[lesmore49]

I dunno. In the film days I used medium format a lot. Rented Pentax 6 X 7, owned Yashicamat 124G 6 X 6 and a Mamiya medium format system 6 X 6, TLR system with three lenses...65 wide angle, 80 normal and 180 telephoto.

I liked medium format, great enlargements, better than my 35mm.

Digital have ASP-C and full frame K1. I like the larger (35mm ) sensor on the FF as opposed to the smaller ASP-C sensor. More ability to crop, etc and the K1 is advanced technologically over my K5, K10D, Km and GR ll.

FF is expensive and let's face it...medium format digital even more so. Your never going to get everything in one package and most of us have budget considerations. Yep I wanted a 645Z...but it is a lot of bucks and although I probably could of done it...life is a series of compromises and you have to balance things out in life. The K1 for me is great, but so is my K5. The K5 is better with my Sigma 150-500...which becomes around a 750 with the ASP-C DSLR attached...more reach...so I use the K5 for super telephoto shots. For portraits and vintage car shots...the choice is obvious for me...the FF K1.

As the Irish say...horses for courses...and that is how I look at my cameras...which one will be best for the particular photos I want to take..on a given day. Nothing is perfect.

[UncleVanya]

Technically, you have the same magnification with the same lens on FF or APS-C, the ratio of area on subject to area on sensor is the same.

I love xkcd. But You lost me. In non-macro use my 200mm DA* gives a very different subject to sensor ratio than it would have on the K1 (at the same distance from the subject). I'm not sure even macro works the way you state. The size of the object at 1:1 remains unchanged by FF vs. APSC but the ratio of what is covered by the subject vs. what isn't will not be the same. For example a 24x24mm object will completely cover the apsc sensor and overflow it. The full frame will show a spot of open space to the right or left or both (landscape composition) and the full height of the object will be within the frame.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding something fundamental about what you said.

[reh321]

I don’t know the KP, the 16 mp sensor in the K50 does not seem to perform as well as the K5 from my experience, bu t I find the K5 and K1 are very close, after all the individual sensor cells are the same size, the K1 just is a scalled up sensor but similar, perhaps newer technology,

I find the shooting situation does not make me pick one body over the other from a lighting aspect, so I can shoot with the K1 using the same “rules” as I use with the K5 so I don’t need to think about performance between the two bodies, that was not the case, for example moving from The *istD to the K10. The low light performance of the *istD was far superior to the K10D and you really had to think about switching between bodies.

My KP is much much better than my K-30. With the K-30, I self limited myself to around ISO 800 from experience; with the KP, I self-limit myself to 12800 from experience. I virtually always choose the KP if low-light will be involved.

[bertwert]

I love xkcd. But You lost me. In non-macro use my 200mm DA* gives a very different subject to sensor ratio than it would have on the K1 (at the same distance from the subject). I'm not sure even macro works the way you state. The size of the object at 1:1 remains unchanged by FF vs. APSC but the ratio of what is covered by the subject vs. what isn't will not be the same. For example a 24x24mm object will completely cover the apsc sensor and overflow it. The full frame will show a spot of open space to the right or left or both (landscape composition) and the full height of the object will be within the frame.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding something fundamental about what you said.

I may have goofed in my attempts at being a smartass

As you state, with a ratio of 1:1, we'll only see 24mm of the subject on APS-C, whereas we'll see 35mm of the subject on FF. Obviously the APS-C image has more reach/detail, or seems more magnified (as luftluss was saying) even if the 'technical' magnification on the two setups is the same. Apologies for any confusion, my remark was meant to just get a quick 'haha'

[luftfluss]

... my remark was meant to just get a quick 'haha'

The road to a "quick haha" is paved with good intentions.

[luftfluss]

Someday I hope to transition from taking photographs to making photographs, as you seem to have done.

Well

I can say with no humility whatsoever that my best photographs - as opposed to "snaps", which I also enjoy - come down to mostly luck and effort, and compositional skill the least. And the effort part is not so hard because I enjoy simply using the equipment, especially the older telephoto lenses like the A 400/5.6 I used for that spicebush swallowtail butterfly.

[UncleVanya]

I may have goofed in my attempts at being a smartass

As you state, with a ratio of 1:1, we'll only see 24mm of the subject on APS-C, whereas we'll see 35mm of the subject on FF. Obviously the APS-C image has more reach/detail, or seems more magnified (as luftluss was saying) even if the 'technical' magnification on the two setups is the same. Apologies for any confusion, my remark was meant to just get a quick 'haha'

Now I feel dumb... Despite all your good intentions. Lol. That's hilarious in a way.

[northcoastgreg]

However, moving MF to MILC bring back camera body to ideal ergonomics, so that's a good move.

You haven't thought this thing through. It would in point of fact be a terrible move. It would bring about an ergonomic catastrophe which would make the Sony depredations against balance between camera and lens seem minor in comparison.

First of all, MF is very lens-centric format. If there had been no MF lenses, there would be no digital MF. The MF sensor in the 645Z is only about 70% bigger than a FF camera (which really isn't all that much), but it's not just 70% more expensive, it's a great deal more. The 645D and 645Z were primarily made to accomodate the existing line-up of lenses. Hence Pentax's lack of priority when it comes to making new 645 lenses. When Pentax ran out of FA645 35mm stock, instead of designing a new 35, they just slapped on HD coatings on the old 35 and ran a new batch. The 645D and 645Z exists primarily for 645 lenses already owned, and for the 645 lenses Pentax has in stock. It doesn't make economic sense on any other basis.

Because it's the lenses that the Pentax 645 format is all about, you have to make a camera that works well with existing 645 lenses. That's not going to be a mirrorless camera, which would not only be too small for quite a few of the 645 lenses (if you have big lenses, most people are going to want a bigger camera), but the short flange focal distance of mirrorless is going to be an ergonomic disaster for lenses designed for a camera with an FFD of almost 71mm. How many people who have paid more than $4,000 for the DFA 28-45 are going to be happy to learn that in the future, when their SLR 645 camera at last gives up the ghost, if they want to continue using a lens they've spent an enormous amount of money one, they're going to have to connect to a long tube to the lens and then stick that immense and heavy piece of glass on a size impoverished mirrorless camera? Talk about ergonomic horrors!

Pentax 645 lenses are fundamentally SLR lenses and will always work best, particularly ergonomically, on an SLR camera that they were originally designed for. A mirrorless MF camera would require all new lenses (which Pentax doesn't have the resources to make) and would render the old 645 SLR lenses abysmally cumbersome to work with.

[automorphism]

Pentax 645 lenses are fundamentally SLR lenses and will always work best, particularly ergonomically, on an SLR camera that they were originally designed for. A mirrorless MF camera would require all new lenses (which Pentax doesn't have the resources to make) and would render the old 645 SLR lenses abysmally cumbersome to work with.

This is a good point and also why Pentax probably won't go mirrorless (and why when they did, they stuck with the K mount). Pentax just doesn't have the capacity to create a truckload of new lenses to attract users to a new mount. Even Sony has taken a great while to do so, and part of their success is using their semiconductor and software expertise to augment the lack of lenses. Not that this is a bad thing...I for one appreciate something like the K mount that allows for so much backwards compatibility.

[bjolester]

Lenses now are a lot better than lenses used 30 years ago on 24x36 film cameras.
Micro 4/3 and apsc deliver IQ like 24 x 36 film quality.
Medium format digital crop deliver IQ like medium format film era quality

My Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 scanner is able to make a 42 megapixel scan from 24x36 film at full resolution. In reality very few 24x36 negatives or positives shot with the very best lenses contain anywhere near that much resolution. Some knowledgeable people claim that a 24x36 Velvia 50 slide shot with very good lenses and scanned with a Minolta or Nikon film scanner may have the equivalent of 12-18 megapixels, all depending (A specialty film like Adox CMS20 monochrome film has much more resolution). It is probably correct to say that a Pentax K-5 or K-3 equals or surpasses 24x36 film all depending.

Medium format Velvia 50 scanned on a Nikon Coolscan 8000/9000 or Minolta Dimage Scan MultiPro could probably favourably be compared to a 36 megapixel camera like the Pentax K-1 in terms of resolution. Drum scanned medium format Adox CMS20 can have much higher resolution than even the Pentax 645Z, probably competing more with the PhaseOne digital system (< 100 megapixels).

[Cerebum]

I've sold all of my K3 kit including all my DA lenses, done so to buy a Pentax K1 and good set of DFA lenses. After printing images, I realized that full frame is great for having a single system , but not as good as having both apsc and medium format. And here are the reasons for coming to such conclusion:
- Enlargement: full frame deliver more resolution than apsc but extraodinary quality for large professional grade prints, medium format does a better job. For A4 and A3 type prints, full frame is an overkill and apsc is plenty good enough.
- Full frame is slow in burst mode. No matter what, full frame cameras are generally all slower than apsc counterparts. AF coverage of full frame DSLR is not as good as AF coverage on apsc.
All that mean is FF is a compromise that is never the best. The old Pentax models of offering apsc K mount and 645 was the best.

OK, that's an eye opener. I had always thought FF was imperious. I love my K3 and KP. One of the key reasons is compactness. I went round Cadiz with a KP, 35mm limited and a nice warm feeling, knowing my little camera was probably turning out better images than the comparable and far larger Nikons and canons. If I found myself unexpectedly wealthy I would get a K1 without hesitation but, following your findings, I won't be doing it instead of apsc

[Dan Rentea]

Interesting opinion. When low-ish ISO values are possible, the (generally) smaller pixels of APS-C actually give more resolution.

I never encounter a situation where I could have said that having an APS-C with me rather than a full frame the images would have been better. And I'm not that much worried about resolution because we have plenty of it in the cameras released in the last 5 years. One of the reasons I don't use APS-C cameras is that when I go out to shoot birds I know the behaviour of the birds I'm interested in and I know what to do to get the shots from optimal distances. But I'm not the guy who just walk into the woods hoping to see a bird and once I see it I grab the longest lens to put it on a APS-C camera to get the shot. I did that a few years back and it was fun, but the results weren't so good. You can't control the light, the background, etc. by taking random pictures of birds that happens to get in the frame. Now I shoot from a hide (the hide may be my car for example depending on the bird I'm interested in, it can be a camouflage tent, etc.).

I value more ISO capabilities than reach because I have enough reach shooting with full frame. But, that's just me and for me it works. I have the possibility to shoot with both formats and as I said, I never choose APS-C for wildlife over full frame.

---------- Post added 12-14-19 at 10:24 AM ----------

OK, that's an eye opener. I had always thought FF was imperious. I love my K3 and KP. One of the key reasons is compactness. I went round Cadiz with a KP, 35mm limited and a nice warm feeling, knowing my little camera was probably turning out better images than the comparable and far larger Nikons and canons. If I found myself unexpectedly wealthy I would get a K1 without hesitation but, following your findings, I won't be doing it instead of apsc

Bare in mind that he is talking about large prints when he speak about full frame and medium format, bigger than 60". And bare in mind that for the moment he's talking about K1 which has 4fps but in the same time he speak about full frame in general being slower than APS-C. Replace K1 with D850 (9fps) or with A7R IV (10fps) and all he said above regarding speed is gone and the medium format system will be reduced only to high quality large prints which is not a common situation for the majority here. I don't even want to talk about D5 and 1DX II which will be replaced next year, or about Sony A9 II in terms of speed and high ISO.

KP might be a beautiful camera (same about D500 or 7D Mark II), but I doubt it will match the D850 or A7R IV in image quality, or even a Z6. Sure full frame costs a lot, but at the end of the day there are only one or two scenarious where a medium format will be better. And if full frame system is expensive, then look at medium format prices...

[Rondec]

I started from the point of view of using images, either for printing on paper or viewing on display, then move up the imaging chain to defined what format is required. Doing so, I find that full frame is stuck in the middle: not as fast as apsc, not as much reach as apsc, and no outstanding IQ for professional grade large prints. Every camera is a compomise, but full frame is the biggest compromise of all because it excels at nothing. IMO, Fuji is right, Canikon and Sony are wrong. That was my point. Canon don't have any MF system to offer, so they'll say that full frame is good enough for large prints, but good enough doesn't mean very good. Lots of pros use Canon, and the enlargement out of Canon cameras don't cut it, large prints from MF camera look much better then any pro print from a Canon DSLR , doesn't matter if Canon sells the largest quantity of cameras, quantity and quality are two different things.

You are probably cheaper buying the Gigapixel software from Topaz that Fenwoodian had a thread about awhile back. It will allow you to do enlargements without too much problem. Otherwise, I don't know how much of a bump in print size going from, say, a pixel shifted 36 megapixel image to a 50 megapixel medium format image will give.

That said, the only reason you need to buy new gear is want (and to have sufficient funds). Multiple people have said here that full frame is a compromise and clearly it is. At the same time, current (cropped) medium format will end up giving you about a stop bump in high iso performance and low iso dynamic range over 35mm. Clearly it is something, but about the same as what you get going from APS-C to full frame. And it does come at a heavy price. But if you have that itch for medium format and have the money to scratch it, go ahead. You certainly don't need the affirmation of people on this Forum to do so.

[Fluegel]

.....................Sure full frame costs a lot, but at the end of the day there are only one or two scenarious where a medium format will be better.
And if full frame system is expensive, then look at medium format prices...

Glad to know you have little use for MF. Others happen to use MF more often with excellent results.

BTW to compare IQ from MF with FF or APS-C is pretty useless. You do not compare a F1 car with a rally car either, do you?

[Dan Rentea]

Glad to know you have little use for MF. Others happen to use MF more often with excellent results.

BTW to compare IQ from MF with FF or APS-C is pretty useless. You do not compare a F1 car with a rally car either, do you?

I'm not trying to compare anything when comes to image quality. When you buy medium format, you do it for a reason that most of the time will imply wealthy clients that will cover the photographers expenses and make them profit at the same time. Or you have enough money to dump 50.000$ in true medium format cameras like Phase One and post images taken with that gear on social media, just for fun.

There is a big difference in "I need a medium format camera" and "I want a medium format camera". I was just pointing out that medium format will make a difference in 2-3 scenarious, like a D5 or 1Dx II will make a difference in one or two scenarious also.