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.
Willy, I used the H4D also. I liked the files but found the camera to be a nuisance in the field (I shoot travel, landscape and wildlife). After 50 years with Nikon I enjoy the chance to slow down with my GFX system. Oddly, I do not view the system as any more cumbersome than my last Nikon system, but perhaps a bit heavier.
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.
Daniel, I do see your point(s), but I have to disagree. I come from 50 years of 35mm (Nikon) and the difference between 35mm and MF - for my uses - is significant. The increased dynamic range is not to be minimized and the articulated viewfinder on the GFX 100 is an absolute necessity for my work. But, I agree with you about portability. However, the GFX system is not much heavier than the last 35mm system I used and the ergonomics is excellent.
I used medium format in the studio, but mostly 4x5 till digital got good enough to satisfy my clients. In the field as a racing photographer for tire companies, ad agencies and teams, I used 35 with the best glass I could get. I do have a book out of documentary work from 10 years as an in house photographer for Firestone and General tire. Its BW with 35 pages of photos shot mostly with Hassleblad and leicas.
Hard to disagree given how "good" all modern cameras are but as most things with photographic art and process, there's a heck of a lot of variables, processes, subjects, etc. Maybe infinite and hard to compare without reductionist apples to apples "tests".
I find just about any camera "good enough" to make pictures of just about anything but at the same time I find different cameras do produce different results when I happen to use them outside of "tests" in which I am trying to make things look equivalent. I stopped measuring things a long time ago and instead went with cameras on to very basic criteria:
1. How much I liked using them. A bunch of subjective as well as objective criteria.
2. How much I liked the results after prolonged use in particular circumstances. Again a soup of subjective and objective criteria.
No idea what you are using now so I cannot comment on how much of an edge any particular choice would give you. For me, I LOVE shooting my 6x6 film in certain situations for portraits and when shooting digital I tend to shoot vertical portraits which are almost always cropped 4:3 or 4:5 and sometimes square which makes 3:2 kind of a waste in terms of real output resolution. My own strange choice of medium format digital kind of reflects my specialized desires AND AND AND completely changes my process for certain portrait work by not having my face behind a camera.
I agree with Bob that it's hard to respond without knowing what you shoot now, so perhaps you might share that with us. However, I gave up Nikon after 50 years and for the past 3-4 years have shot Fujifilm GFX exclusively. And, yes, the dynamic range is simply phenomenal.
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.
Les uses the GFX100, I use something a bit more compact but in a way also more cumbersome hand-held in medium format. For "small cameras" I am a M4 film shooter or 5DsR on digital... given my own preference and joy of using OVF's...
Hi Maria. After 50 years of shooting Nikon (and Haselblad), I now shoot Fujifilm GFX 100 and 50S exclusively. I, too, absolutely love the system. The dynamic range is incredible as are the lenses. Yes the 100 is heavier than I'd like, but it is so flexible in terms of my needs I really don't care. Besides, I shoot the majority of my work on a tripod. The ergonomics is superb, too.
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.
NOW I finally know someone that uses a 645z!!!! ;-) Actually would love to get to know you as I am mostly a portrait/people photographer with some other projects on the side. I'd have probably made that choice IF IF IF...
1. I didn't LOVE my 500 cameras so very much for process reasons
2. I didn't like the way the H-series felt in hand as much as I did.
3. I didn't use strobes as much as I do.
There's an argument to be made that the 645z is actually a better film/hybrid/traditional lens rendering choice than a 500/Zeiss system. Guess it boils down to very specific uses and preferences like how much one likes square pictures ;-)
Is the 645z your primary camera?? Any other system you use adjunct? Just curious.
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.
The 5DsR is my workhorse do-it-all system, my daily driver. Most of the shots on the newsletters here are that camera with my ANCIENT 24-105L used in a quick and dirty fashion with an old Profoto pack and head bounced for semi directional but overall illumination.
I consider the 5Ds and 5DsR the prototypical example of the highpoint of the DSLR as well as the industries best kept secret. To me it is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better (in every way) 5D3. Yep, have an RF mirrorless. I only use it for the few videos I make here and there. For still picture making I continue to use the 5DsR, the perfect camera for me and most of the pictures I make that are soup to nuts. Love the lens selection (especially the ones I purchased), love the handling, love the color and output for what I happen to point the camera at.
Let me know if you want to know anything specific as compared to medium format cameras I actually have first hand experience with. Sure in a narrow slice of use you may be able to substitute one for the other but its quite a different beast depending on use.
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%+).
Wow you're ALMOST as bad as I am in terms of rationalizing gear ;-)
My personal favorite camera for handheld work is the H series as it's the most comfortable for me as I had an H2 way way back and still feel that way. Why did you move to phase? IQ3? IQ4? and which body?
I suppose another reason for the switch was the "cheaper" lenses on the phase system -- i'd need to have upgraded to all the "orange dot" lenses for faster flash sync on the H6, (lots of outdoor portraiture with flash) -- while the "silver ring" phase/mamiya lenses were coming down in price due to the "blue ring" upgrades.
ABSOLUTELY they are a bit pricey, thank goodness I live in a very very narrow range of FOV. Which is the other HUGE why I went with the back/camera I decided on... very very fast sync speed on reasonably priced lenses (for the most part given my lack of ranges needed and my don't care attitude for HUGE max apertures on MF)
I've since upgraded the back to the IQ3 100 for the larger sensor. I'd love at least the IQ3 Trichro for the (marginally?) better color -- and C1 integration into the back is nice on the IQ4, but i can't justify it; maybe in a decade when the IQ6 comes out and IQ4 prices are manageable :p
I couldn't possibly comment on the Trichromatic, way way beyond my rationalization powers which is saying something. The thing I am just itching for is a back that is 54mm wide but... honestly it gives me a bit less of what I want right now compared to the baby MF back I have as that kind of allows me to carry less glass being a hybrid MF film/digital shooter.
agreed - i just returned from Utah this past weekend and carried the XF, 45mm and 80mm (filters, tripod, etc) through the Narrows and my back is _killing_ me!
You need to grab the "viewfinder" app!!! It was absolutely perfect for me as it documents the exact location lens, etc. I will actually need when I see a scene but the time of day/weather etc are not picture worthy. I just look through it and make a plan for the right day and time to go back with exactly the gear I'll need.
Thanks; hadn't heard of it -- i'll check it out! I do use photopills on ocasion to plan for some shots I want, or at least to plan times of day, but if i'm honest most (if not all) of my landscape stuff (which i'm just getting into) is spontaneous during trips. any planning assistance would help at this point :p
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.
I have tried all of the EVF's honestly they do nothing for me in terms of productivity nor do they help me make better photos. Obviously the choice of viewfinder is mostly preference based be it between various optical viewfinders or EVF's but... there are a few practical reasons OVF's beyond mere preference...
1. Eye strain and optical comfort. I find even in optimal circumstances for EVF's they are less comfortable.
2. Many common environments are not optimal for EVF's such as dim indoor conditions (studio or studio like) or outdoors during the daytime EVF's are either WAY brighter or WAY dimmer than OVF's which causes a different kind of strain by causing rapid pupil dilation and back over and over and over.
Just something to consider. I also find that the whole exposure preview thing is not that valuable to anyone with actual experience shooting pictures but even then is every picture so so rushed or the lighting conditions varying so wildly that one quick chimp a deal killer??? I use flash -- A LOT -- so completely useless there and just another buried setting to figure out how to turn exposure preview off (in other words -- pretend OVF mode)...
What I REALLY want from an EVF is a huge reduction in camera price... oh gee they want more money for a simpler mechanical device??? What?
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've re-learned that lesson (never sell cameras/lenses you actually love) quite a few times . Glad you are enjoying the new camera.
FYI, I sort of recently reacquired a lens that I foolishly "upgraded" a few decades ago and realized that that "upgrade" destroyed all of the things I loved about the older lens...
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 probably gravitate towards your tendencies for output and also have loved my 500 cameras since the early '90's. I'll link some of my own decisions for kit down the road as you may find time interesting. At the end of it all I tend to prefer having two very different camera systems. My slow camera and my fast camera.
I am of the school of thought that it's not a great idea to select a camera system that covers EVERYTHING. Sure you can live with one size fits all. You may even have a specialized system that covers everything you care about if your shooting envelope is narrow but I definitely don't think one system is the only answer if you have vastly divergent shooting scenarios that you regularly enjoy.
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.
Perfectly valid set of choices... small camera/big camera. 645z is an awesome choice if you like the handling and OVF as well as native lens choices with a silkier rendering (sometimes a good thing for people photographers) GFX 50R if you are a fan of the EVF for the work you'll be doing.
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.
Hello, Jim. So nice to hear from a compatriot. I shot Nikon for 50 years, but I also owned Hasselblad and 4 x 5 film cameras. I loved my Hassy HTS tilt-shift attachment for 3-shot panos or square multi-rows. And I did panos with my 4 x 5. For the past 3-4 years I have been shooting Fujifilm GFX 100 and 50S exclusively and truly love the system. In our studio we print huge images. 40 x 60" is not unusual for us, but we've done merged panos of 45 images that are 10 feet high by 30 feet long. A big issue for me is that the GFX line does not have a T/S lens or attachment as of now, although we are told to be patient, but at my age, I'm not sure how patient I can I can be! Anyway, please stay in touch. You obviously have much to contribute to this community.
I will, thank you ... if I can figure out how to negotiate this substack business. Your composites sound interesting, would love to see them. About being told to wait patiently for coming equipment -- well, I’m 74 myself, so I understand perfectly your awareness of the ticking clock! I’m just happy that I found the tools to capture what I’m seeing while I’m still ambulatory and able to use them. What I’ve not found is any audience beyond a small one on Instagram, but I’ve given up beating on that door; the time and energy are much better spent on making more pictures. I think it was a post that I saw last year some time about self-publishing that caught my eye, but I've not kept up with subsequent installments. I'll have to search back to read up on it. Happy to hang around to see what's going on and see if I have anything to contribute.
This hits some of my points for those looking at medium format systems, make sure your choices support the specifics of what you want to accomplish. Also a great example of very very long useful lifetime when those needs are specific. I would imagine the dynamic range and ISO range of the IQ260 as well as the 54mm sensor perfectly suit your use in 2022 and "upgrading" to the latest CMOS spec'd back wouldn't improve how you use your gear or your output in any meaningful way. If my process or subject matter was similar to yours that might be a back I'd actually look into given how great it's performance was and continues to be today...
A little over 3 years later, Leica finally announced that production of the S3 has ceased. But fans of medium format Leica can rest assured, the Wetzlar company is now working on a hybrid equipped with a large format sensor.” (Phototrend)
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.
exactly why I decided on the kit I use as a "slow camera"
https://camerafashion.substack.com/p/slow-cameras-can-be-a-joy
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.
Willy, I used the H4D also. I liked the files but found the camera to be a nuisance in the field (I shoot travel, landscape and wildlife). After 50 years with Nikon I enjoy the chance to slow down with my GFX system. Oddly, I do not view the system as any more cumbersome than my last Nikon system, but perhaps a bit heavier.
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.
Daniel, I do see your point(s), but I have to disagree. I come from 50 years of 35mm (Nikon) and the difference between 35mm and MF - for my uses - is significant. The increased dynamic range is not to be minimized and the articulated viewfinder on the GFX 100 is an absolute necessity for my work. But, I agree with you about portability. However, the GFX system is not much heavier than the last 35mm system I used and the ergonomics is excellent.
I used medium format in the studio, but mostly 4x5 till digital got good enough to satisfy my clients. In the field as a racing photographer for tire companies, ad agencies and teams, I used 35 with the best glass I could get. I do have a book out of documentary work from 10 years as an in house photographer for Firestone and General tire. Its BW with 35 pages of photos shot mostly with Hassleblad and leicas.
Hard to disagree given how "good" all modern cameras are but as most things with photographic art and process, there's a heck of a lot of variables, processes, subjects, etc. Maybe infinite and hard to compare without reductionist apples to apples "tests".
I find just about any camera "good enough" to make pictures of just about anything but at the same time I find different cameras do produce different results when I happen to use them outside of "tests" in which I am trying to make things look equivalent. I stopped measuring things a long time ago and instead went with cameras on to very basic criteria:
1. How much I liked using them. A bunch of subjective as well as objective criteria.
2. How much I liked the results after prolonged use in particular circumstances. Again a soup of subjective and objective criteria.
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.
No idea what you are using now so I cannot comment on how much of an edge any particular choice would give you. For me, I LOVE shooting my 6x6 film in certain situations for portraits and when shooting digital I tend to shoot vertical portraits which are almost always cropped 4:3 or 4:5 and sometimes square which makes 3:2 kind of a waste in terms of real output resolution. My own strange choice of medium format digital kind of reflects my specialized desires AND AND AND completely changes my process for certain portrait work by not having my face behind a camera.
I agree with Bob that it's hard to respond without knowing what you shoot now, so perhaps you might share that with us. However, I gave up Nikon after 50 years and for the past 3-4 years have shot Fujifilm GFX exclusively. And, yes, the dynamic range is simply phenomenal.
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.
Oh,
I forgot to ask, any reason you like the GFX 100 vs the GFX 100s? I KNOW why Les likes his better but would love to hear yours.
Actually the decision to go with the 100 over the 100s was that of affordability. I purchased it preowned, but it is like new.
That's always a GREAT reason!!!
Les uses the GFX100, I use something a bit more compact but in a way also more cumbersome hand-held in medium format. For "small cameras" I am a M4 film shooter or 5DsR on digital... given my own preference and joy of using OVF's...
This is a wonderfully detailed obit for Kurt Markus, who only used a medium format Pentax for all of his work. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/04/arts/kurt-markus-dead.html
Never new that! Thanks. Then again Brad Pitt seems to prefer a 500 hasselblad ;-)
It's fascinating to see people with cameras that are usually on the other side.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/289637819768058863/
Personal favs of actors with cameras are of Marilyn and Elizabeth Taylor with their Rolleis.
Hi Maria. After 50 years of shooting Nikon (and Haselblad), I now shoot Fujifilm GFX 100 and 50S exclusively. I, too, absolutely love the system. The dynamic range is incredible as are the lenses. Yes the 100 is heavier than I'd like, but it is so flexible in terms of my needs I really don't care. Besides, I shoot the majority of my work on a tripod. The ergonomics is superb, too.
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.
NOW I finally know someone that uses a 645z!!!! ;-) Actually would love to get to know you as I am mostly a portrait/people photographer with some other projects on the side. I'd have probably made that choice IF IF IF...
1. I didn't LOVE my 500 cameras so very much for process reasons
2. I didn't like the way the H-series felt in hand as much as I did.
3. I didn't use strobes as much as I do.
There's an argument to be made that the 645z is actually a better film/hybrid/traditional lens rendering choice than a 500/Zeiss system. Guess it boils down to very specific uses and preferences like how much one likes square pictures ;-)
Is the 645z your primary camera?? Any other system you use adjunct? Just curious.
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.
Funny you bring that up. RWB uses a 5DsR as his "do it all" full-frame system. I am sure he'll chime in when he sees this.
The 5DsR is my workhorse do-it-all system, my daily driver. Most of the shots on the newsletters here are that camera with my ANCIENT 24-105L used in a quick and dirty fashion with an old Profoto pack and head bounced for semi directional but overall illumination.
I consider the 5Ds and 5DsR the prototypical example of the highpoint of the DSLR as well as the industries best kept secret. To me it is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better (in every way) 5D3. Yep, have an RF mirrorless. I only use it for the few videos I make here and there. For still picture making I continue to use the 5DsR, the perfect camera for me and most of the pictures I make that are soup to nuts. Love the lens selection (especially the ones I purchased), love the handling, love the color and output for what I happen to point the camera at.
I wrote something about it a while ago...
https://camerafashion.substack.com/p/ode-to-the-canon-5d-series
Let me know if you want to know anything specific as compared to medium format cameras I actually have first hand experience with. Sure in a narrow slice of use you may be able to substitute one for the other but its quite a different beast depending on use.
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%+).
Wow you're ALMOST as bad as I am in terms of rationalizing gear ;-)
My personal favorite camera for handheld work is the H series as it's the most comfortable for me as I had an H2 way way back and still feel that way. Why did you move to phase? IQ3? IQ4? and which body?
Just curious.
I suppose another reason for the switch was the "cheaper" lenses on the phase system -- i'd need to have upgraded to all the "orange dot" lenses for faster flash sync on the H6, (lots of outdoor portraiture with flash) -- while the "silver ring" phase/mamiya lenses were coming down in price due to the "blue ring" upgrades.
ABSOLUTELY they are a bit pricey, thank goodness I live in a very very narrow range of FOV. Which is the other HUGE why I went with the back/camera I decided on... very very fast sync speed on reasonably priced lenses (for the most part given my lack of ranges needed and my don't care attitude for HUGE max apertures on MF)
"almost"? I'm pretty bad, so i fear for you, LOL.
Completely agree that the ergonomics of the H system are much better than the heavier "brick" that is the Phase XF.
I wrote up a lengthy post about the switch on my (now, mostly dead) blog here: http://www.thebroketographers.com/blog/2019/7/28/hasselblad-h6d-50c-vs-phase-one-xf-iq350-or-why-i-switched-to-phase-one
I've since upgraded the back to the IQ3 100 for the larger sensor. I'd love at least the IQ3 Trichro for the (marginally?) better color -- and C1 integration into the back is nice on the IQ4, but i can't justify it; maybe in a decade when the IQ6 comes out and IQ4 prices are manageable :p
I couldn't possibly comment on the Trichromatic, way way beyond my rationalization powers which is saying something. The thing I am just itching for is a back that is 54mm wide but... honestly it gives me a bit less of what I want right now compared to the baby MF back I have as that kind of allows me to carry less glass being a hybrid MF film/digital shooter.
agreed - i just returned from Utah this past weekend and carried the XF, 45mm and 80mm (filters, tripod, etc) through the Narrows and my back is _killing_ me!
You need to grab the "viewfinder" app!!! It was absolutely perfect for me as it documents the exact location lens, etc. I will actually need when I see a scene but the time of day/weather etc are not picture worthy. I just look through it and make a plan for the right day and time to go back with exactly the gear I'll need.
Thanks; hadn't heard of it -- i'll check it out! I do use photopills on ocasion to plan for some shots I want, or at least to plan times of day, but if i'm honest most (if not all) of my landscape stuff (which i'm just getting into) is spontaneous during trips. any planning assistance would help at this point :p
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.
I have tried all of the EVF's honestly they do nothing for me in terms of productivity nor do they help me make better photos. Obviously the choice of viewfinder is mostly preference based be it between various optical viewfinders or EVF's but... there are a few practical reasons OVF's beyond mere preference...
1. Eye strain and optical comfort. I find even in optimal circumstances for EVF's they are less comfortable.
2. Many common environments are not optimal for EVF's such as dim indoor conditions (studio or studio like) or outdoors during the daytime EVF's are either WAY brighter or WAY dimmer than OVF's which causes a different kind of strain by causing rapid pupil dilation and back over and over and over.
Just something to consider. I also find that the whole exposure preview thing is not that valuable to anyone with actual experience shooting pictures but even then is every picture so so rushed or the lighting conditions varying so wildly that one quick chimp a deal killer??? I use flash -- A LOT -- so completely useless there and just another buried setting to figure out how to turn exposure preview off (in other words -- pretend OVF mode)...
What I REALLY want from an EVF is a huge reduction in camera price... oh gee they want more money for a simpler mechanical device??? What?
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've re-learned that lesson (never sell cameras/lenses you actually love) quite a few times . Glad you are enjoying the new camera.
FYI, I sort of recently reacquired a lens that I foolishly "upgraded" a few decades ago and realized that that "upgrade" destroyed all of the things I loved about the older lens...
https://camerafashion.substack.com/p/the-leica-35mm-summilux
i hear ya ........ try not to think about it too much. : )
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 probably gravitate towards your tendencies for output and also have loved my 500 cameras since the early '90's. I'll link some of my own decisions for kit down the road as you may find time interesting. At the end of it all I tend to prefer having two very different camera systems. My slow camera and my fast camera.
I am of the school of thought that it's not a great idea to select a camera system that covers EVERYTHING. Sure you can live with one size fits all. You may even have a specialized system that covers everything you care about if your shooting envelope is narrow but I definitely don't think one system is the only answer if you have vastly divergent shooting scenarios that you regularly enjoy.
I concur with you RWB. What are the two systems you have narrowed it down to?
Terry
Oh boy... I am indulgent so I have quite a few but the two main systems I am wed to in terms of "slow camera" and "fast camera" are:
1. Hasselblad V/X system.
2. Canon Full Frame system.
I have an adjunct "tiny camera" but it's only there when I want to take a camera but NOT a system which is a Fuji XPro.
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.
Perfectly valid set of choices... small camera/big camera. 645z is an awesome choice if you like the handling and OVF as well as native lens choices with a silkier rendering (sometimes a good thing for people photographers) GFX 50R if you are a fan of the EVF for the work you'll be doing.
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.
Hello, Jim. So nice to hear from a compatriot. I shot Nikon for 50 years, but I also owned Hasselblad and 4 x 5 film cameras. I loved my Hassy HTS tilt-shift attachment for 3-shot panos or square multi-rows. And I did panos with my 4 x 5. For the past 3-4 years I have been shooting Fujifilm GFX 100 and 50S exclusively and truly love the system. In our studio we print huge images. 40 x 60" is not unusual for us, but we've done merged panos of 45 images that are 10 feet high by 30 feet long. A big issue for me is that the GFX line does not have a T/S lens or attachment as of now, although we are told to be patient, but at my age, I'm not sure how patient I can I can be! Anyway, please stay in touch. You obviously have much to contribute to this community.
I will, thank you ... if I can figure out how to negotiate this substack business. Your composites sound interesting, would love to see them. About being told to wait patiently for coming equipment -- well, I’m 74 myself, so I understand perfectly your awareness of the ticking clock! I’m just happy that I found the tools to capture what I’m seeing while I’m still ambulatory and able to use them. What I’ve not found is any audience beyond a small one on Instagram, but I’ve given up beating on that door; the time and energy are much better spent on making more pictures. I think it was a post that I saw last year some time about self-publishing that caught my eye, but I've not kept up with subsequent installments. I'll have to search back to read up on it. Happy to hang around to see what's going on and see if I have anything to contribute.
Jim,
This hits some of my points for those looking at medium format systems, make sure your choices support the specifics of what you want to accomplish. Also a great example of very very long useful lifetime when those needs are specific. I would imagine the dynamic range and ISO range of the IQ260 as well as the 54mm sensor perfectly suit your use in 2022 and "upgrading" to the latest CMOS spec'd back wouldn't improve how you use your gear or your output in any meaningful way. If my process or subject matter was similar to yours that might be a back I'd actually look into given how great it's performance was and continues to be today...
A little over 3 years later, Leica finally announced that production of the S3 has ceased. But fans of medium format Leica can rest assured, the Wetzlar company is now working on a hybrid equipped with a large format sensor.” (Phototrend)
I love my S3 and the Leica CS lenses