Medium format is a great format. Pricey but you get what you pay for. Slower to use than an SLR or DSLR but it does make you slow down and think a bit more with fewer exposures per roll or memory card.
I bought a Hasselblad H4D-40 with 28, 50 and 100 mm lenses new about 10 years ago. It cost more than the vehicle I threw it in to go to a job. At the time the huge files did give me an edge with commercial work, not sure if it was really an economically sound decision though - but boy did everyone love the files. Jump forward to now and my Canon R5 system covers everything I need to do. I put the Blad up for sale but the price seemed so ridiculously cheap that I took it off the market and put in back on my shelf. I pull it out now and then, not because I need to, but because the files still have a magic that hasn’t been replaced. I’m sure a client could never tell, but I get a thrill still from editing the files. I also like the slow, methodical approach that is enforced by using such a cumbersome piece of kit.
I don't think digital medium format is necessary or as useful or portable as 35mm. The quality difference can only be seen in prints bigger than 40x60 at normal viewing differences and there is no advantage electronically as monitors only show 4k. Now medium format film beats the digital, much cheaper (thousands) and I own a system.
Back when dinosaurs ruled the world in the mid-1970s, I acquired a Mamiya 645 1000s, which I still own today. Great camera, but it is heavy. Then a few years ago I picked up a Rollei, and have had success with portraits using that camera. More recently I acquired a Fuji GFX 100 and am in love. Right out of the box it handled well, although it, too, is quite heavy. I only use primes so I am not adding too much extra weight. No rap on 35mm cameras, film or digital, I just prefer medium format for providing details in portraits. Despite the fine work of Vivian Maier and others, who used Rolleis for street photography, I find them too cumbersome and are intrusive in my process. Then I will use my Minolta SRT-101 or a Canon 5D IV.
Glad you mentioned the 645z. You get the same dynamic range and sensor as a Fuji or Hasselblad, plus the gamut of glass from Pentax going back to their 645 film cameras.
One criticism, is that you lit your subject as if photographing a white person. Portraits of white people require manipulating the shadows; but for a black person you must work with the highlights.
Curious why no mention of the Canon 5D R-s (I think I got that part right.....as I am considering it and plan to rent one soon. I have been using Canon systems for a great long time and very comfortable with the controls and menus not to mention, owning a set of good serviceable lenses. The body is listing for around 1400. or thereabouts, a much more economic option and the super hi res sensor might in fact be up with its' medium format competitors. We shall see. Fuji is very seductive but a deeper plunge especially considering the lenses.
Totally agree with the points in the post; there is no "perfect" system (though they are getting very close, or may already be there for many peoples' needs). It's an odd thing; i racked my brain via blog/vlog posts years ago when contemplating the move to MFD as I'd have to have sold my entire Canon kit to help fund the purchase -- it was more of a "want" than a "need" at the time, but I was shooting print/cover for some niche magazines and it seemed like a great time (and excuse, as it's _totally_ unnecessary for that type of work) to finally make the jump, since I was enamored with MFD since the H1's release. So I picked up an H5 for a short time (then upgraded to the H6, and now I'm in the Phase camp)
After the move, I did have a need for a smaller camera system, but did not want to go back to a 35, as my uses for the smaller system would be for personal/travel, and IT'd hurt me to have to just buy back everything I sold. I always had an X100 & Xpro as a travel/smaller kit alongside the canon stuff (but ended up selling all of that too, just to get into the H), so it was an easy choice for the second system. Later on I simplified again; sold all the Fuji stuff and just picked up a used Leica Q for everything but work (though occasionally I will shoot street/personal stuff with the phase :p)
I do appreciate the "slowness" of the larger formats -- it's really made me more considerate in my approach; In the current time of ephemeral imagery brought about by social media, I think the "speed limit" imposed by MF (and larger) formats makes for better photographs -- so in that sense, i guess it _can_ make you a better photographer :p
As for prints, I find that I make a lot more of them since moving to MF; it's really the best way to appreciate the files. You don't quite get that when staring at them on a screen (even at 100%+).
I read a few of your posts, and got a good kick of "uggh...an optical viewfinder". It will be a sad day for me when someone decides it's "time to eliminate those optical viewfinders...who uses THEM, anyway? " Optical viewfinders give you a more accurate view of what's actually being framed and how you're perceiving how your image will look when all is said and done. I'm sure color accuracy and composition accuracy are paramount when digital viewing screens are being used, especially for those without optical finders. As for me...I hope that's not in my lifetime.
Sounds good to me. I sold my Hasselblad system and will probably look at an alternative to the Blad. I have not researched it completely yet. I totally agree on a simple camera to take out when not needing the entire system.
i had a love affair with a Contax 645 with Phase One back for many years, both commercially and personally. the body was light, the zeiss lenses heavy, but it was so ergonomically refined that handholding was not an issue. Batteries were an issue. Slower for sure than DSLR but oh those images. regretably i sold the whole kit to a photographer in California. a major regret is selling the 210 macro, sharpest lens i've ever used and i have an adaptor for sony for those lenses. dumb. : ) currently using sony mirrorless 42 megs and falling in love all over again. if i go back to MF i'd be tempted by the phase one kit though i've heard good things about the fuji .
I shot professionally in Chicago for 25 years. My favorite camera among the 8x10,s, 4x5s, 2 1/4s and 35s was definitely my Hasselblad. Now I shoot digitally and find it offers great artistic expression and creativity...actually the latter comes via my Lighteoom program. I am not a fan of Photoshop though. I am considered a painterly photographer as I enjoy, grain, black & white, and film like prints. The largest I generally go is 20x30 before framing. I am currently accomplishing this with a Nikon but am seriously considering going medium format. It dies slow you down. I am at the stage where I like that. My subject matter is what ever catches my eye.....irregardless of the light or time if day. Enjoy the process my friends. We have the capability to be so very creative.
I already use medium format but on film with an old vintage TLR. I'm toying with the idea of a digital (Fuji or Pentax) nmedium format. I currently use MFT and don't find full frame enough of an advantage(I tried a Sony for a couple of years) to go there. But medium format, well that might swing me.
For more than 10 years I've been shooting urban landscapes -- which is to say land + architecture -- using Phase One digital backs (V mount) with Arca Swiss technical cameras. I started with a P45+ on a 6x9 AS Monolith; I am now using a IQ260 on an AS 4x5 Monolith, most often with a 72mm Super Angulon lens. Merged arrays consist of 2 to 5 overlapping frames horizontally, moving the back up to 4 cm in each direction, and 1 to 3 rows vertically. The Monolith's stability is what makes it possible to merge the files accurately. (I tried a Sinar first; it was hopelessly unstable.) A typical print made from one or two rows can be from 12 to 30" high and up to 60" wide.
I came to this setup after a long period of trial and error, beginning with 4x5 chromes and working through various Hasselblad configurations. It is a complicated and expensive setup, and merging the files requires a lot of RAM, but it has proven to be the only combination of camera, lens, and photon collector that allows me to capture the full field of view that I see in front of me, virtually distortion free. The Capture One software, with its Lens Cast Correction (LCC) tool makes it possible to compensate for exposure fall-off from the lens, and to match colors between exposures. I output them as 16 bit TIFFs and then use Photoshop to merge the files.
Medium format is a great format. Pricey but you get what you pay for. Slower to use than an SLR or DSLR but it does make you slow down and think a bit more with fewer exposures per roll or memory card.
I bought a Hasselblad H4D-40 with 28, 50 and 100 mm lenses new about 10 years ago. It cost more than the vehicle I threw it in to go to a job. At the time the huge files did give me an edge with commercial work, not sure if it was really an economically sound decision though - but boy did everyone love the files. Jump forward to now and my Canon R5 system covers everything I need to do. I put the Blad up for sale but the price seemed so ridiculously cheap that I took it off the market and put in back on my shelf. I pull it out now and then, not because I need to, but because the files still have a magic that hasn’t been replaced. I’m sure a client could never tell, but I get a thrill still from editing the files. I also like the slow, methodical approach that is enforced by using such a cumbersome piece of kit.
I don't think digital medium format is necessary or as useful or portable as 35mm. The quality difference can only be seen in prints bigger than 40x60 at normal viewing differences and there is no advantage electronically as monitors only show 4k. Now medium format film beats the digital, much cheaper (thousands) and I own a system.
I do my own printing , Mat cutting and even canvas framing. Of course I must have a decent image.. which is the hard part
I love portraits of people in their own environment and have used Nikon 50mm 1.4 lens’s as a good size.
I would entertain a medium format to get increased dynamic range, that is still portable for on location portraits.
Back when dinosaurs ruled the world in the mid-1970s, I acquired a Mamiya 645 1000s, which I still own today. Great camera, but it is heavy. Then a few years ago I picked up a Rollei, and have had success with portraits using that camera. More recently I acquired a Fuji GFX 100 and am in love. Right out of the box it handled well, although it, too, is quite heavy. I only use primes so I am not adding too much extra weight. No rap on 35mm cameras, film or digital, I just prefer medium format for providing details in portraits. Despite the fine work of Vivian Maier and others, who used Rolleis for street photography, I find them too cumbersome and are intrusive in my process. Then I will use my Minolta SRT-101 or a Canon 5D IV.
Glad you mentioned the 645z. You get the same dynamic range and sensor as a Fuji or Hasselblad, plus the gamut of glass from Pentax going back to their 645 film cameras.
One criticism, is that you lit your subject as if photographing a white person. Portraits of white people require manipulating the shadows; but for a black person you must work with the highlights.
Curious why no mention of the Canon 5D R-s (I think I got that part right.....as I am considering it and plan to rent one soon. I have been using Canon systems for a great long time and very comfortable with the controls and menus not to mention, owning a set of good serviceable lenses. The body is listing for around 1400. or thereabouts, a much more economic option and the super hi res sensor might in fact be up with its' medium format competitors. We shall see. Fuji is very seductive but a deeper plunge especially considering the lenses.
Totally agree with the points in the post; there is no "perfect" system (though they are getting very close, or may already be there for many peoples' needs). It's an odd thing; i racked my brain via blog/vlog posts years ago when contemplating the move to MFD as I'd have to have sold my entire Canon kit to help fund the purchase -- it was more of a "want" than a "need" at the time, but I was shooting print/cover for some niche magazines and it seemed like a great time (and excuse, as it's _totally_ unnecessary for that type of work) to finally make the jump, since I was enamored with MFD since the H1's release. So I picked up an H5 for a short time (then upgraded to the H6, and now I'm in the Phase camp)
After the move, I did have a need for a smaller camera system, but did not want to go back to a 35, as my uses for the smaller system would be for personal/travel, and IT'd hurt me to have to just buy back everything I sold. I always had an X100 & Xpro as a travel/smaller kit alongside the canon stuff (but ended up selling all of that too, just to get into the H), so it was an easy choice for the second system. Later on I simplified again; sold all the Fuji stuff and just picked up a used Leica Q for everything but work (though occasionally I will shoot street/personal stuff with the phase :p)
I do appreciate the "slowness" of the larger formats -- it's really made me more considerate in my approach; In the current time of ephemeral imagery brought about by social media, I think the "speed limit" imposed by MF (and larger) formats makes for better photographs -- so in that sense, i guess it _can_ make you a better photographer :p
As for prints, I find that I make a lot more of them since moving to MF; it's really the best way to appreciate the files. You don't quite get that when staring at them on a screen (even at 100%+).
I read a few of your posts, and got a good kick of "uggh...an optical viewfinder". It will be a sad day for me when someone decides it's "time to eliminate those optical viewfinders...who uses THEM, anyway? " Optical viewfinders give you a more accurate view of what's actually being framed and how you're perceiving how your image will look when all is said and done. I'm sure color accuracy and composition accuracy are paramount when digital viewing screens are being used, especially for those without optical finders. As for me...I hope that's not in my lifetime.
Sounds good to me. I sold my Hasselblad system and will probably look at an alternative to the Blad. I have not researched it completely yet. I totally agree on a simple camera to take out when not needing the entire system.
i had a love affair with a Contax 645 with Phase One back for many years, both commercially and personally. the body was light, the zeiss lenses heavy, but it was so ergonomically refined that handholding was not an issue. Batteries were an issue. Slower for sure than DSLR but oh those images. regretably i sold the whole kit to a photographer in California. a major regret is selling the 210 macro, sharpest lens i've ever used and i have an adaptor for sony for those lenses. dumb. : ) currently using sony mirrorless 42 megs and falling in love all over again. if i go back to MF i'd be tempted by the phase one kit though i've heard good things about the fuji .
I shot professionally in Chicago for 25 years. My favorite camera among the 8x10,s, 4x5s, 2 1/4s and 35s was definitely my Hasselblad. Now I shoot digitally and find it offers great artistic expression and creativity...actually the latter comes via my Lighteoom program. I am not a fan of Photoshop though. I am considered a painterly photographer as I enjoy, grain, black & white, and film like prints. The largest I generally go is 20x30 before framing. I am currently accomplishing this with a Nikon but am seriously considering going medium format. It dies slow you down. I am at the stage where I like that. My subject matter is what ever catches my eye.....irregardless of the light or time if day. Enjoy the process my friends. We have the capability to be so very creative.
Terry Shoulders
I already use medium format but on film with an old vintage TLR. I'm toying with the idea of a digital (Fuji or Pentax) nmedium format. I currently use MFT and don't find full frame enough of an advantage(I tried a Sony for a couple of years) to go there. But medium format, well that might swing me.
For more than 10 years I've been shooting urban landscapes -- which is to say land + architecture -- using Phase One digital backs (V mount) with Arca Swiss technical cameras. I started with a P45+ on a 6x9 AS Monolith; I am now using a IQ260 on an AS 4x5 Monolith, most often with a 72mm Super Angulon lens. Merged arrays consist of 2 to 5 overlapping frames horizontally, moving the back up to 4 cm in each direction, and 1 to 3 rows vertically. The Monolith's stability is what makes it possible to merge the files accurately. (I tried a Sinar first; it was hopelessly unstable.) A typical print made from one or two rows can be from 12 to 30" high and up to 60" wide.
I came to this setup after a long period of trial and error, beginning with 4x5 chromes and working through various Hasselblad configurations. It is a complicated and expensive setup, and merging the files requires a lot of RAM, but it has proven to be the only combination of camera, lens, and photon collector that allows me to capture the full field of view that I see in front of me, virtually distortion free. The Capture One software, with its Lens Cast Correction (LCC) tool makes it possible to compensate for exposure fall-off from the lens, and to match colors between exposures. I output them as 16 bit TIFFs and then use Photoshop to merge the files.