As an idle question / thought experiment, if you could comfortably afford a medium-format digital camera, i.e. Fuji GFX, Hasselblad X1D, Leica S, or Pentax 645Z, plus a reasonable amount of the goodies you'd like for one, would you want one? Or do they just amount to another siren song? Just curious.
(I think I'll give my own answer in the comments.)
Mike
Original contents copyright 2017 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
B&H Photo • Amazon US • Amazon UK
Amazon Germany • Amazon Canada • Adorama
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Rodolfo Canet: "Indeed, yes, oh yes! Don't ask me why. I don't need it at all, I'd be able to use it very rarely, but if I really could afford it, I'd buy it. The best, the most expensive. Lust, just lust. Remember, I don't want happiness, give me euphoria!"
Ken Bennett: "Yes, I would get the Fuji if money were no object. My primary camera is the APS-C Fuji X system. I also have a Canon 5DX 50-megapixel DSLR body along with several other Canon cameras and a bunch of good lenses. I end up using the Fuji for 99% of my assignments and all my personal work—the Canon is better, but not enough so to overcome the size and weight advantage of the smaller Fuji cameras. The results I've seen from the Fuji MF camera suggest that it would be a good alternative when image quality is paramount. In the old days we had a wide choice of formats and chose based on the type of shoot and the desired results—in my case 35mm for sports or reportage, MF for magazine portraits and corporate work, 4x5 for architecture and landscape. Having an 'affordable' digital MF camera would restore that choice, I think."
Scott Reither: "I am using and loving the Fujifilm GFX. This camera has me more excited than any camera I've used over the past 20 years, including the Pentax 645Z which I sold in order to afford the Fuji. As a landscape photographer, medium format is well worth the stretch and I much prefer to work with the larger, slower system. I wouldn't trade the GFX for the Leica or Hasselblad. The PhaseOne might be tempting—if someone was offering to give me one—but, that's certainly beyond the realm of reality for my budget. Fujifilm has won me over."
Victor Huang: "Based on past experiences with owning several digital backs, such as the Hasselbald CFV-50C, Phase One's P65+ for Contax 645, not to mention most of the recent Leica and Fuji digital cameras, the choice was quite obvious for me. I wanted a system that is backed by a company with financial staying power as well as a decent roadmap for lenses. The Fuji GFX fits the bill. Mea culpa, I am no pro, none of these toys are necessary. I justify it because I have the means and photography is pretty much my only hobby. So as soon as the GFX was available, I bought one. Of course, the ease of adapting all the medium format lenses I have is an extra bonus!"
RubyT: "I wasn't interested until I read today's GFX review. I guess it's a good thing this is out of my price range."
matthew: "Getting one in my hands would do me as much good as the dog that caught the car."
Duncan: "Not even a siren song for me. I'm happy with my Micro 4/3 gear. I don't need the extra weight or pixels."
Ken: "Nope. Too big for travel/hiking, lenses too short for wildlife, and a likely thief magnet. I don't use a studio, minimize tripod use whenever possible, and I rarely print (and even more rarely print bigger than about eight by 12 inches). For me personally, medium format doesn't even amount to a 'siren song' as it has no real appeal. For now, even if its cost wasn't an issue (it is) I'd stick to my crop sensor Fuji (for travel) and Nikon (for wildlife) cameras."
Jack (partial comment): "Yes I would like one! But then as you know I have one. The Leica S and a few goodies. I bought into the system when the amount of resolution allowed huge enlargements which I needed. I haven’t compared a print from a full frame camera of similar resolution to see if a modern full frame is as good, but I suspect the lenses of the Leica might be better anyway. A better question is if I didn’t have a medium format would I want one and which one? Yes I still would ... I prefer an optical viewfinder and the Leica S viewfinder is wonderful. Everyone should look through it to see the difference. So a mirrorless solution is not for me."
Paul Weimer: "Given that most of what I shoot are landscapes...you bet I'd get one if I could afford it."
Bob Johnston [no immediate relation to Mike]: "Yes I would have one in addition to my Fuji X-T2. Most people who are not 'loaded,' as we say over here, try to choose one camera that will do everything. Which means that they get a camera which does most things, but only tolerably well."
Martin: "Honestly the biggest windfall I could receive in my photographic life is time and freedom to go shoot. If I could get those goodies I'd sell them and use the money to take some time off from work and shoot."
Michael Carrithers: "I’d take the Fuji in a NY minute. Being able to work handheld and get such quality in prints? Zowie."
howard: "Yes, I would want one...a Hasselblad X1D with a complement of X1D prime lenses. And I bought it. For me and the slow, deliberative style that I shoot with, the X1D is the Goldilocks of cameras—and I have owned most of them, from a Pentax 67, to a Hasselblad with a Phase One back, to a Sony A7RII, to a Nikon D800E. The X1D is perfect. It is the digital equivalent of my favorite camera, the Mamiya 7. Beautifully designed and built; smallish, light, portable; superb lenses; streamlined and elegant user interface with none of the clutter of Japanese DSLRs; and beautiful files that I can work and print large."
John: "I’d get the Hasselblad because it's the smallest of the choices and thus most likely to actually be used. To me, what prevents me in real life from even buying used MF cameras is the speed with which they lose value as FF keeps upping the ante. Otherwise, I’m pretty sure I could convince myself it’s worth 'investing' in."
cdembrey: "Medium-format digital and iPhone X is the perfect camera combo for me. I like here-to-infinity D-o-F, and wide and wider are the only lenses I use. X and X1D sound like all I'd ever want/need."
If I was younger and my back was in better shape, I’d buy the Fuji GFX. More than youth, it is my ever present back pain that keeps this a camera to read about but not own.
Posted by: Mark Kinsman | Wednesday, 08 November 2017 at 10:43 AM
Don't need it, don't want it (any of them). I'm happy with the cameras I have and have better things to do with my $$$ -- even in a thought experiment.
Posted by: Dave Kosiur | Wednesday, 08 November 2017 at 11:37 AM
I still remember the huge difference it made when I added a Mamiya 645 with a couple of lenses to my previous 35mm gear. The smoothness and richness of the images was miles ahead of 35mm, though handling was not as convenient. The 4x5 transparencies I made with an ancient Crown Graphic were even more so. I'd definitely have a digital MF system if I could reasonably afford it, though I'd still want a smaller format system for situations where small size, quick handling and/or extreme lenses are appropriate.
Posted by: Bill Tyler | Wednesday, 08 November 2017 at 12:02 PM
I used to think that I would. I had the opportunity to use the iQ180 for a short time when that was the newest and the best digital imaging machine on the planet. The files were incredible.
Lately, though, I find my photographic journey just doesn't call for that kind of gear. I'm still plugging away with my Nikon D600 (flawed as it is with a sensor that attracts more dust than an abandoned warehouse). My standard prints are fantastic 12x18's but I've made up to 20x30 prints from the D600 files that please me. On the rare occasions when I find myself wanting more resolution, I can usually stitch a few frames from the D600 together and get a file that I can print as largely as I want.
Recently I picked up an 8x10 outfit with the idea of making contact prints since I don't have room in my current apartment for even a 35mm enlarger. I'm having an absolute blast with the camera. Far more than the fun generated from my outing with the iQ180. If I had the money to sink into a medium format digital, I think I'd rather spend it on a brand new Keith Canham 8x10 and a couple of nice lenses for it. The fun factor would be higher and I'd have negatives that I could print as large as the medium format files if I ever choose to do so.
Posted by: Christopher May | Wednesday, 08 November 2017 at 12:05 PM
IPhone and X1d - but only when Capture One supports Hassy, complete with lens profiles - which is never. There's no going back to ANY other software once you start using C1 pro, tethered and untethered. Will Phase One make a similar mirrorless, that's the question.
Posted by: Ger Lawlor | Wednesday, 08 November 2017 at 12:12 PM
No: I toyed with the idea of buying a basic Leica S outfit awhile ago, but once I handled it, I changed my mind: Too big, too heavy for my brand of everyday walk-around shooting. And unlike the days of film, I did not see a clear quality advantage versus my smaller cameras. Don't need more pixels or the shallowest possible depth of field for what I do. In fact, I've been thinking of of scaling back from 24 mp to 12 mp (A7S Mk-something-or-other)
Posted by: Jeff in Colorado | Wednesday, 08 November 2017 at 12:42 PM
Only if Stephen Schwartz [Do you mean Scharf? —Mike] can be hired (by me) on a full time basis to...... , well eh, to do the MF stuff, like shooting, printing and talking. I’ll do the bragging
Posted by: GJM Geradts | Wednesday, 08 November 2017 at 06:16 PM
For me at 50+ years and not getting any younger, it is sadly a no.
I don’t need that resolution and I do need smaller and lighter.
To the extent that I am probably not buying an M10 even though I want it and can afford it. And I have 5 Leica (and one Zeiss) lenses for it, waiting to be used again.
Instead, I am enjoying my Ricoh GR...and OMD.
I still have a few MF Hasselblads and two 4x5s from my younger times.
Waiting for the inspiration, probably for ever.
Posted by: Ilkka | Thursday, 09 November 2017 at 05:44 AM
Yes, for the same reasons that a 6x7 film camera enabled better print quality. (but it sure was heavy and awkward!) Now I have several digicams and the same results: larger sensor -> better print quality. Of course, if I bite the bullet and meltdown my credit card the next step would be EVEN LARGER PRINTS! Plus, I would probably want an even larger graphics monitor. It's a steep slope.
Posted by: Ronald Frakes | Friday, 10 November 2017 at 01:19 PM
No. If money were no object then I would happily abandon digital photography forever. I would spend the money on a darkroom and spend the rest of my life only shooting MF and LF film.
Posted by: Brian Green | Friday, 10 November 2017 at 04:15 PM
Nah. I have problems with holding anything heavy up to my face for any period of time - I abandoned my Canon 300d in favour of m43 for the weight saving. Even then I struggle with the bigger lenses for any period of time.
Better low light performance would be nice but for that a Sony would be more my speed (but, again, too heavy).
Plus, although I've never really played with medium format, it doesn't strike me as being conducive to my rather random "hit and run" approach to photography. I'm not one for careful contemplation, tripods, etc.
Posted by: Mim | Saturday, 11 November 2017 at 06:21 AM