[normhead]

The more I look into medium format, the less interested I've become. There's apparently not even a "special look" to MF. Couple that with the generally slower/less reliable AF, small buffers, the large files to process and store, and the computer resources needed, I think I've finally decided to take a pass. I'm good with APS-C and FF, but I'll admit to coming close to giving it a run. It just would have required my selling off of some of my current gear.

There's Nothing Magical About Medium Format Depth Of Field - YouTube

There was an anecdote told recently somewhere on the forum about a guy who bought a GFX 100 S, raved about it, then sold it a couple weeks later and bought his old gear back. The issue for me is, I don't know anyone myself included, who needs that large a file. Except for a print every few years, all my K-1 and K-3 files are reduced in size, before display.

I was thinking about hunting down a used 645D at one point. A forum member who owned a 645z talked me out of it. He pointed out, it just wouldn't suit my shooting style, which tends to be "run and gun".

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-26-2022 at 08:25 AM.

[Wheatfield]

Well, big format is a bit magical. I mean - look at the BIG wooden box It is magic. Still I tried it once in field and never again. I rather shot old Lubitel TLR which was a pain in itself.

But yeah, I do not really get all the fuss wit MF too. I was close to bite Fuji R (the one without viewfinder) but then realized that for my needs APS-C is more then enough and saves me a lots of money in lenses. I doubt there is enough space on market for another MF (fight with Fuji and Hasselblad?) and in my opinion OVF in MF has negligible value. Big, bright, 4k rear display - it is another matter.

When I was shooting film, larger formats made a lot of sense as it was the only way to get better quality if postage stamp sized negatives weren't cutting it.
Now with digital though, I don't think larger formats make as much sense. The less noise argument is starting to fall flat since the noise floor on modern sensors is so good, and if one really needs more pixels, upscaling is very successful now that artificial intelligence is doing it rather than bicubic interpolation.
Medium format has too much depth of field when one doesn't want it and too little when one needs it.
I used Pentax 6x7 for years in the studio and was fine with it, but in the field it was enough of a struggle shooting landscapes that I quickly shifted to 4x5 for the improved depth of field.

[Asimov]

Nothing really new in the announcement, the gradual reduction in physical stores in favor of online activities started long ago with Pentax, it certainly reduced costs but also took its toll in Pentax market share. With shrinking camera market, further reduction of costs is needed.

My Pentax dealer will not like this at all!!!!

[Kunzite]

My Pentax dealer will not like this at all!!!!

Is he in Japan?

[biz-engineer]

My Pentax dealer will not like this at all!!!!

Your Pentax dealer should sell online, like many camera shops who survived have done. Camera shops not selling online are dying slowly.

[reh321]

When I was shooting film, larger formats made a lot of sense as it was the only way to get better quality if postage stamp sized negatives weren't cutting it.
Now with digital though, I don't think larger formats make as much sense. The less noise argument is starting to fall flat since the noise floor on modern sensors is so good, and if one really needs more pixels, upscaling is very successful now that artificial intelligence is doing it rather than bicubic interpolation.
Medium format has too much depth of field when one doesn't want it and too little when one needs it.
I used Pentax 6x7 for years in the studio and was fine with it, but in the field it was enough of a struggle shooting landscapes that I quickly shifted to 4x5 for the improved depth of field.

Yes, with any type of emulsion, the more film you have, the more picture elements you have.
The same is definitely not true with digital.

[normhead]

Your Pentax dealer should sell online, like many camera shops who survived have done. Camera shops not selling online are dying slowly.

And camera shops selling on line seem to be doing just fine, in fact many of them still have store stock, where as several I've visited that have no on-line presence don't. It's all about turnover supporting keeping lenses on the shelf.

My closest camera store said they'd order my Pentax gear for me, but I would have had to drive to the store to pick it up. 50 mile away. The online guys ship right to my house. It never seemed to occur to them that, in their model, they order for me, I drive to the store. If they just shipped it to me, I'd get it sooner.

There is no advantage to me from their model. It costs me money and time.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-26-2022 at 11:21 AM.

[aldo taddia]

I purchased all my latest equipment through e-commerce. I did it with great saving of time and money. The service is fast and I could choose the best prices and the best offers. If it were to change in this way I would have no difficulty in continuing to shop online.

[RobA_Oz]

I suspect the age profile for any DSLR manufacturer is similar to Pentax. The other guys just have a lot more customers shuffling towards the grave.

What it must be, to be young and hip.

[nyghtfalcon]

If a cropped sensor is enough for you, that's fine. If you don't understand what you are giving up, that's fine. If you don't need the advantages, stay with a cropped sensor. As far as the YouTube video, it requires no real knowledge to make a video and slap it up there. Publishing a video doesn't make one an expert. There's more to medium format than buffers and depth of field. Larger sensors make for better reception of light and that translates into better images. If you are OK with all the work around technology in a DSLR sensor that has a pixel density well past what is both practical and optimal, have at it.

I have been a professional photographer for 15 years. I began with a Canon 10D and quickly learned to optimize image quality by working in RAW. From there we moved to the 1D series - full frame and RAW. When we were sponsored by Pentax, we moved to the 645D and then the Z. In all our commercial work, we use the Z with 645 lenses. For our fine artwork, we use 6x7 lenses on a 645Z, and we use the same lenses on a Pentax 6x7 using 6x7 lenses.

As I moved from JPG in the Canon 10D to the RAW, I could see the difference. As we moved from 1D through the Canon line to the 1DX, we could see the difference. Images from that Canon and similar full frame DSLRs do not hold up against the 645Z.

If you prefer buffers and frames per second, you are right, don't spend the money. If you are still setting your camera to JPG output, you are right, don't waste your money. If you can't see the difference, or take the word of a YouTuber over what is really the case, then don't waste your money.

I won't respond to further comments in this thread.

[Wheatfield]

What it must be, to be young and hip.

The hipsters are all using Fujis...

[biz-engineer]

When they get serious - as in a new version of the 645Z - I will listen. Until then, no credibility. The idea that the medium format market was theirs - with the 6x7 and then 67 and then the 645 and then the 645Z - and they failed every time to capitalize, saddens me deeply. So, when I see a 100 MP 645Z or a 150 since that is where the medium format market will go - I regard this as another empty promise.

I originally thought it was good to invest in lenses long term, then buy camera upgrades as technology improves. But in the current fast paced environment it is smarter to go for the camera body first, then buy as few lenses as possible (2 lenses, 3 lenses max) just to use that camera body, so that not to rely too much on decisions from camera marker we have no control over.

[Class A]

There's apparently not even a "special look" to MF.

In the video, they specifically said they are going to look at DOF equivalence only and not touch upon anything else that may make a difference. In other words, they have left it open as to whether other factors may create some "special look".

Publishing a video doesn't make one an expert.

Correct, but note that in the video, they only said things an expert would have said as well.
They only, accurately, reported that MF does not offer any DOF advantages (in most cases, and definitely not with respect to FF).

Larger sensors make for better reception of light and that translates into better images.

Larger sensors do not receive light better than smaller sensors.
The typically faster lenses of a larger format, focus more light on the sensor; in the case of FF vs MF, though, there are FF lenses which produce shallower DOF than any MF lens, so the rule somewhat breaks down in this particular case.

Larger sensors provide higher dynamic range and in particular the smaller enlargement factor has advantages for IQ. It is no coincidence that one of the most revered cinema film formats, IMAX, features a huge negative. Again, however, in the case of FF vs digital-MF, where "digital MF" typically means a cropped 645 format, not the original 645 format, the advantage of digital MF over FF is only a crop factor of 1.3, as opposed to the FF to APS-C crop factor of 1.5. Therefore, I can see why people are not jumping up and down over this advantage, especially considering the seize, weight, and cost of digital MF systems.

[Kunzite]

In the video, they specifically said they are going to look at DOF equivalence only and not touch upon anything else that may make a difference. In other words, they have left it open as to whether other factors may create some "special look".

In other words, their approach is to use that theory designed to make FF win, regardless of how actual images would look like

[Rondec]

I'm not sure why people are negative on medium format. Of course, if you know what you are doing you can get better results with a 645Z than with a K-1. It is going to have a little better dynamic range and better ability to print large while holding detail. These are incrementally better and for many photographers full frame is going to be good enough for their purposes. I know it is for mine. That still doesn't mean that a 645z or GFX-100 image isn't going to be better.

(Due to a number of factors full frame is more flexible when it comes to everyday snap shots).