Tag Archives: choose

Mini Medium Format… or Not?

A photographer and friend asked me for my thoughts on mini medium format, or “miniMF,” camera systems. I told her the answer was complex and that I’d write it up at the blog. Here it is!

I have attempted to include several things in the article: a bit of background regarding formats, some objective facts (“the numbers”) about them and their relationships, pluses and minuses of various options, my own current subjective thoughts on what this means to me, and a few alternative perspectives.


The evolution of digital medium format cameras has been among the most interesting photographic developments over the past few years. High MP backs from companies like Phase One and Leaf became the high-end standard for digital image making, and other companies have recently entered the market. The larger sensors may provide improved image quality in several ways: greater system resolution, greater pixel resolution, improved dynamic range, less noise, and more.

It wasn’t that long ago that digital formats larger than full frame were out of reach for nearly all photographers, with costs that were frequently many tens of thousands of dollars, often for only the digital back, which had to be attached to a medium format body.

However, in the last few years several manufacturers have driven down the cost of camera systems using larger-than-full-frame sensors, and now digital “medium format” (more on that term in a moment) bodies are available for less than $7000. A range of manufacturers are now in this market, including Fujifilm, Pentax, and Hasselblad.

When the costs of larger sensor bodies were in the mid-$20k and up (sometimes very up) range, few photographers using full frame DSLR or mirrorless cameras could realistically consider them as options. But the current $6500-$9000 price isn’t that much higher than the most expensive full frame bodies. At these prices the potential improvements in image quality are enough to make folks take a closer look, especially if they are photographers who produce large and high quality prints on a regular basis.

I began to pay attention when the miniMF Pentax 645d came out some years ago (though I was a bit disappointed to find out that the sensor wasn’t really “645” size), and my interest only increased as Pentax updated to the 645z and then as Fujifilm and Hasselblad brought out competing products. I thought a lot about the possible value of such systems for my photography, and I considered getting one. I haven’t done ao — though I won’t rule it out in the future — but I would like to share some of my musings about the choices. Continue reading Mini Medium Format… or Not?

Reader Question: Sony Versus Fujifilm

6/28/16: Slightly updated on 6/28/16 to reflect my acquisition of the Fujifilm X-Pro2  (B&H | Adorama) and a few other things.


Today I am sharing  another reader question and my response. This one came from “Greg” in a response to a post on my Facebook page:

Hi Dan, have heard good things about the Fuji cameras. Have also heard good things about the SONY cameras. Both are mirrorless, but the SONY is a full-frame while the Fuji is APC/1.5X. Is there a reason you would choose the Fuji over the SONY – you indicated in the article you have been using the  X-Pro1 and will be moving up to the  X-Pro2… Illuminate me on the subject

That is a great subject to consider, Greg. Both Sony and Fujifilm are making some very fine mirrorless cameras these days, but for my purposes the Fujifilm is a better fit than, say, the Sony a7R II full frame mirrorless camera that Greg is thinking of. (Small correction: I have not been using the X-Pro1. I have used the X-E1 for the past three years and I now use the X-Pro2.)

Before I explain, I must acknowledge that the Sony is an excellent body, and another photographer may well find it to be the best choice for his/her needs. The Sony a7R II is, as you point out, a full frame body and the current version has a 42MP sensor rather than a 24MP sensor. The sensor is known for its low noise and excellent dynamic range. Sony has some native lenses, but lots of folks are using their Sony cameras with a range of third party lenses, including those from their Canon and (now) Nikon DSLRs.

So, with all of those positives, why Fujifilm? Continue reading Reader Question: Sony Versus Fujifilm

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II vs. 24-70mm f/4L IS vs. 24-105mm f/4 L IS (and more?)

Anyone who spends any time in photography forums discussing Canon lenses has seen this topic come up regularly: the comparisons between the 24-70 and 24-105mm L zoom options. If you follow this subject you are familiar with posts asking which of these lenses is “best” or claiming that one or another is great and the others are poor, and with the ensuing debates. Rather than re-writing what I have to say about this every time the subject comes up, I thought I would post once here and then link back to this article.

(Update 1/4/13: Things have changed in significant ways since I first posted this review back in 2011 – primarily with the introduction of two newer Canon 24-70mm L zooms. I have made a few updates to this post to reflect those changes. I have now had the opportunity to use the updated Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II lens. It is also a very fine lens and a great performer. In addition, there is now a Canon EF 24-70mm f/4.0L IS USM lens as well, and the Canon 24-105mm f/4L F/4.0L IS lens is still available. Canon shooters have an over-abundance of good lenses that cover the 24mm to whatever-mm focal length range at this point. All three of these current lenses are excellent options and the functional differences among them now are the primary basis for selecting one over the others. If you need f/2.8 and are OK with a smaller focal length range and not having IS, the 24-70mm f/2.8 could well be your choice. If you can get along without f/2.8, are OK with the smaller focal length range, would like IS, can make use of semi-macro capabilities and want a smaller lens, then the 24-70mm f/4 IS lens can be a great option. If you don’t need f/2.8,  but do value image stabilization and a significantly larger focal length range, the 24-105 is a wonderful choice. )

(Update 1/8/15: And now there is yet another lens in this general category from Canon, the EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens. I have incorporated some information about this option below.)

Continue reading Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II vs. 24-70mm f/4L IS vs. 24-105mm f/4 L IS (and more?)

Photographic Musing of the Day

If we lived in some alternate universe in which the current level of digital photographic technology (digital backs/cameras, digital post-processing, and high end inkjet printing) and the current level of chemical photography technology both appeared in the world simultaneously and photographers were asked to make a choice, would anyone actually chose the wet chemistry darkroom over the digital “darkroom?”

Reactions? Leave a comment.