[biz-engineer]

All medium format cameras are larger than full frame and apsc type cameras, the larger size would be the reason why a medium format system is more suited for studio works. To me the logic doesn't fit together. I'd see apsc well suitable for studio works , because the use of controlled lighting completely cancel the need for fast glass and sensors with high iso performance. Medium format digital should be more suited for available light shooting. So what's the deal with medium format vs full frame and apsc for studio works?

[Ari]

All medium format cameras are larger than full frame and apsc type cameras, the larger size would be the reason why a medium format system is more suited for studio works. To me the logic doesn't fit together. I'd see apsc well suitable for studio works , because the use of controlled lighting completely cancel the need for fast glass and sensors with high iso performance. Medium format digital should be more suited for available light shooting. So what's the deal with medium format vs full frame and apsc for studio works?

It depends on what kind of studio work you're doing. For catalogue and product shooting, it really makes sense to have a medium format system in the sense that the delivered images to the client will have more flexibility in terms of size and resolution. Also, there are bizarre color profiles, layer requirements and other mandates set upon the photographer by clients. My wife is the VP of a bedding company and they have very clear (and strict, and narrow) instructions for the studios she hires to shoot product. But for portrait work, I agree - APS should be more than enough for that kind of work.

[WPRESTO]

In the film era, Hasselblad was the camera for commercial studio photography for magazines that involved live models, for fashion, or a model holding a perfume bottle etc. That's because the clients liked to lay out numerous alternative shots/poses simultaneously on a large light table (two by four feet). The 21/4 chromes are just big enough to see easily, and details can be checked easily with a hand magnifier. 35mm chromes are too small to inspect and evaluate that way. 4X5 is too big and much, much too slow for the way fashion photographers do their shooting, but are well-suited to product photography that does not involve a model. Blads with their leaf shutters also prevent any blur from model-movement, a potential problem for focal planes shutters that for decades synced to strobes @ only 1/60 second (multi-section, vertical-travel electronic FP shutters were a minor revolution)..The lower camera position used with 21/4 is also regarded as more flattering* than the eye-level perspective of 35mm (if you've never tried to use a 35mm waste-level viewfinder, be grateful). The low perspective tends to make models look taller and therefore more commanding and demanding of your attention.

There are some retired studio-pros among Pentaxians who will, if they notice this post, both correct and expand upon my amateur comments and observations.

*Sometimes called the "Rollei perspective."