Simple and clear medium format

After mirrorless fever it's time for the medium format.

Creativity from banksy

Creativity from banksy

Sometimes the digital medium format for some users is something scary and incomprehensible. I suspect that the main difficulty lies in the modular structure of some medium-format cameras, which consist of several separate nodes, such as a digital back, viewfinder, chassis / body and various specialized peripherals. Usually, these cameras look like a monster-like look and inspire young neophytes with fear and horror, not only in appearance, but also at their cost.

But nowadays, 'simple' non-modular digital medium format cameras have already begun to appear, which very, very much resemble conventional system cameras. They are easy to understand and operate, and also have an almost classic look, typical of conventional CPC and UPC.


There is only one digital medium format reflex camera Mamiya ZD (not a camera with a back, but a monolithic camera).

  • Mamiya ZD, 2004, 22 MP CCD

Sensor size 48 X 36 mm (exactly 2 times larger than the area of ​​the classic full frame 36 X 24 mm). The physical sensor is larger than the FUJIFILM GFX series, Hasselblad X series, PENTAX 645D/645Z and Leica S series. Under the Mamiya ZD, there are a lot of autofocus optics and a lot of manual optics.


Mirrorless FUJIFILM GFX with sensors 43.8 X 32.9 mm (often rounded to 44 X 33)



  1. 23 mm 1:4 R LM WR
  2. 30 mm 1:3.5 R WR
  3. 45 mm 1:2.8 R WR
  4. 50 mm 1:3.5 R LM WR
  5. 63 mm 1:2.8 R WR
  6. 80mm 1:1.7 R WR
  7. 110 mm 1:2 R LM WR
  8. 120 mm 1:4 R LM WR OIS MACRO
  9. 250 mm 1:4 R LM WR OIS
  10. 20-35 mm 1:4 R WR
  11. 32-64 mm 1:4 R LM WR
  12. 35-70 mm 1: 4.5-5.6 WR
  13. 45-100 mm 1:4 R LM WR OIS
  14. 100-200 mm 1:5.6 R LM WR OIS
  15. Teleconverter GF1.4XTC WR


  • R (Ring) - a separate ring for iris control
  • LM (Linear Motor) - linear focusing motor
  • WR (Weather Resistant) - all-weather lens type
  • OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) - built-in optical image stabilization
  • Macro - Macro Lens
  • TC (Teleconverter) - teleconverter

There are also manual solutions from third-party manufacturers:

  1. Irix 45/1.4
  2. TTArtisan 11/2.8 FISHEYE | 90 /1.25
  3. Mitakon 65 / 1.4 | 85/1.2 | 135 / 2.5
  4. Laowa 15/4.5 Shift | 17 / 4 | 19/2.8 | 20/4 Shift
  5. Kipon IBERIT 75/2.4
  6. AstrHori 12/2.8 Fisheye, Astrhori 40/5.6, Astrhori 55/5.6, Astrhori 75/4
  7. + autofocus adapters Viltrox EF->G | STEELSRING EF->G | Fringer EF->G | Techart EF->G

Pentax 645

Digital slr Pentax 645 with sensors 43.8 X 32.8 mm (often rounded to 44 X 33)

  1. Pentax 645Z
  2. Pentax 645D

Hasselblad x

Mirrorless Hasselblad x with sensors 43.8 X 32.9 mm (often rounded to 44 X 33)

  1. Hasselblad X1D50C
  2. Hasselblad X1D II 50C
  3. Hasselblad X2D100C

All Hasselblad XCD Lenses

  1. XCD 21 mm F / 4
  2. XCD 30 mm F / 3.5
  3. XCD 38 mm F/2.5V
  4. XCD 45 mm F / 3.5
  5. XCD 45 mm F / 4 p
  6. XCD 55 mm F/2.5V
  7. XCD 65 mm F / 2.8
  8. XCD 80 mm F / 1.9
  9. XCD 90 mm F / 3.2
  10. XCD 90 mm F/2.5V
  11. XCD 120 mm F / 3.5
  12. XCD 135 mm F / 2.8
  13. XCD 35-75 mm F / 3.5-4.5

Leica s

Digital slr Leica s with sensors 45 X 30

  1. Leica S (Type 006)
  2. Leica SE (Typ 006)
  3. Leica S (Type 007)
  4. Leica s2
  5. Leica s3

Do you know any other similar cameras?

The frame area of ​​the Leica S with 45 X 30 sensors is 1350 sq. mm and is almost the same as 43.8 X 32.8, which equals 1437 sq. mm. The only significant difference between 44 X 33 and 45 X 30 is the aspect ratio of the frame, in the first case 4 to 3, in the second - the classic 3 to 2.

Crop factor for 44 X 33 sensors, it is Kf = 0.79X, and the frame area in 1.67 times more than the frame 36 X 24. It is considered very simple: (43.8 * 32.9) / (36 * 24).

For example, when switching from cropped cameras with Kf = 1.6X for Canon cameras with an APS-C sensor (22.3 X 14.9 mm) to full-frame Canon cameras (with a 36 X 24 sensor), the sensor area increases 2.6 times. It is considered very simple: (36 * 24) / (22.3 * 14.9).

So the transition from a crop with an APS-C sensor to a full frame 36 X 24 should feel much more than going from a full frame to 'medium format' with a sensor size of 44 X 33 mm.

But in practice, the sensations from the medium format are much more than what the calculations show.

A lot of digital backs also use 44 X 33 mm sensors. But, of course, there are backs with a larger sensor size, for example 53 X 40 from Phase One or Mamiya.

Actually the 44 X 33 is not quite a medium format, but rather a crop from the 'smallest' medium format 56 X 42 mm (645 format). But in our time, everything that is larger than the classic 36 X 24 is already called the medium format.

I really like the idea of ​​a mirrorless medium format. Lack of giant medium format mirror boxes allows you to significantly reduce the size of the camera. Yes, and a short working distance allows you to get lenses with slightly smaller sizes. As a result, for example, FUJIFILM GFX 50r with pancake lens FUJINON GF LENS 50mm 1: 3.5 R LM WR (analogue 40/2.8) weighs just over 1 kg. And it is very important that such a kit will cost around $ 5.000, which is already comparable to some 'regular' full-frame cameras.

Medium digital format is a different world, a world of a different photography and a world of photographers of a different plan. But with the rise of modern technology, the medium format is getting closer and closer to the average photographer and amateur photographer. The question is, is it worth it for the amateur photographer to stare at the medium format, or is it better to leave it to the professionals?

Materials on the topic

  1. Full frame mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
  2. Cropped mirrorless systems... Discussion, choice, recommendations.
  3. Cropped mirrorless systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
  4. Digital SLR systems that have stopped or are no longer developing
  5. JVI or EVI (an important article that answers the question 'DSLR or mirrorless')
  6. About mirrorless batteries
  7. Simple and clear medium format
  8. High-speed solutions from Chinese brands
  9. All fastest autofocus zoom lenses
  10. All fastest AF prime lenses
  11. Mirrored full frame on mirrorless medium format
  12. Autofocus Speed ​​Boosters
  13. One lens to rule the world
  14. The impact of smartphones on the photography market
  15. What's next (smartphone supremacy)?
  16. All announcements and novelties of lenses and cameras

Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on

Material prepared Arkady Shapoval... Look for me on Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram.

Add a comment: Novel



Comments: 59, on the topic: Simple and clear medium format

  • Lynx

    and let's not confuse the under-crop from the fuji with its 33 * 44 with a normal sph 56 * 56 mm?
    and SUDDENLY if you make a fuji under 56 * 56 mm, then it will be that whopping three kg.

    • Oleg

      and let all pensioners wear glasses and read not only the first line, but also the rest of the items on the technical specifications and other cameras, so as not to write such nonsense

      • Vitaly N

        However, the medium format is 4,5x6 and 6x6, not the above. Let's call it FFF then, since the narrow format has become FF. Manufacturers need to start producing matrices with a size of 24,5 * 36,5 in order to also call it a medium format - it is also a type larger than FF.

      • Andrei

        Oleg, and let you keep your toilet education for loved ones? Nowhere among the listed TTX is it indicated why the matrix a little larger than small-format 35 mm suddenly began to be called the medium format (well, of course, except for marketing lullabies, which are nurtured by a generation of aggressive idiots))).

        • Hair dryer

          So if the first comment is inadequate, what kind of response can you expect? The cameras on the list are truly impressive, and trying to artificially belittle them is supremely ignorant.

        • Kolyan

          Yes, you are out, sir reasonable ...

  • Lynx

    Now let's talk about the Phase one backdrops. )))

  • Oleg

    the only medium format that I photographed was Kiev-60. Knowledge was about "0")
    Now it is difficult for me to imagine working some 56 * 56 with a "portrait" lens more than 120 mm in the open (at least 2.8). Is it really possible to put the entire eye of the model in the grip? )))
    Oh, I remembered. I still took pictures on photographic plates 9 * 12 in the laboratory ...

    • Onotole

      It is quite realistic - Kf 0.55, the equivalent focal length in terms of FF will be 66mm, the equivalent (from the point of view of depth of field) aperture - 1,55 Somehow they cope with 85 / 1,8 (1,4) people, so it is possible here too. But yes, the depth of field is already getting pretty narrow.

  • Novel

    In general, somehow yes, it's funny. Pentax 645 implies a 6x4,5 cm frame. Hassel - 6x6 cm. Lenses seem to be considered exactly how exactly this size is considered, still, no? And what's the point of carrying all this huge and heavy wealth on the hump for the sake of increasing the sensor area by 1,5 times?

    • Novel

      It's just that all this logic about “professionals” and “amateurs” turns out to be something very similar to esotericism. There, too, there are such “practices” which are real Practices. Those who go to the astral plane, see, curse and kill can right here on the spot, bewitch there, change their fate. Where they are found and what they do, no one knows. But everyone knows about them and everyone talks about them.

    • Fedor

      Pentax 645 in the figure means 44 * 33, like Hassel had such backdrops, if you do not have money for this, do not carry it, let those who can afford such equipment carry it.

  • Vitaly N

    Somewhere on the forum on medium format cameras:
    - Fu, crop, why is it needed, ISO works only up to 10000, you only need to take the full format 60 * 60, only there is volume and atmosphere ...

    • anonym

      Every single medium format poison these fables. In the west, studios buy backs, and photographers there are just like the operators of these gizmos. The medium format does not honor the photographer. Fuji interesting turned out

  • anonym

    Pentax costs 2000 bucks, which is not much. Amateur SF for the poor

    • Koba

      I'm sorry, but the Pentax 645Z is really cheaper than the others, but not 2000, but exactly 4000 dollars, in China, I think it will be more expensive in other countries ...

  • Alexander

    SF is, first of all, gigantic resolution and detail. They don’t buy such cameras, but rent them for specific tasks. For the price, like a kopeck piece in my city.

    • Victor

      Cap reports that “gigantic resolution and detailing” has long been possible to achieve with little blood, collecting mosaics from many overlapping small frames from anything, even with digital. At least for landscapes and architecture, this "clever plan" works, here's an example:
      There are only a lot of fuss and troubles with this ...

      • Andrei

        Sorry, but not everywhere. Only for static and where there is a lot of free time. Those. what you shoot in one shot on the SF will require gluing, adjustment in the case of mosaics, and in any case is unlikely to give a comparable photo latitude (or dynamic range, as they say now) and in any case, a different picture. Imagine if, for example, the movement of smoke, vehicles or clouds is in the frame. Still, we saw Windows screensavers with incredible sharpness of grass, pebbles and clouds, as if filmed with a solid lens. I’m silent that often (but, of course, not always) a shot on the SF can be made with one camera handheld, while the “mosaic” will require a tripod and a panoramic head.

  • Onotole

    The main thing that I don’t understand is why the digital medium format has a 4/3 aspect ratio. Like smartphones, soap dishes, micros and picture tubes TVs.
    Despite the fact that the film SF is quite Orthodox 2 to 3 (6 × 4,5 and 9 × 6) and 1 to 1 (6 × 6)

    • anonym

      6 * 7? No, not heard!
      6 * 4,5 is not 2 * 3

  • Trueash

    And I will say honestly: I also can not afford SF: D

  • Paul

    The medium format is like Lenin's precepts: everyone knows what they are, but no one knows what they are.

    • Gregor


  • Paul

    Not all. Previously, everyone prayed for the full frame and its presence immediately equated the owner with the guru of world photography. Crop? You don’t understand anything in the photo. And it didn’t even depend on the fact that 50 1.8 of the first generation hung on this FF at best, and at worst some sort of 24-85 shaggy production years.
    Now the same hysteria will be around the Federation Council. Here the owners will divide the rogue into “wow, you're with a crop” and “what a horror, he has a cropped crop !!!”.

    • Rodion

      M4 / 3 - crop ^ 3)))))

  • Alexander

    And the most annoying is that he (SF) is slowly getting cheaper :)

  • Joe

    I tried to shoot portraits in the studio in parallel on a Fuji GFX 50R with a 63mm f / 2.8 lens (roughly speaking, an analog of 50mm f / 2.2 in terms of full frame) and on a full-frame Canon with a Sigma 50mm f / 1.4 Art lens.
    Fuji did not impress at all. The only noticeable advantage is the image resolution, but if I really needed 50 megapixels, I would prefer to use the Canon 5DS (r).
    What I disliked most about Fuji was the color rendition. If the Canon shots in color did not require any revision at all (and in general they differ in correct and subjectively pleasant color reproduction), then with Fuji the situation is more complicated - it was not possible to get an acceptable result for me even after trying to make color adjustments by selecting a suitable profile when “ developing ”raw, as well as adjusting the color using HSL, and then trying to use the adjustment layers Color Balance and Hue / Saturation.
    Maybe somewhere in Fuji’s landscape photography with better color, but there are doubts.

    In terms of usability, Fuji feels like a brick in the hands. And not because of weight or size, the dimensions are about the same as Canon's 5D series, but Fuji itself has a rectangular parallelepiped body shape. Any Canon DSLRs I've used are much better suited for holding them in the hand. If someone is used to using old rangefinder cameras (which, however, are noticeably smaller in size), or modern mirrorless cameras of Fuji-like shapes, they may be familiar.

    Lenses. For the medium format, you do not have to wait for anything at least relatively inexpensive and with a faster aperture than 2.8 in the general case.
    For Fuji, there is nothing affordable, such as an analog of the Canon 40mm f / 2.8, 50mm f / 1.8 - f / 1.4, 85mm f / 1.8.
    There is no high-aperture optics with apertures 1.4-1.2. The most Fuji has to offer is 110mm f / 2 - something like the 85mm f / 1.6 counterpart.
    There are almost no long-focus lenses - there is only one 250mm, and you can not even dream of any 300-400mm, which is quite usual for a full frame.

    I see a tendency - those who want to save money, as well as fans of an interesting lens design, connoisseurs of bokeh and a narrow depth of field do not use Fuji's native medium format lenses, but screw third-party full-frame lenses through adapters. At the same time, they find out that quite a few full-frame lenses have sufficient margin at the edges of the frame to form a “medium format” image, and this is often at a higher aperture ratio, and in some cases at a lower cost, compared to Fuji optics.

    Actually, this process of “crossing” different photographic components suggests that medium-format Fuji is now not so much a full-fledged self-sufficient system, but rather a relatively inexpensive version of a “medium format” digital back for interesting lenses of different times and manufacturers, a utilitarian part of a photo designer for lovers of homemade products and experiments. ...

    But the still rather high price does not imply any massive use, and the insufficient difference from the full frame and the lack of significant advantages make the transition to such a “medium format” not very interesting and in demand.
    I admit that practical meaning in the medium format can be found either if you need a sufficiently high resolution, more than 50 megapixels, or when using a larger sensor than Fuji, Leica and grain-free Hasselblad now offer.
    This "junior" mirrorless medium format may differ slightly from full frame, but it does not give the feeling of sufficient novelty, unlike the transition from digital crop to digital full frame, as correctly noted in the article itself.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Thanks for the experience and thoughts.

    • Artem

      I wonder what formula you recalculate the diaphragm?

    • Artem

      and very mutually exclusive points, first "lenses are very expensive", and then "no high-aperture optics." could you buy it? try once in the studio, and crow about your kenon, not knowing that when recalculating focal lengths, the aperture is not recalculated, as it were, it says about a low level, which means that you and FF are unnecessary if you do not know what the difference is. and to talk about high, like “but we do not need the medium format, because I tried and did not feel the difference, my keonon is better” is the height of insanity.
      and Fuji in Fuji GFX 50R and Hassel in their latest camera, just position these cameras as “not studio”, these are cameras who have money and who wants to shoot in their favorite medium format even on the road. these are very niche products, “not for everyone”
      and the phrase “does not give a feeling of novelty” only causes laughter. what kind of novelty do you need? the button "moving" was not delivered here. if you write cheto, then at least take the trouble to study the issue, and not stupidly throw it in, dear fan of recounting the aperture))))

      • Onotole

        And what is wrong with recalculating the aperture, Subject?
        Imagine recounting both aperture and focal lengths, everything is conditionally understood, but it works for practical purposes.
        By the way, I agree that the lenses are expensive and there are really no high-aperture lenses, again imagine - there is no contradiction here.

        • Artem

          the contradiction is that a person writes that lenses are not affordable, and these are not even high-aperture, as it were, high-aperture ones will be even more expensive. Accordingly, he will never buy both those and others, as well as the camera itself. Therefore, it makes sense to declare that there are no fast ones. And if you study the hardware part, then you can understand that there is no point in high-aperture at all, since firstly it will become very expensive, secondly it is very difficult (and to SF the optics are noticeably harder) and the larger the optics, the more difficult and more expensive it is to do it ... Well, it turns out a vicious circle, faster = more expensive = heavier = buy units.
          And about the diaphragm. damn, well, find me a recalculation formula. The whole Internet was covered. I read smart books, not anywhere else. If you hypothetically take a lens with an aperture of 1.4, for example, and simply substitute a matrix of any size behind it, then what does 1.4 turn into 2.8, then suddenly at 0.95? or how ?

          • Arkady Shapoval

            The formula is simple. The aperture in the understanding of depth of field is multiplied by the crop factor always and for any lens.

            Further discussions about EGFs and the equivalent aperture in terms of the depth of field are only possible if there are questions on this topic. The opuses with the flood are overwritten.

            If you want to discuss this topic, then express your thoughts in relevant topics
            1. Crop identification
            2. Resurrection of Crop. Bokeh
            3. Matrix size matters.
            4. Focal length
            5. Dependence of the viewing angle of the lens on the focusing distance
            6. Relationship between focal length, viewing angle, and focus distance.

            • Artem

              A very absurd statement. Well, all right, if so, then we will multiply. Here physics teachers will laugh. In your opinion, aperture and flu depend on the size of the matrix?
              “If we hypothetically take a lens with an aperture of 1.4, for example, and simply substitute a matrix of any size behind it, then 1.4 turns into 2.8, then suddenly into 0.95? “Will the flu also be more or less?

              • Vitaly N

                This is done in order to compare another system with the “holy of holies” - a narrow format. Someone took it for the basic one and even those systems for which it is a crop are compared with it.
                Of course, the depth of field will not change, but if you take pictures of the same scale and with the same perspective (for this, the FR is also "recalculated"), then this allows you to compare the depth of field.

              • Arkady Shapoval

                Let those who want to laugh. This is not about depth of field, but about equivalent depth of field.
                Comments about DOF and EGF are the most common misunderstanding of beginners and not so beginners.

              • BB

                No need to scatter viruses here
                (because 'flu' is a viral disease)

              • anonym

                From the point of view of physics, you are absolutely right. Aperture and DOF are determined only by the lens (its RF), maximum aperture and focus distance. And all these crafty recounts implicitly imply a comparison when the resulting frame is compositionally the same for the compared sizes of the photodetector. Those. having a crop, you will be forced to step back to get the same frame as on the FF. In this case, your focusing distance will increase (you should focus on the same subject as in the photo with FF) and the depth of field will become larger. And here lovers to compare and begin to broadcast that they say the depth of field has become what it would be on the FF if we sensitively (approximately the value of the crop factor) covered the diaphragm. Of course, the aperture ratio of the lens remains in place, and all these shamanistic actions do not affect the exposure of the correct exposure

                Of course, there is practical sense in such a recount, if you are even worried about comparing your technique with any other one, but you need to clearly understand what is meant by this, otherwise only more confusion comes out.

              • anonym

                I wrote from the phone, it is inconvenient to check. I clarify the second sentence:
                DOF is determined by the FR of the lens, aperture value and focus distance. The word Aperture is superfluous here.

  • Alexander

    “I really like the idea of ​​a mirrorless medium format.” - here, the most minimalistic :)

  • anonym

    Mitakon has released two manual "portrait"
    Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 65mm f / 1.4
    Mitakon Zhongyi Speedmaster 85mm f / 1.2
    The plans for the release of the Mitakon Speedmaster 135mm f / 1.4
    And if you try hard, then among the fast aperture FF lenses you can find a couple of dozen that cover the medium format fuji with a small vignette, which is edited in the editor. But that's why such an open aperture on the SF in portrait shooting, while the question remains open.

    • Onotole

      It is very simple - in order to somehow justify the presence of such a large matrix (colors, DD and photosensitivity do not differ much from the best FFs) and still effectively separate the object from the background at large distances. The effect is impressive. Of course, on the front and waist, such a diaphragm is unnecessary.

  • Alexey_S

    Vitaly N., I read my original post several times, both before and after sending. I saw nothing wrong with it. Yes, it may be too compact, complex, and not detailed, because I didn’t want to write long and tedious initially, but in the end I had to do it anyway.
    But it seems to me that this is not a reason to call it “nonsense”, “nonsense” and ask to delete it.

    Roman, of course, I agree with the formal definition and that the ISO does not add photons, and only increases the brightness by multiplying the existing ones by some coefficients (not always linear, true).

    From a practical point of view, we are limited by the capacity of the receiving element, i.e. if we try to store more light than the pixel's "well" allows, we get a glare.

    ISO itself came to us from the film, and is probably the most muddy of parameters. In my understanding, this is something like a generally accepted measurement scale, how much light must fall on a light-sensitive element, so that the picture looks exposed in some standard test. This scale was probably made in order to simplify the calculations when changing film, for example, from ISO 200 to film with ISO 400, when there were no metering in the camera and people often used the Sunny16 rule to get the correct exposure exposure.

    Although different manufacturers can interpret this scale differently (they say Fuji used to catch it), but in general, if you take several different cameras (even different manufacturers and different matrix sizes, and maybe even film) and some lens and set the same settings (shutter speed, aperture, ISO), then we will most likely get output pictures similar in brightness.

    Why is the minimum ISO important? It is with it that the “well” of the pixel can be filled with useful data about the photons arriving through the lens as much as possible. If we increase the ISO by half, then we reduce the useful size of this "well" by half, and thus we can save half the information about the light (and times less light, then more noise).

    Those. practically ISO affects the picture quality due to the limitations of the matrix (capacity of the “well”), which is taken into account by the metering when calculating the optimal shutter speed and / or aperture. For example, at ISO 1600, if there is an excess of light, then the exposure meter (or a person) tries to prevent out-of-light areas and therefore decreases either the shutter speed or the aperture, thereby reducing the total light received by the matrix and thereby increasing Shot noise, compared with lower ISO (e.g. 64).

    This is probably why, in many educational materials, the exposure triangle in which ISO is present is used.

    • Vitaly N

      Alexei, it seems to you so, because you automatically think over what you wrote. From the outside it reads differently.
      The "well" of the digital matrix is ​​always the same depth, all ISOs are above the baseline - signal amplification. But the signal-to-noise ratio depends on the technology and the area of ​​the sensor.

    • Novel

      Just at the minimum ISO you get the minimum intrinsic noise of the matrix (dark current, heating noise and leakage loss). Then the signal is amplified (the amplifier also introduces some kind of distortion), but since the analog signal is not so scary, your shot voltages there increased a few times there before quantization and after quantization will look different.

  • Artei

    Thanks for the article, informative and interesting. It is interesting after all what it is, this medium format, otherwise everyone praises it, and many do not know what it is.
    Another interesting topic is the digital backdrops. I will not say in a rumor what it is (or rather, as I understand it myself), but it would be interesting to read about it from specialists. For general development

  • Alexander O

    I took pictures with medium format cameras in the 80s and 90s. I used Mamiya m645, Mamiya c220, c330, RB67, Bronica Etrs, SQA and even Koni-Omega Rapid 200.

    In the film era, it was easy and clear: The larger the frame, the better the quality when enlarged. In photographs up to 30x35cm in size, there was no difference between 35mm and SF.

    Digital cameras are not much more complicated: the quality of large-sized photographs is determined by resolution, not frame size. A larger frame size allows greater resolution at the same pixel size. Sony A7r4, Fuji Gfx100 and Phase One IQ4 150 use the same sensor of different sizes: 35mm, 33x44 and 645. The only difference between them is the resolution. In SF digital cameras there is not any magic quality.

    If you do not post photos larger than 50x75cm, you will not see the difference between them

    • Michael

      Amateur laboratories 12 MPix in 40x60 cannot print pixel by pixel)

  • Paul

    Hello. I use the average format of 6 years. The last two years of Phase One XF 100. What can I say. This is a very specific solution. In terms of getting the result, my Sonya A7 P3 gives a much better picture. Plus, the menu is much more convenient, the settings are flexible. The medium format is exclusively for commerce. Not even that. If only huge format printing is required. He is no longer needed in FIG. For commerce, fashion and all occasions, it loses to modern 35 mm. In general, this is a kind of atavism that does not carry anything. Well, if only for shooting the moon. So don't worry. There is nothing unique about the medium format; it is not needed either for commerce, much less for a hobby. I've been doing photography since 1984. It was interesting for me to try it myself. Thus, I can draw some conclusions through my own hands. Once again, there is nothing in the medium format. By frame, no one can tell the jpg file that it was shot in medium format. Not practical, unnecessary. And the resolution, today the modern 35 mm is already given out 60 MP. Something like this.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Thanks for your feedback.

  • Gosha

    Good day to all. I use the medium format. I shoot mamiya rz67, mamiyaflez on the film, I do not disdain Kiev 6s, I’ve been doing photography since childhood. In the figure, the so-called medium format I use Pentax 645z. I ask everyone to recall that 6x4,5 appeared as a result of the reporting need to shoot more - in frames. It was not even crop at that time a narrow format was just appearing. Discuss crop on under-format and say that it is a relic unnecessary.
    When people are personally practitioners write, I can still ponte, well, I tried it - it didn't go or didn't understand, didn't figure it out, but when theorists write their experience is based on other people's articles…. guys hold your brooms please. Don't be offended.
    Our photographers are the best in the world today, both in fees and in photographs taken. And they all come from the Soviet space. Ukrainians, Russians, Czechs, Poles, etc., It never occurred to any of them to say that the large and medium format is about nothing. And it’s not necessary business for today.
    Physics itself in cf and b formats has other parameters, both plastic and air. There are fewer and fewer masters left each day. Than to ask and read someone else’s opinion a hundred times that it will not be superfluous either, buy or rent and rent, get experience. Experience or pleasure or rejection, but you just have to try the photo for taste and color yourself, touch the story and get understanding, feel, and then write and advise. I didn’t want to offend anyone. All good shots.

  • Bohr Alex

    I do not understand…
    Why use the word “use”?
    Look at the dictionaries, when they use them and when they use them.
    (I wanted to speak out more sharply, I felt sorry for the authors.)

    • B. R. P.

      Who needs it, this certificate on the Internet? And then, perhaps, it is precisely "uses".

    • Vladimir

      The word "use" among others also means "use", so in this moment everything is correct.

      • Vladimir

        Although, no)) I take it back)) I was mistaken, all the same the meaning of "treat".

  • פיטר ציפור

    Gosha is right, good medium format film cameras cost almost like digital medium format cameras ((for some reason, if a good scanner, then the pictures are wonderful, especially the colors. I also edit colors after Sony full-frame.

  • Sergei

    645D CCD, isn't it?

    • Arkady Shapoval


Add a comment

Copyright © Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2022

English-version of this article

Version en español de este artículo