical limitations of depth of field are worked around by using an optical trick.

Tilt/shift lenses like the Canon 17mm and Nikon 19mm offer angle of view and image circle that may be hard to find for 33mm x 44mm sensors. And for field close-ups the 85 PC-E is very nice. In fact even the 24 PC-E offers 1:2.7 close-up capability and maintain physically reasonably small size and no need to play with different kinds of bellows for different lens focal lengths or close-up vs. infinity. So it is not always that small format tilt shift lenses are more limited than view cameras and mini-MF.

[David H. Hartman]

My decision is for Viewfinders and glass not for chip formats.

+1 to the whole post as it applies to me.

Internal focus is a really good idea for living and moving subjects. While high resolution may be easier to achieve on larger formats, it is generally the case that having an interesting subject is far more important, and to get to that interesting subject one may need to consider which lens is needed to frame it (angle of view, etc.), how heavy the equipment can be so that you will be able to take the equipment to the location where the interesting subject is, and whether the camera is responsive enough to catch the interesting subject at a moment when it is doing something interesting.

+1 to this post as it applies to me also.

I still own my larger film crocodylians but currently have no way to print the negatives. I found the baby alligators that were sold in N.Y., N.Y. when I was a kid interesting but I don't recall I ever asked for one. Most got flushed down the toilet when they died or got too large. Today's baby alligators don't interest me except the ones I can't afford, the ones with the red dot on their foreheads.

Dave Hartman

The caffeine from two cups of coffee should kick in soon.

---

Thank you Frank and Ilkka for your posts. I find much I agree with and basically nothing to disagree with.

Dave