[house]

I can see the argument that smaller formats suffer as well. My point was that tripod shooting involves so much else in terms of process and demands a kind of abstracted thinking. Perhaps its just me but the complexity of setting up and carrying heavy gear takes away from the experience of the viewfinder. Shooting hand held with ff or apsc I really feel the viewfinder in a different way. I guess because the rest of the gear melts away.

The above coupled with the size and weight increase of the mirror is why I think ff and apsc benefit the most from ovf.

[Rondec]

The thing is that enemy of medium format is the disease of "good enough." That is to say, you can get a decent full frame system with glass for a few thousand. A medium format system is going to be twice that and probably won't be as flexible, considering the zooms available for 35mm.

That isn't to say that there isn't money to be made there -- I'm sure there is. It is just that segment of the market is always going to be a small percentage of the overall market compared to smaller formats. Did Fuji grow the overall percentage? Maybe a little bit, but my guess is not much. It is more of a shifting within that segment -- some people moving from Hasselblad and Pentax over to Fuji.

[biz-engineer]

I'd tend to think that the medium format market isn't as large as it would if it was film, due to alternative ways of creating equivalent medium format and large format images, e.g rotate + stitch or shift + stitch digital frames, which works just fine in a number of photographic settings. There is a number of professionals who use full frame camera and TS lenses for architecture / real estate photography. That reduces the need to use medium format.

[house]

MF and large format is quite rare in architecture these days, many shoot FF. The resolution isn't really required as basically all photos go to to magazines, books or web. Some shoot digital MF anyway because the downsampled photos do look a bit better. Or because the photographers use it for their personal art projects (you are more likely to get work from architects if you're an established artist)

Largely though MF and large format is used to achieve the film look more than anything else at least amongst the heavily published architects I'm familiar with.

I've not really heard anyone stitching for resolution as it's not required. I'm mostly familiar with european architects though.

[TDvN57]

I can see the argument that smaller formats suffer as well. My point was that tripod shooting involves so much else in terms of process and demands a kind of abstracted thinking. Perhaps its just me but the complexity of setting up and carrying heavy gear takes away from the experience of the viewfinder. Shooting hand held with ff or apsc I really feel the viewfinder in a different way. I guess because the rest of the gear melts away.

The above coupled with the size and weight increase of the mirror is why I think ff and apsc benefit the most from ovf.

I am not sure why you equate MF with the use of a tripod.

It is easier to shoot handheld with a balanced MF than with a smaller camera.

It might be a good idea for you to rent a 645z and a 80-160 lens for a week and try it out first. It is a good versatile combo, fairly well balanced and can shoot from portraits to landscapes. A week's experience with the system may round out the impressions you have about MF for an even more meaningful debate.
.

[barondla]

The thing is that enemy of medium format is the disease of "good enough." Did Fuji grow the overall percentage? Maybe a little bit, but my guess is not much. It is more of a shifting within that segment -- some people moving from Hasselblad and Pentax over to Fuji.

Think Fuji is growing MF quite a bit. They are moving their customers from APS-c to medium format. Other FF brand owners are moving to MF. When DPreview posted the GFX100s photos, it was amazing how many FF owners were surprised at the improved IQ. Many said that was their next purchase. Had not seen that before. Granted, that doesn't mean all those people will buy into MF. But, Fuji still has camera and lens shortages. Those DPR photos have weakened the FF reputation for top quality. Now many are defending FF with the same arguments used previously by APS-c shooters.

Thanks,

barondla

[awscreo]

If I had the money, I'd buy an mf system for sure. It's just way over what I'm willing to pay for a hobby currently.

[barondla]

If I had the money, I'd buy an mf system for sure. It's just way over what I'm willing to pay for a hobby currently.

Depending on the lenses desired, MF with used lenses can be more affordable than FF. My FA 80-160 and A 120 macro were $150 each. The FA 300 was less than $400. The FA 400 was less than $500. Only the 25 and 35 were expensive. I could have compromised with a different 35 for less than $500. There was no other choice with the 25.

Thanks,
barondla

[biz-engineer]

Largely though MF and large format is used to achieve the film look more than anything else at least amongst the heavily published architects I'm familiar with.

Strange. Our view differs here. In Austria, most sales of Fuji GFX 100 went to architecture photographers with GF 23 and the Lowa 17 Zero D. and some rare portrait studio professionals using the GF 110 f2. They use MF to replace their FF + Canon TS lenses for resolution. The depth of field of MF can easily be matched with full frame cameras and fast prime lenses, only single shot resolution can't be matched by full frame, that's the whole point of larger formats.

---------- Post added 31-07-21 at 21:08 ----------

I've not really heard anyone stitching for resolution as it's not required.

That's a good one. The large 60"+ prints sold multi-thousands of Euros by Lumas (and that aren't artistic composites) are shot on 4x5 film by artist pros. Keith Cooper of Northlight Images commercial photography business use a set of TS lenses just for the making of high resolution architectural shots.

---------- Post added 31-07-21 at 21:16 ----------

Sometimes it's difficult to really see the full picture of professional imaging as it is somehow in the shadow of the consumer market. I heard people saying the large format printing is dead because nobody (=consumer) prints large, yet there are some professional photo printing businesses running 3 to 4 meter wide flat bed printers and achieving revenues such as 300 Million Euro annually. I told myself that discussions in consumer forums may not provide a good picture of the professional imaging business.

---------- Post added 31-07-21 at 21:25 ----------

Professionals stitching for resolution (150Mpixels and much more), can easily be found.
Herve Sentucq Photo panoramique : Home
VAST: High Resolution Fine Art Photos & Large-Format Prints
Northlight Images UK commercial photography experts

[house]

You misunderstood my comment. I don't doubt people stitch and print large or that there are businesses doing that kind of work. Architecture photographers, ie those hired by architects or architectural publishers rarely use those methods though. At least not the prestigious photographers that get published in the important publications.

[biz-engineer]

You misunderstood my comment. I don't doubt people stitch and print large or that there are businesses doing that kind of work. Architecture photographers, ie those hired by architects or architectural publishers rarely use those methods though. At least not the prestigious photographers that get published in the important publications.

I misunderstood your post. I can confirm, one of my friend uses his iPhone to photographing rental apartments for ads on websites, that's somehow a professional activity, and an iPhone is good enough.

---------- Post added 01-08-21 at 06:55 ----------

Fujifilm's digital cameras may be a drain on their finances, they're pivoting to health care, perhaps their GFX lines have propelled them into it: Fujifilm Pivoting to Healthcare, But Claims it Won't Abandon Photography | PetaPixel

They are referring to film product, not medium format digital. I believe Fuji GF line to be the most profitable per unit sold of all camera models. It's very simple, a camera doesn't cost much more to make whether it's an apsc camera, a full frame camera or a medium format camera. Fuji charges $6000 for their GFX100s and $2000 - $3000 for most of their lenses (they have no competitor offering a similar product, so they are free to charge as much as the market can afford), so IMO the profit margin is much much better than say the profit margin of a Pentax Kp sold $700. If a GFX100s unit costs roughly $1000 and a Pentax Kp unit costs $500 to make, for every unit sold Fuji takes $5000 profit in their pocket, while Pentax takes $200.

[riffraffselbow]

I misunderstood your post. I can confirm, one of my friend uses his iPhone to photographing rental apartments for ads on websites, that's somehow a professional activity, and an iPhone is good enough.

---------- Post added 01-08-21 at 06:55 ----------


They are referring to film product, not medium format digital. I believe Fuji GF line to be the most profitable per unit sold of all camera models. It's very simple, a camera doesn't cost much more to make whether it's an apsc camera, a full frame camera or a medium format camera. Fuji charges $6000 for their GFX100s and $2000 - $3000 for most of their lenses (they have no competitor offering a similar product, so they are free to charge as much as the market can afford), so IMO the profit margin is much much better than say the profit margin of a Pentax Kp sold $700. If a GFX100s unit costs roughly $1000 and a Pentax Kp unit costs $500 to make, for every unit sold Fuji takes $5000 profit in their pocket, while Pentax takes $200.

Surely someone like Hasselblad or Phase One or RED makes more per-unit on their cameras, though.

[house]

Surely someone like Hasselblad or Phase One or RED makes more per-unit on their cameras, though.

Just a thought. Hasselblad and Phase One can't share R&D and tech across lotsa models. Presumably much of the development in Fuji can be shared across everything from their cheapest to their most expensive camera.

---------- Post added 08-01-21 at 02:20 AM ----------

I misunderstood your post. I can confirm, one of my friend uses his iPhone to photographing rental apartments for ads on websites, that's somehow a professional activity, and an iPhone is good enough.

We have different definitions of architecture photographers it seems. Real estate is something else, rarely very high level artists even with expensive large properties or office space. It's more like advertising photography. Three random photographers that do 'proper' architecture work and use different type of gear. These three have very different styles but have been important over the last 20 or so years. (I don't rate them the same)

Bas Princen (Fondation Prada by OMA) - Digital MF


Helene Binet (Kreutzberg towers by John Hejduk, old photo but she still photographs) - Large format analogue or sometimes medium format.


Iwan Baan (Harbin Opera House by MAD - Mainly Canon FF)


I think there's an Austrian guy who works with high level architects. Will see if I can remember the name.
Edit: I was thinking of Georg Aerni but haven't seen much from him in a while.

[Rondec]

Think Fuji is growing MF quite a bit. They are moving their customers from APS-c to medium format. Other FF brand owners are moving to MF. When DPreview posted the GFX100s photos, it was amazing how many FF owners were surprised at the improved IQ. Many said that was their next purchase. Had not seen that before. Granted, that doesn't mean all those people will buy into MF. But, Fuji still has camera and lens shortages. Those DPR photos have weakened the FF reputation for top quality. Now many are defending FF with the same arguments used previously by APS-c shooters.

Thanks,

barondla

The GFX 100 is 10,000-ish. Obviously the 50 is cheaper. The point is not that some people are buying into medium format -- they are. It is just a pretty small part of the overall photography market. My guess is that 35mm plus APS-C sales are at least 20 times higher than MF sales.

[SFTphotography]

The GFX 100 is 10,000-ish. Obviously the 50 is cheaper. The point is not that some people are buying into medium format -- they are. It is just a pretty small part of the overall photography market. My guess is that 35mm plus APS-C sales are at least 20 times higher than MF sales.

Probably true, but it might be growing. Maybe it's an age thing, I am 36, but everyone I know with a Fuji GFX is new to medium format digital photography and came from 35mm digital.

I know several 645z owners, who had 645 glass from film era, I am new to the system and I still love it. That big OVF, rugged big body, using it is an utter joy. The files are immense and actually for the bulk of photographers I know this system would serve them best yet so few own them.

GF lenses are cost wise in the same bracket as 1.4 primes and 2.8 pro zooms for full frame - look at Canon RF lenses, Nikon Z lenses and the high end Sony E mount stuff. The GFX prices aren't significantly more. The 645z 90 and 28-45 are more expensive, but Fuji have priced this very well. Only the 100s body is expensive but look what you are getting, 100mp, and a design that keeps dirt off the sensor - unlike the other big name mirrorless cameras.