Originally posted by TDvN57 I fail to see the advantages of the Fuji 50 mpx cameras over the 645z with the same sensor. Perhaps the physical size is a thing. When it comes to lenses then how many lenses do you really need?
OVF cameras have advantages over mirrorless ones, and vice versa. Size was the original mirrorless advantage, but much less so today I think. These advantages/disadvantages have been recounted many places, so I won't repeat them here.
Quote: I often see justification for the Fuji as an affordable medium format with a future development path. But what is it? Their current format can't go to 645 full frame. The Fuji 100mpx is basically the end of their medium format growth path.
Yes. Add to that some apparent reliability problems cropping up, and as I said above some recent statements from Fuji that would give me more than pause had I bought into that system.
Quote: So what is the advantage of having a medium format kit? There are only two points I can think of, these being (1) shallower depth of field to enable for a 3D visual effect in the correct(?) composition, (2) to have enough pixels to print big, really big in high resolution.
It's been shown that shallow DOF is well accomplished with FF cameras and fast lenses. Also, there are FF cameras that exceed the 50mp of some of the Fuji and the Pentax 645Z. Then there's pixel-shift. But what I think is the most significant medium format advantage is in the tonal transitions area. The best example I've seen on these forums was posted some time ago by member rdenney---it's an image of trees (maybe a crop) that shows this "slow" transition in the tonal range. Smaller formats are progressively less smooth from what I have seen. One of the reasons no one seems to say much about this right now I think is that folks today gravitate to icily crisp images.
Quote: Getting back to (#1) above, the larger the sensor the easier it is to create a 3D effect. More pixels do not necessarily contribute much. It's about composition and compression of the image.
If it's just blur, then no. But if you add in this other tonality aspect, then yes. The effect is subtle, however. Way too subtle to make a difference to most photographers, and arguably not necessary for lots of photography subjects/styles.
Quote: So what exactly is the future growth path of Fuji that outshines the 645z?
After those discouraging comments from Fuji itself, I really don't know.
Quote: Both manufacturers are reluctant to commit to a MF strategy in public. Fuji is openly dampening expectations. Pentax is just absent from the conversation.
Pentax has to be the most sphinx like of all the camera companies. So, lack of communication from them no longer alarms me. In fact, this covid period had me scratching my head about their new outpourings of marketing.
Quote: PhaseOne is overcharging and is selling the MF sizzle left right and centre to whomever appears to have 50k in spare change
Not just sizzle, Some of that gear really is impressive, with some built in features that I'd love to have in my Z; but theirs is a BtoB play. Most major museums have Phase One stuff.
Quote: and Hasselblad is maintaining their MF range as a loss-leader whilst paying the bills with branding mobile phone and consumer grade drone cameras.
Hassy is harder to figure out IMO.
Quote: Your thoughts?
You asked, you got 'em!