Myth Busting

[Mike Farley]

There is a wonderful article over at DPReview which looks at the supposed advantages of the medium format Fuji GFX over cameras with smaller sensors. All the forum favourites are in there. Equivalence, depth of field characteristics, dynamic range, noise and resolution. It turns out that spending a lot of money to gain these "benefits" might not be the best investment. Not to mention that the camera and lenses will be both much larger and, in the case of the Fuji's contrast detection AF at least, have limitations in terms of performance compared to DSLRs.

https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/234170 ... this-first

[davidc]

I'm not sure I agree with some of his assertions.

He says the light gathering/noise performance is irrelevant because a smaller sensor camera with a faster lens gets just the same results as a bigger sensor with a slower lens. If that were true then an APS-C with the fast lens should be even better, which isn't true. His argument that the current sensor is limited by the current size of glass for it is true but is that really a reason to not take it? The physics behind it means you can get cleaner images at equivalent ISO. The ISO 64 vs ISO 100 comparison is a bit forced too - "aha in this edge case scenario we have an existing camera that performs in a similar fashion!".

The DOF argument is correct but neatly ignores the audience for the camera, studio and landscape photographers. I'd argue for the majority of people interesting in the camera they couldn't care less about how the DOF attributes stack up against FF.

Some of the comments do a good job at picking his article apart too.

Yet again it's a tool for a job. It'll be better for its target audience that other cameras.

A friend at work sold his entire kit collection to switch to Fuji. £5400 of canon gear sold to Wex to move platform. I assumed he meant something like the XT-2 but no, he has gone for the GFX quite a gamble to take IMO but he only shoots landscapes so for him it's what he wants.

[Mike Farley]

He says the light gathering/noise performance is irrelevant because a smaller sensor camera with a faster lens gets just the same results as a bigger sensor with a slower lens. If that were true then an APS-C with the fast lens should be even better, which isn't true. His argument that the current sensor is limited by the current size of glass for it is true but is that really a reason to not take it? The physics behind it means you can get cleaner images at equivalent ISO.

I must admit that part of the article had me puzzled as well. What he does say, though, is that some of the gains for MF sensors in respect of noise and dynamic range are negated by the performance of Sony's full frame sensors as more has been invested in their development. The true advantage of the medium format sensor only occurs for scenes where there is a wide variation of light levels, when shadow noise can be reduced.

The DOF argument is correct but neatly ignores the audience for the camera, studio and landscape photographers. I'd argue for the majority of people interesting in the camera they couldn't care less about how the DOF attributes stack up against FF.

Quite possibly, but DOF is quoted as a benefit by some forum geeks. Most of whom will probably never own a medium format camera.

A friend at work sold his entire kit collection to switch to Fuji. £5400 of canon gear sold to Wex to move platform. I assumed he meant something like the XT-2 but no, he has gone for the GFX quite a gamble to take IMO but he only shoots landscapes so for him it's what he wants.

I agree that your friend has taken a flyer and full frame camera with a Sony sensor might have been a better investment. Cheaper and lighter to carry. As you say, it is his decision.

Yet again it's a tool for a job. It'll be better for its target audience that other cameras.

Exactly, but that will not stop some enthusiasts who have the money buying into the system, even if they will not gain the full benefit. I do wonder if your friend falls into that category?

[davidc]

I have a suspicion it's two things. Dissatisfaction that canon were perceived to "not keep up with Sony" (when the differences in real times are miniscule) and a grass is greener effect.

Combined, that led his falling out of love with canon and a move onto the Fuji. I very much doubt we will see any difference in his photos, certainly in the short term, but what counts is that he does

[Mike Farley]

I have a suspicion it's two things. Dissatisfaction that canon were perceived to "not keep up with Sony" (when the differences in real times are miniscule) and a grass is greener effect.

A few years ago, in 2009 if I remember correctly, Michael Reichmann conducted an experiment where he shot the same scene with a Canon G10 and a Hasselblad H2. The G10 was pilloried on the Internet at the time by "those who know" for its poor performance. It was felt that cramming 14.7 megapixels onto such a small sensor was going too far and noise was an issue. Michael Reichmann liked the camera. The H2, if I recall correctly, had 39 MP. The difference in price between the two kits would have been in the thousands.

Reichmann printed both images to 13" x 19", which is as large as most people will normally want to print. He then asked people to state which camera had taken which shot. Most could not tell the difference. Those who did distinguish between the two, relied on examining depth of field characteristics. Image quality was not an issue.

Reichmann did not say that the results meant the Canon was as good as the Hasselblad. The G10 would have reached its limitations far sooner than the H2, yet it would have been sufficient for many situations. Not to mention being easier to carry. Today we have cameras like the Panasonic FZ1000, 20 MP on a 1" sensor, which offers amazing results for under £600.

In the comments for the DPReview article, professional photographer Jono Slack writes:

"Great article, but it seems to presuppose that we all need more resolution and dynamic range and less depth of field.
I have an incredibly detailed 6 foot print from a 5 year old 18mp (ff) camera on my wall which I look at every time I'm tempted by medium format.
We buy these cameras and zoom in to 100% to ooh and ahh and then post them on flickr ...... or maybe we print them to A1? (24mp will do just fine)"

I am not saying that people should not acquire new kit if they want it. What I do suggest though, is that we should buy with our heads rather than our hearts.* Asking what the new gear will do which our current equipment will not, could save us a lot of money.

Michael Reichmann's original article is somewhere on the Luminous Landscape website behind its "picket fence" paywall. I have not yet been able to find it, but a determined search will reveal it. I will post a link if I come across it.

* I am as guilty of the latter as anyone.

[Mike Farley]

I have found the original article on Luminous Landscape, which was published in 2008.

https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/

As an update, the G10 cost $600 and the Hasselblad, which had a 39 MP Phase One P45+ back and 55-110 lens, was $40,000.

To access the Lula piece in full, officially you need to subscribe, which costs just $12 for the year. Unofficially, clearing the Luminous Landscape cookies from your browser will also work if you just want to read one item.