While you can often buy older digital backs inexpensively, the cost of repairing them is still keyed to their original MSRP, which means that even a minor repair could justify writing-off the back entirely. Personally, I would steer clear of using older digital backs with older film-camera bodies in favor of using more modern, all-in-one combos, such as those from Pentax and Fuji. YMMV, of course, but based on my experience, medium-format digital works quite well for traditional landscape photography, so if that's your preferred subject matter, it's definitely an option you should consider. That said, I made the jump to medium-format digital way back in 2010 and then jumped back in 2012, as it simply wasn't the correct tool for the type of photography I do (i.e., long-exposure-at-base ISO photos of urban and suburban street and alley scenes taken late at night.) If ever there was a time to spend a few hundred bucks to rent some gear before buying it, this appears to be it! So, all you medium format people: what are your thoughts? Is it worth the dive, or is staying firmly within the full frame world the way to go. This would simply be an addition to my tools. I do sell my prints, so this isn’t strictly a hobby thing (although it’s certainly not my primary line of business).įull frame gear for this. I think if I were to make the leap, I would get an older model Phase One digital back, and put it onto an older Mamiya 645 or Hasselblad body. I recognize that there’s a significant cost involved in getting into digital medium format, and that lens options are certainly going to be different and more limited and that there aren’t many bells and whistles. I’ve also read several reviews online where people say that in comparisons with the Sony R series, they’ve seen little technical advantage when comparing images. I’ve seen stuff on the internet, but we all know that seeing stuff on the web isn’t a great way of making decisions. I’ve never seen a medium format picture in person. I understand the technical advantages of a bigger sensor. I always hear about people talking about the medium format look and how it’s different from full frame. I have, however, been very interested in medium format photography. I have a Sony a7riv, and I’m perfectly happy with it and the photos I get out of it. I did a search and didn’t find much other than people selling gear or the Fuji group. Check out the video to see the whole breakdown and conclusions.So, First off, if i missed a medium format thread or group somewhere, I apologiZe. Spoiler alert: the most expensive gear isn’t always the best. In the video, Dawood takes you on a pixel-peeping journey, comparing optics, resolution, and performance. He has taken all of these cameras into the field and done controlled testing in an architecture environment, enlisting the help of Phase One specialists in order to make sure that everything on the medium format end is as good as it possibly can be for comparison purposes. With the advent of more affordable medium format camera systems like the Fuji GFX 50S and Pentax 645Z putting medium format into the hands of more photographers, whether or not digital medium format is truly ‘better’ than a full frame DSLR or mirrorless camera becomes an important question for those who may be torn between the two.Īrchitecture photographer Usman Dawood has made an 18-minute comparison video to help photographers who may be on the fence see the real-world capabilities of the different camera types, comparing a 100mp Phase One camera to Canon 5DSR and a Sony A7RII.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |